Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nevada Mining Townsite Conveyance Act, which addresses an important public land issue in rural Nevada. As you may know, the Federal Government controls more than 87 percent of the land in Nevada. That is more than 61 million acres of land. This fact makes it necessary for our State and our communities to pursue Federal remedies for problems that in other States can be handled in a much more expeditious manner.

The residents of Ione and Gold Point in Nevada have asked for our help in settling longstanding trespass issues that affect these historic mining communities. These communities have been continuously occupied for over 100 years. Many residents live on land that their families have ostensibly owned for several decades. These citizens have paid their property taxes and made improvements to their properties, rehabilitated historic structures and built new ones.

The documents by which many of these people claim possession of the properties date back many years. In fact, some of the deeds are historic documents themselves. Yet because many of these documents do not satisfy modern requirements for demonstrating land title, they have been deemed invalid. In other words, the Bureau of Land Management has determined that some of the residents of Ione and Gold Point are trespassing on Federal land. This unfortunate situation puts the BLM at odds with the local residents and county governments and is hampering efforts to improve basic community services such as fire protection, and water supply and treatment facilities.

Nye County, Esmeralda County, and the BLM have worked together for nearly a decade to solve this problem. All of these parties support the legislation that we offer today as a solution to these land ownerships conflicts, and

as a means of promoting responsible resource management. All of the land included in this bill has been identified by the BLM for disposal.

This legislation represents the first of a two-part solution. Under this bill, specified lands within the historic mining townsites of Ione and Gold Point would be conveyed to the respective counties. Under the provisions of a State law passed several years ago in Nevada, the counties will then reconvey the land to these people or entities who can demonstrate ownership or longstanding occupancy of specific land parcels.

My bill conveys, for no consideration, approximately 760 acres in the communities of Ione and Gold Point from the BLM to Nye and Esmeralda Counties. As a condition of the conveyance, all historic and cultural resources contained in the townsites shall be preserved and protected under applicable Federal and State law. It should also be noted that approximately 145 acres of the total land conveyed to Nye County will stay in county hands in order to simplify management of a cemetery, a landfill and an airstrip. These conveyances will benefit the agencies that manage Nevada's vast Federal lands as well as the proud citizens of our rural communities.

I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this legislation. It is a practical solution that deserves swift passage. We salute the Bureau of Land Management, the counties, and the local residents for their cooperation and hard work in crafting a reasonable solution to this problem.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nevada Mining Townsite Conveyance Act, which addresses an important public land issue in rural Nevada. As you may know, the Federal Government controls more than 87 percent of the land in Nevada. That is more than 61 million acres of land. This fact makes it necessary for our State and our communities to pursue Federal remedies for problems that in other States can be handled in a much more expeditious manner.

The residents of Ione and Gold Point in Nevada have asked for our help in settling longstanding trespass issues that affect these historic mining communities. These communities have been continuously occupied for over 100 years. Many residents live on land that their families have ostensibly owned for several decades. These citizens have paid their property taxes and made improvements to their properties, rehabilitated historic structures and built new ones.

The documents by which many of these people claim possession of the properties date back many years. In fact, some of the deeds are historic documents themselves. Yet because many of these documents do not satisfy modern requirements for demonstrating land title, they have been deemed invalid. In other words, the Bureau of Land Management has determined that some of the residents of Ione and Gold Point are trespassing on Federal land. This unfortunate situation puts the BLM at odds with the local residents and county governments and is hampering efforts to improve basic community services such as fire protection, and water supply and treatment facilities.

Nye County, Esmeralda County, and the BLM have worked together for nearly a decade to solve this problem. All of these parties support the legislation that we offer today as a solution to these land ownerships conflicts, and

as a means of promoting responsible resource management. All of the land included in this bill has been identified by the BLM for disposal.

This legislation represents the first of a two-part solution. Under this bill, specified lands within the historic mining townsites of Ione and Gold Point would be conveyed to the respective counties. Under the provisions of a State law passed several years ago in Nevada, the counties will then reconvey the land to these people or entities who can demonstrate ownership or longstanding occupancy of specific land parcels.

My bill conveys, for no consideration, approximately 760 acres in the communities of Ione and Gold Point from the BLM to Nye and Esmeralda Counties. As a condition of the conveyance, all historic and cultural resources contained in the townsites shall be preserved and protected under applicable Federal and State law. It should also be noted that approximately 145 acres of the total land conveyed to Nye County will stay in county hands in order to simplify management of a cemetery, a landfill and an airstrip. These conveyances will benefit the agencies that manage Nevada's vast Federal lands as well as the proud citizens of our rural communities.

I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this legislation. It is a practical solution that deserves swift passage. We salute the Bureau of Land Management, the counties, and the local residents for their cooperation and hard work in crafting a reasonable solution to this problem.

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

Mr. President, as elected representatives of the American people, we have a responsibility to work with each other and to focus on their needs. This is an obligation that Democratic Senators have not taken lightly.

We have spent the last 11 months trying to make a difference for each American citizen. Democrats fought to protect Social Security when those in the majority, the Republicans, tried to destroy it through their risky privatization scheme. Democrats fought for a budget that honors America's values. When Republicans passed a terrible budget, leading religious leaders called it immoral. They called it immoral because of its deep cuts and irresponsible tax breaks. Why did they do that? One only needs to look at the Old Testament or the New Testament to find why.

In the 112th Psalm we are told that: He hath given to the poor; his righteousness will endure forever. In the New Testament, in the Book of Galatians, second chapter, 10th verse: Only that we should remember the poor. That is why leading religious leaders of this country have called the budget an immoral one.

We moved quickly to help Katrina's victims, when that storm exposed the Bush administration's incompetence. It became clear that Republicans were going to sit on their hands. Democrats tried to help families with energy prices, when prices spiked and congressional Republicans only seemed to care about their friends in the oil industry.

We stood for the troops, veterans, and a success story in Iraq, when it became clear that the White House was more interested in launching vicious attacks than providing the leadership America needs.

Democrats know that we are sent here to do a job on behalf of the American people. We understand that together we can do better. Unfortunately, in most all instances, those in the majority have shunned our efforts. Instead of joining us in helping every American, they have blocked our efforts and decided to focus on the narrow interests of a special few. In fact, if you want to see the misplaced priorities of the Republican Party, look no further than the agenda they set for the Senate.

If the Senate could spend over 30 days debating extreme judges and devote days to the tragic affairs of the Schiavo family, Republicans should have been able to find a few days to help millions of Americans with health care, education, and, of course, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas.

While some of the work we have done this year is important, more important is the work that we have missed. Consider the latest example: Katrina relief. Democrats introduced a comprehensive Katrina relief package. It was a good package. It was done hours after the storm had passed. The legislation, S. 1637, included proposals to ensure that displaced families received the health care, housing, and financial relief they needed. Republicans talked a good game about helping victims. Yet over 2 months later, you only have to pick up any newspaper to know that tens of thousands of Americans still need housing, health care, and financial help. Democrats have tried to act on these families' behalf, but every time Republicans have found something better to do.

Of course, this is a pattern all too familiar. When Democrats wanted to discuss health care and education, Republicans decided to debate changing Senate rules so they could pack the courts with some extreme nominees. When Democrats wanted to help families struggling with rising oil prices, Republicans gave billions in tax breaks to oil companies that are already making obscene profits. And when Democrats wanted to help the neediest among us, Republicans decided to make deep cuts to programs working families depend on so they could give tax breaks to special interests and the very elite of our country.

America can do better than these misplaced priorities. Whether it is supporting our troops or providing relief for rising health and energy costs, it is time for the Senate to get its priorities straight. The Democratic agenda is one that deals with health care, energy costs, and, in effect, getting our priorities straight.

When we return next session, we should not waste more time putting the needs of the special few ahead of the priorities of the American people. Let's pass fiscally responsible tax relief to help middle-class families being squeezed between declining wages and rising prices. The rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is getting squeezed. Let's move forward on issues like energy dependence, real security, and affordable health care. Let's build on the progress we made on Tuesday with our vote on Iraq.

On Tuesday, Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly to express no confidence in the administration's Iraq policy. We must continue to push the President because it is clear that he has no interest in taking the Senate's advice.

Instead of changing course, as the Senate demanded, the White House has decided to reignite the Cheney-Rove smear machine and attack its critics instead. We saw it yesterday with Congressman Jack Murtha. While I don't agree with the immediate withdrawal plan Congressman Murtha proposed, this brave man's patriotism and his commitment to defend our country should never be questioned, especially by this White House, as it was.

Congressman Murtha served valiantly in Vietnam. He is a highly decorated veteran, someone who knows what it is like to bleed in combat, literally. When he speaks, the White House should listen. They could learn something. Let's remember, Congressman Murtha isn't the only combat veteran calling for a debate about Iraq. In the Senate, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has also said it is our patriotic duty to question what is going on.

The deceiving, distorting, and divisive political attacks must end. We need an open, honest debate about what is happening in Iraq. Next year I hope Republicans will join with us in this debate. It is easy to attack those who don't agree with you. The hard part is leading and giving our troops the strategy for success.

The days and months ahead should be used to do the people's business. We can't change the past, but we can change the future.

Next year we need to focus on the priorities of American families. Together we can do better and give our citizens a government as good and honest as its people.

Will the distinguished majority leader yield?

I have spoken to our manager of the bill, Senator Baucus. He would agree to have the time that is used for the votes to be counted against the time. That has not been entered yet. I do not think Senator Grassley would have any objection to that. Maybe we should enter into that agreement at this time.

Just a question. If it is determined that we come back, it is my understanding it would not be until the 12th of December, at the earliest; is that the Senator's feelings at this time?

If I could direct a question.

It is my understanding that Senator Feinstein and Senator Wyden have 30 minutes equally divided.

You have 15?

I ask unanimous consent, following the 15 minutes of the two Senators, Wyden and Feinstein, I be recognized to use some of my leadership time.

Mr. President, I ask Senator Feinstein, would it be OK if I use my leader time now?

This doesn't take away from their time, Mr. President.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the courtesy. It is so nice of you to let me do this. I know everyone is waiting to offer their amendments. This is leader time. It comes off of the bill.

Iraq

Mr. President, last night, on the heels of two very bloody days in Iraq where 11 American soldiers have been killed, the President and the Vice President shamelessly decided to play politics. It was another deplorable political ploy from an administration that is growing more and more and more desperate and disconnected. The

American people and our brave soldiers deserve better.

It seems the President and Vice President have decided to treat the war as if it is a political campaign. Instead of giving our troops a plan for success or answering the serious questions of the American people, they have decided to reignite the Rove-Cheney attack machine.

We are at war. We need a Commander in Chief, not a Campaigner in Chief. We need leadership from the White House, not more White House- washing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq.

This week, Senate Democrats and Republicans, right here in this Senate, voted overwhelmingly to send the President this message: It is time to change course in Iraq.

Instead of heeding that call, the White House continues to dodge and to duck the questions of Americans and to smear their opponents. That is not leadership, and our troops and the American people deserve better.

Here is what Senator Chuck Hagel said. Now, who is Chuck Hagel? Chuck Hagel is a decorated Vietnam war veteran, a man who, in Vietnam, saved the life of his own brother. Of course, he is also a senior Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Here is what he had to say about the administration's tactics. These are not my words. They are the words of the Senator from Nebraska:

Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is

undermining or hurting our troops is not democracy, nor what

this country has stood for, for over 200 years . . . To

question your government is not unpatriotic--to not question

your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and

women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.

He is right. The deceiving, dividing, and distorting must end. Of course, this is the same move we have seen from Karl Rove and Dick Cheney time and time again. Whenever their poll numbers sink, they go back on the attack. This time, though, the stakes are too high to let them get away with it. There is more than poll numbers or votes at stake. The lives of our brave soldiers in Iraq depend on this President coming clean and coming forward with a plan for Iraq.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Karl Rove must stop the orchestrated attack campaign they launched on Veterans Day. It is a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war. It is easy to attack. The hard part is leading, coming clean with the American people, and giving our troops a strategy for success.

Mr. President, is there time on this side?

Mr. President, I haven't known Senator Coburn very long. I didn't know him when he served in the House. During his tenure in the Senate I found him to be a most gracious person. I like him.

I had the good fortune of having served for many years on the Ethics Committee. I am sure there may have been a person or two in the past who served longer than I have, I just don't know, though, who they were. One of the most important responsibilities I have, and I think Senator Frist has, is putting people on the Ethics Committee. There are six Senators on the Ethics Committee, three Democrats and three Republicans. It ia a very difficult job. The ethics code is large and voluminous. They have an outstanding staff.

Senator Voinovich and Senator Johnson are the two leaders of that committee and work with the other four members. Having been there, I want everyone here to know they spend hours and hours each week of their time. What do they do? They protect us. They handle complaints that come from the public. They handle complaints that come from other sources. Their job is very difficult.

In the past few weeks--certainly, I will not disclose any names; I could not do that, it would be unethical to do so--they have resolved some very big cases in the Ethics Committee.

These six Senators deserve our support. If we are going to overrule the Ethics Committee, we might just as well get rid of the Ethics Committee. That would be a terrible disaster for this institution.

When I first came here from the House of Representatives I had a law practice at home. I went home and had the ability to practice law. I don't think that was good for the institution.

We now make far more than our constituents make. We make $165,000 a year, or thereabouts. That is a lot of money. It is a full-time job to be a Member of the Senate, to be a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I know Senator Coburn is a nice man. I know he has a big heart. But he is going to have to, I believe, use that big heart and the medical skills he has in keeping with the rules of the Senate and not, in effect, thwart what the Ethics Committee has told us must happen.

If this passes, it would tremendously undermine the work the Ethics Committee does. And speaking from experience, it is a very difficult, and quite frankly, a thankless job. The only thing you get from that is the knowledge that you are doing the right thing for the institution. It takes a tremendous amount of time. I repeat: Senators Johnson and Voinovich, every week we are back here, spend not a few minutes but hours of their time. No one knows what they do because it is secret. It is confidential.

No matter how we feel about Senator Coburn, no matter what a gracious, nice, thoughtful, caring man he is, it would not be good for the Senate to follow what has been recommended in the form of this amendment that is now before this Senate.

Mr. President, if the manager of the bill will yield, procedurally, do we have any other amendments pending that votes need to----

If, in fact, the time were yielded back, what would be the first vote in sequence?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, how much time have we locked in under the unanimous consent agreement that is now before the Senate as to time that has been allocated? Senator Feingold has 30 minutes; is that right?

Senator Santorum has 15 minutes; is that right?

Is there any other time allocated?

It is my understanding Senator Byrd has indicated he will not be giving his remarks.

Mr. President, that leaves not a lot of time for others who want to come and debate their amendments. So if anyone wants to come and debate their amendments, I am not sure if Senator Feingold will use all of his time or if Senator Santorum will use all of his time.

Senator Sununu wants a couple minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first vote to occur in this long stack of amendments be in relation to the Coburn amendment, and that the two managers will determine the sequence of votes following that vote, and that Senator Bingaman be given 5 minutes.

I accept the modification.

Mr. President, was the unanimous consent request approved?

Ten minutes.

Mr. President, 7:30. And all votes, the managers agree, should be 10-minute votes?

After the first vote.

And that we use the standard rule around here with 2 minutes equally divided on each amendment.

So the unanimous consent request was approved?

I don't know how many amendments we have but lots of them tonight. I am sure they are all very meritorious. I have an amendment dealing with renewables. I am going to allow a voice vote on that. I think others might want to follow that example. I think with rare exception we kind of know how they are going to turn out anyway. You either win or lose. The vote outcome is the same whether it is by a rollcall or voice vote. So I am going to have a voice vote on my renewable energy amendment. I hope others would follow suit on some of theirs.

Amendment No. 2626

Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment. It is very simple, direct, and to the point. We need more electricity that does not rely on increasingly expensive natural gas.

The quickest way to get more electricity without using more natural gas is through the increased use of renewables with greater efficiency.

Unfortunately, the deadlines for the renewable energy and efficiency tax incentives that we now have in law cut off much too soon to be really effective. So this amendment extends those deadlines through 2010 to match the current tax incentives for conventional and fossil energy projects.

I urge Members to support this amendment. It is fair, it is paid for, and it will make a quick and significant dent in the Nation's enormously expensive natural gas consumption.

Nevadans and all Americans rely heavily on natural gas for electricity and heating. This Congress needs to take action to address the insanely high prices of natural gas as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kerry, Snowe, Salazar, Lautenberg, Bayh, Bingaman, Jeffords, and Feinstein be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, I oppose this legislation, and I would like to take just a few minutes to explain why. But before I do, I want to begin by commending and congratulating both the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their hard work on this bill. Senator Max Baucus and Senator Chuck Grassley work very well together on the broad range of issues that come before their Committee. While we have an honest and good faith disagreement about this particular legislation, I want them to know how much sincere respect I have for both of them and how grateful I am for their outstanding leadership of the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I have two major concerns about this bill. First, it needlessly increases the deficit when we should be saving for the future. And, second, it paves the way for a budget that is inconsistent with the values of the American people.

Our country faces an enormous fiscal challenge that will begin in a few years, when the baby boomers retire. America's debt now exceeds $8 trillion. Under the Republican budget that figure will increase by more than $3 trillion in just 5 years. We simply must restore fiscal discipline. That means we must do all we can to avoid further increases in the deficit, and to live under the pay-as-you-go rule. We did that in the 1990s, and that is a major reason why we not only eliminated our deficit, but ran record surpluses. That, in turn, is one reason we enjoyed the longest peacetime economic expansion in our Nation's history.

During debate on this bill, Democrats tried to restore fiscal discipline. Led by the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Kent Conrad, we offered an amendment that would have fully paid for the tax cuts in the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated on a largely party-line vote.

Let me be clear: I support most of the tax cuts in this bill. I think we should provide relief from the alternative minimum tax, and we should extend the R&D and work opportunity tax credits, among others. I just think we should pay for them. Here and now. We shouldn't force our children and grandchildren to do so tomorrow.

The other reason why I oppose this legislation is that it will pave the way for adoption of a budget that does not reflect America's values. To understand why, you need to step back and take a broad view of the budget legislation moving through the House and Senate.

This tax reconciliation bill is really just one part of a broader budget plan that the Republican leadership is trying to push through to enactment. That plan includes substantial cuts in a wide range of programs important to middle class and more vulnerable Americans. Not long ago, the Senate approved legislation that cut Medicare, Medicaid, housing and agriculture, while authorizing drilling in a pristine Alaskan wildlife refuge. At the same time, the House is considering legislation to cut student loans, food stamps, and child support enforcement, while making even deeper cuts in Medicaid.

These spending cuts are troubling. But what makes them truly outrageous is that they're intended to partially pay for tax breaks for special interests and multimillionaires.

I know that the bill before us does not include those tax breaks. And I commend Senator Baucus and other colleagues on the Finance Committee for their work to keep capital gains and dividend tax breaks out of the bill.

My concern, though, is that Senate Republican leadership has made it very clear that they intend to put those tax breaks right back into the legislation in a final agreement with the House. This isn't a secret. As Senator Grassley told the publication Tax Notes, ``If we pass a tax bill, it is going to have

extension of capital gains in it.'' He further went on to say ``whether we have one in the Senate or not . . . we'll end up with it.''

Other Republican colleagues have echoed the Chairman's comments.

We know that capital gains and dividend tax breaks will be included in a final bill, if we let it get to that point. But why should we care? Why are those tax breaks so problematic?

Well, first of all, remember how they are being paid for. Cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, food stamps, and other programs for middle class Americans and those who need help the most.

Now let's consider who these tax breaks really help.

Here's the answer: 53 percent of their benefits will go to those with incomes greater than $1 million.

Let me repeat that: 53 percent of their benefits will go--no, not to millionaires--but to people with incomes over $1 million. We are talking about multi-millionaires, a small handful of America's most fortunate. These lucky few will get an average tax break of about $35,000.

But what about those with incomes between, say, $50- and $200,000? Well, they will get an average tax cut of $112.

And what about those with incomes less than $50,000? Six dollars.

$35,000 for those with incomes more than a million dollars. Six dollars for those earning less than $50,000.

And for this, the Republican majority wants to harm some of the Nation's most vulnerable families. That is not just wrong. It is immora1. And that is not my word--it comes from some of our Nation's top religious leaders.

Again, Mr. President, I know this bill does not itself include those tax breaks. But if we send this fast track bill to conference, make no mistake: those tax breaks are coming. It is as clear as night following day. The only way to prevent it is to stop th from going to conference in the first place.

Finally, I want to make one more point. Even if my colleagues disagree about the problems with the Republican budget, I wish they could agree that we have more important things to do.

Gas prices are skyrocketing. Families are struggling to fuel their vehicles and heat their homes. Farmers and businesses are feeling the pinch. Democrats have a plan to respond, to address price gouging and, ultimately, to make our nation energy independent. That is more important than harming the vulnerable to provide tax breaks to special interests and multi-millionaires, while increasing the deficit.

Hurricane survivors are struggling. Thousands lack health coverage; 150,000 live in hotel rooms and face the threat of homelessness in just 2 weeks. Devastated communities have been forced into massive layoffs and are unable to provide even basic services. Democrats have a plan to address these urgent needs. That is more important than harming the vulnerable to provide tax breaks to special interests and multi- millionaires, while increasing the deficit.

The Iraq war is not going as well as the administration promised. More than 2070 Americans have died. More than 15,000 have been wounded. About 150,000 more remain in harm's way, while the Administration still has no plan to end the conflict and bring them home. Instead of being greeted as liberators, the violence continues nearly 2\1/2\ years after the start of the conflict. As the Senate said just a few days ago, our Nation badly needs a strategy for success. But we have a long way to go before that bill gets to the President's desk. And making that happen also is more important than harming the vulnerable to provide tax breaks to special interests and multi-millionaires, while increasing the deficit.

While I support tax relief for the middle class, and I endorse most of the specific provisions in this legislation, I am going to vote against it. Approval of this bill will facilitate adoption of a Republican budget that is based on the wrong values and the wrong priorities.

Together, we can do better.

Let's provide middle class tax relief, but let's do it in a fiscally responsible way that doesn't harm families struggling to make ends meet.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ed Fountain Park Expansion Act. This legislation would transfer approximately eight acres of Federal land to the city of Las Vegas to allow for the expansion of one of the city's most popular parks.

Ed Fountain Park is one of the best known and well-used parks in the city of Las Vegas. Located in a mature part of the city, adjacent to the city's oldest golf course, Ed Fountain Park has provided recreational opportunities for generations of local residents. For many years it has been home to Pop Warner football practices, youth soccer games, and family picnics and reunions. On any given day or night, a multitude of activities are taking place at the park, many of which are associated with the numerous nonprofit organizations that utilize the park's resources.

The city of Las Vegas contacted my office several months ago to express their desire to expand Ed Fountain Park by acquiring land adjacent to the park that served as the site of the local administrative offices for the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The property was vacated by both Federal land management agencies several years ago after they relocated to a larger, multi-jurisdictional facility in the northwest part of the Las Vegas Valley.

The property to be acquired by the city is technically classified as part of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex and is currently under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The parcel in question, however, is many miles away the actual wildlife refuge and sits as a vacant urban lot. The former administrative offices that were housed on the land were placed there many decades ago when this area was considered to be in the outskirts of town. Now, after years of unprecedented growth, this land is surrounded by well-established neighborhoods. The site also contains a single empty historical structure that would be part of the conveyance.

Were the property under the jurisdiction of the BLM, as is usually the case in the Las Vegas Valley, the property could have been transferred administratively under the authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. But because it is the property of the Fish and Wildlife Service, legislation is needed to transfer ownership of the property from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the city.

This legislation provides the city with maximum flexibility to use the parcel to expand Ed Fountain Park, to build new athletic fields, to develop a community center, or any combination of these uses. All of these potential uses are in the public interest and provide important justification for conveying the land to the city at no cost.

I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman and ranking

member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to move this legislation forward in a timely manner.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ed Fountain Park Expansion Act. This legislation would transfer approximately eight acres of Federal land to the city of Las Vegas to allow for the expansion of one of the city's most popular parks.

Ed Fountain Park is one of the best known and well-used parks in the city of Las Vegas. Located in a mature part of the city, adjacent to the city's oldest golf course, Ed Fountain Park has provided recreational opportunities for generations of local residents. For many years it has been home to Pop Warner football practices, youth soccer games, and family picnics and reunions. On any given day or night, a multitude of activities are taking place at the park, many of which are associated with the numerous nonprofit organizations that utilize the park's resources.

The city of Las Vegas contacted my office several months ago to express their desire to expand Ed Fountain Park by acquiring land adjacent to the park that served as the site of the local administrative offices for the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The property was vacated by both Federal land management agencies several years ago after they relocated to a larger, multi-jurisdictional facility in the northwest part of the Las Vegas Valley.

The property to be acquired by the city is technically classified as part of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex and is currently under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The parcel in question, however, is many miles away the actual wildlife refuge and sits as a vacant urban lot. The former administrative offices that were housed on the land were placed there many decades ago when this area was considered to be in the outskirts of town. Now, after years of unprecedented growth, this land is surrounded by well-established neighborhoods. The site also contains a single empty historical structure that would be part of the conveyance.

Were the property under the jurisdiction of the BLM, as is usually the case in the Las Vegas Valley, the property could have been transferred administratively under the authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. But because it is the property of the Fish and Wildlife Service, legislation is needed to transfer ownership of the property from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the city.

This legislation provides the city with maximum flexibility to use the parcel to expand Ed Fountain Park, to build new athletic fields, to develop a community center, or any combination of these uses. All of these potential uses are in the public interest and provide important justification for conveying the land to the city at no cost.

I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman and ranking

member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to move this legislation forward in a timely manner.

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

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Banking Committee reported the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005, and I look forward to the full Senate passing this legislation that is so vital to the economic well-being of this country.

In 2002 I cosponsored, and Congress passed, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, commonly referred to as TRIA. This important legislation provided a Government backstop for the terrorism insurance market that disappeared after the attacks of September 11.

The primary purpose behind TRIA, and the reason it needs to be extended, is to make sure that the American economy and markets function in the face of a terrorist threat. September 11 proved that there needs to be a mechanism in place to allow the economy to rebound more quickly and to protect American jobs in the unfortunate event of another terrorist attack here in the United States. Since it became law, TRIA has proven to be an effective program that has made terrorism risk insurance available and provided businesses meaningful access to coverage in a post-9/11 world.

TRIA is a temporary program set to expire at the end of this year, which created significant uncertainty in the terrorism insurance market and threatened to stall construction and building projects across the country. Most lenders who finance these projects require borrowers to have terrorism risk coverage, but in the face of TRIA's looming expiration, that coverage became more difficult and expensive to get, making those projects infeasible. Recognizing these problems early in the year, Senator Dodd and Senator Bennett drafted TRIA extension legislation, which I cosponsored.

Mr. President, although slightly different from the bill that Senator Dodd introduced earlier this Congress, and that I and other Democrats cosponsored, the legislation that passed out of the committee yesterday essentially maintains the structure of TRIA and extends the program through the end of 2007. I am disappointed that group life insurance will not be covered under the program and that other lines originally covered have been excluded. But my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Sarbanes, Shelby, and Bennett, worked closely with others on the Banking Committee to construct a product that all of us in the Senate should be able to support. I am hopeful the Senate action on this bill today will break the logjam over this legislation so it can be signed into law before the Congress adjourns this year.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the President nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. I congratulate Judge Alito on this high honor. I pledge that the Senate Democrats will help ensure a thorough and dignified confirmation process. While I approach the confirmation process with an open mind, even at this early stage I have a number of significant concerns I want to share with my colleagues.

First, the President's selection of Judge Alito was not at all the product of consultation with Senate Democrats, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. On two prior occasions President Bush spoke with me. He invited Senator Leahy and me to the White House to discuss the future of the Supreme Court. The President listened seriously to our views and appeared to understand that the job of filling judicial vacancies is a constitutional responsibility that he shares with the Senate.

But this time, instead of an invitation to the White House, I received nothing more than a pro forma telephone call from the President's Chief of Staff, telling me he had selected Judge Alito about an hour before he announced the nomination. In fact, the President did consult about the Alito nomination but with the wrong people. It wasn't with me and it wasn't with Senator Leahy. According to widely recognized press reports, the White House consulted with conservative activists to make sure the President would not disappoint them with his selection. I think the term conservative activists is probably very broad, too broad; with some extremes--extreme on the right wing. Some of these extreme Web sites received word of the Alito nomination before any Senate Democrat was even consulted or informed.

Consultation is not just a courtesy; it is a way for the President to ensure that a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court receives broad bipartisan support in Congress. That was what our Founding Fathers talked about. That is why that provision is in the Constitution. The constitutional design commands a partnership in this endeavor, not mere notification of the coequal branch of Government.

The second reason I have early concerns about this nomination is that it represents an abandonment of the principle that the Supreme Court should be comprised of highly qualified individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and heritages. It is so striking that President Bush has chosen a man to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first of only two women ever appointed to the Supreme Court. Today, unlike 24 years ago, when Sandra Day O'Connor herself was nominated, more than half of the Nation's law students are women. There are countless qualified women on the bench, in elective office, in law firms, and serving as law school deans and law professors. I cannot believe the President searched this country and was unable to find a qualified female nominee. But maybe he was unable to find a qualified female nominee who happened to satisfy the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, for the third time the President has turned down the opportunity to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court. How much longer must Hispanics wait before they see someone on the Nation's highest Court who shares their ethnic heritage and their shared experiences?

At the same time, the appointment of Judge Alito largely fails to diversify the Court in terms of professional experience. Judge Alito is a long-serving Federal appellate judge who would join eight other justices with that very same professional credential. While his prior service as a Federal prosecutor is commendable and worthwhile, he was essentially an appellate lawyer like a number of the sitting justices.

We have come a long way from the days when Senators, bar leaders, trial lawyers, leading professors and others with a wide range of life experiences were routinely appointed to the Supreme Court. If Judge Alito is confirmed, the range of professional diversity on the Court will extend all the way from those who served on the D.C. Circuit to those who served on the First, Third, Seventh, or Ninth Circuit before their promotions.

The third and most important basis for my early concern about the Alito nomination is the fact that he was nominated following the forced withdrawal of White House Counsel Harriet Miers. Harriet Miers received a raw deal from her critics. This woman had been the managing partner of a major American law firm, the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association--which, by the way, is larger than most State bar associations. She was the first female president of the Texas Bar Association. She had been one of the Nation's leaders in promoting opportunities for women lawyers and minority lawyers. She has been a champion of ensuring legal representation for the poor. She was a trial lawyer. The one-dimensional portrait her opponents painted of her was malicious and unfair.

Let's not sugarcoat the truth. The nomination of Harriet Miers was derailed by the overwhelming opposition of the extreme right wing. They campaigned against her, they ran paid advertising against her, and they finally succeeded in having the President cave in to these radical right wing activists. They succeeded in defeating her nomination even before this fine woman was afforded an opportunity to make her case to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Earlier this year we heard Senator after Senator on the other side of the aisle, and conservative commentators across the airwaves, declare that every judicial nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote. I have a question for those Senators, those commentators: When exactly will Harriet Miers receive her up-or-down vote?

The White House made a half-hearted effort to argue that the Miers nomination was withdrawn in the face of an impasse over what documents would be provided to the Senate. That is a pretext, a laughable cover story.

She was forced to withdraw by conservative activists who want to change the legal landscape of America. They decided she was inadequately radical or insufficiently aggressive for their purposes, so they gave her the boot. You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the words of John Danforth, our former colleague, Senator from Missouri and, until recently, President Bush's Ambassador to the United Nations. He was asked on CNN recently who he thought were the winners in the Miers episode. I quote his answer:

The big winner is the right wing of American politics. They

have scored a big victory. This was a power play on their

part. And they won it . . . they took on Harriet Miers for no

explainable reason. It was really an outrage, in my opinion,

that this happened.

Senator Danforth is himself a pro-life Republican and an ordained Episcopal priest, but listen to what he says about his fellow Republicans:

I am very concerned about the ascendancy of the political

right, particularly in the Republican Party. It's very

obvious that nobody can do enough to please them. The

President certainly can't. . . . They gave him a kick in the

teeth. I think [the Republican Party has] been taken over by

people I feel uncomfortable with and a lot of Republicans

feel uncomfortable with . . . They want a political judge.

They want a judicial activist.

Senator Danforth has revealed an important truth about today's Republican Party. His warnings are precisely why the Senate needs to take a long, hard look at the Alito nomination.

Even in the first 2 weeks of the confirmation process, a picture of Sam Alito is emerging that may explain why the extreme right wing is popping champagne corks. Earlier this week we learned of the 1985 memo in which Alito said, ``I am, and always have been a conservative.'' He also spoke proudly of his work on behalf of an extremely conservative agenda of the Reagan Justice Department.

We don't have to guess whether Judge Alito's description of himself in that memo would predict what kind of a judge he would be. For the past 15 years, Judge Alito has been one of the most conservative judges in the country--some would say extreme. For example, in civil rights cases he has often dissented to argue for higher barriers to recovery for people with claims of discrimination. In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, his colleagues said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ``would be eviscerated'' if Judge Alito's approach were followed. In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, he dissented in a disability rights case where the majority said, ``few if any Rehabilitation Cases would survive'' if Judge Alito's views were the law. And in Sheridan v. DuPont, he was the only one of 11 judges on the court who would apply a higher standard of proof in sex discrimination cases.

In another area of law, Judge Alito has been quick to limit the authority of Congress, even when it is working to help people solve real problems. In Chittester v. Department of Community Development, he held that the Constitution did not allow a State employee to enforce the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Supreme Court effectively repudiated that view 3 years later in the Hibbs case from my own State of Nevada.

These are a few of Judge Alito's many judicial opinions which merit close review by the Senate. By all accounts, Sam Alito is a decent man, well liked by his colleagues. He has devoted his entire legal career to public service, and for that I admire him. Throughout the confirmation process I will work to ensure that Judge Alito is treated with civility and respect. But there is nothing disrespectful about an open and fair- minded review of a nominee's approach to the Constitution and his commitment to the core American values such as equality, privacy, fairness.

One final point. This nomination will be governed by the 200-year-old rules of the Senate. I was very dismayed to read an essay by the majority leader in the Chicago Tribune last week in which he threatened to change the rules of the Senate to ensure that Judge Alito would be confirmed. Think about that. My friend, the majority leader, wrote:

If members of the Democratic minority persist in blocking a

vote on Alito's nomination, the Senate will have no choice

but to change the rules.

The majority leader's accusation is baseless. Democrats can hardly persist in an activity in which we are not engaged. No Democrat has even raised the issue of extended debate. At this early stage of the process, 2 months before committee hearings on this nomination will begin, it is silly to argue about the terms of floor debate. Earlier this year, the entire Senate breathed a sigh of relief when the so- called ``nuclear option'' was averted by an agreement of a bipartisan group of Senators. We don't know what is going to happen on this nomination. The majority leader should put his sword back in its sheath and let the Senate move forward on this nomination without idle threats. Let's not talk about changing the Senate rules illegally. Let's not start talking about blaming the Democrats for something in which they are not engaged.

I am confident the Senate Judiciary Committee, under the able leadership of the senior Senators from Pennsylvania and Vermont, will do a good job of illuminating Judge Alito's record and views. The rest of the Senate and the rest of our Nation will pay close attention.

Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the statement of the distinguished majority leader this

morning that the first piece of legislation we will consider in January 2006, after we return from the winter recess, will be the asbestos bill. What a mistake. I know Senator Specter has worked hard on this issue. In fact, Senator Specter and his good friend and former school roommate Judge Becker, a judge from Pennsylvania, have worked together on this bill for countless hours. However, whatever that personal relationship and despite how long and hard they may have worked on this bill, is not acceptable in its current form. It is not even close.

All you have to do is look at a bipartisan letter that was sent to Senators Frist and this Senator, Senator Reid, two days ago, dated November 14, 2006. The letter was sent by both the chairman of the Budget Committee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and the ranking member, Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and stresses that this asbestos bill is not ready for floor action.

They write:

. . . we are in the process of gathering data and evaluating

available studies in order to provide Senate Members a better

understanding of the likely budgetary implication of S. 852.

. . .

There are potentially serious costs to Federal taxpayers in

this legislation. S. 852 would create a national trust fund

to compensate victims of asbestos exposures in lieu of those

victims pursuing compensation through the tort system. The

legislation was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on

May 26, 2005. There remain, however, major unresolved

questions about the budgetary impact of this bill. These

include: the actual cost of the program; whether proposed

funding will be sufficient to compensate all claims; clarity

on the allocation of assessments to business and insurance

entities, including the balance of those assessments and

whether these assessments will generate adequate revenues to

satisfy the program's costs; the amount that will be borrowed

from the Federal Government under the bill's Federal

borrowing authority. The legislation proposes a fund of $140

billion. CBO has advised that this amount could be sufficient

to satisfy the program's claims and costs. CBO also

cautioned, however that this amount could be insufficient,

depending on a number of issues. . . .

Following the release of the CBO report, the Bates White

economic consulting firm released a study demonstrating the

fund could experience additional costs beyond the proposed

amount between $161 billion and $421 billion.

Mr. President, $421 billion in additional costs. The letter concludes:

Because of the major adverse impact the legislation could

have on the Federal budget deficit if there are funding

shortfalls, we ask that at least until these issues are fully

resolved, that the Senate not take any further action on the

legislation.

Mr. President, this bill is not ripe for floor debate and will not be in January. This bill does not adequately address the needs of the dying victims who cannot wait for this trust fund to be established. The bill doesn't address the needs of victims if the trust fund runs out of money, which it clearly seems destined to do. The bill provides special benefits for victims at one asbestos site but ignores the needs of victims at another site. In another letter to Senators Frist and this Senator, Senator Reid, dated yesterday, November 15, 2005, from the Asbestos Victims Groups United, the victims write:

. . . [W]e write to express our continued and unified

opposition to S. 852. We strongly believe that the bill is

unfair to victims and is unworkable. . . . We believe it

would be wholly irresponsible for Congress to proceed with

consideration and passage of this legislation without

accurate and complete information concerning the funding

issue and the critical factors associated with it. Please do

not allow the families who have lost so much to be victimized

again.

This legislation will victimize asbestos victims and it will drive American companies out of business. I had a meeting not long ago with the only company in America that still makes wire. They said if this bill goes into effect they will go into bankruptcy. They are able to handle the situation now, but this bill demands that they contribute to a fund for which they have no responsibility. They are willing to take their lumps in the business world as they know them, but they will not be able to sustain themselves if they are told they have to contribute huge amounts of money to this fund.

Another company representative I have met said they spend $1 million a year on asbestos litigation, but if this bill goes into effect, they will go bankrupt because they can't afford the contributions they will be called on to make.

Let us not rush into asbestos legislation. Let us not do it fast; let us do it right. We owe it to the American taxpayers, to our American businesses and we certainly owe it to our asbestos victims to take the time to get it right.

Mr. President, if I could, I am confident the Chair recognizes that I used leader time for my statement.

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

Mr. President, tonight the Vice President has come out of his bunker and is speaking at a gathering of Washington, DC, insiders. Of course, it is closed to the press.

Unfortunately, he brought his bunker mentality with him in the speech. He is repeating the same tired attack we have heard from administrative officials over the last 2 weeks.

Mr. President, in the last 24 hours in faraway Iraq 10 of our brave soldiers have been killed. On such a night, you would think the Vice President would give a speech that honors the fallen and those still fighting by laying out a strategy for success. But no, instead we have the Vice President of the United States playing politics like he is in the middle of a Presidential campaign.

Yesterday, a bipartisan majority of this body, the Senate, gave the administration a vote of no confidence for its Iraq policy. The Senate said the era of their no-plan, no-end approach is over.

Apparently, though, the White House didn't get the message. The Vice President's speech tonight demonstrates that once again this administration intends to stay the course and continue putting their political fortunes ahead of what this country needs, a plan for success.

Our troops and the American people deserve better.

The White House needs to understand that deceiving the American people is what got them into trouble. Now is the time to come clean, not to continue the pattern of deceit.

So again, Mr. President, I ask Vice President Cheney to make himself available and answer the American people's questions. If he has time to talk to DC insiders, as he is doing tonight, oil executives, and even a discredited felon, Ahmed Chalabi, who by the way is under investigation for giving this Nation's secrets to Iran, it would seem he has time to answer the questions of the American people.

Mr. Cheney needs to stop stonewalling and hold a press conference.

Finally, I would urge the members of the Bush administration to stop trying to resurrect their political standing by lashing out at their critics. Instead, they need to focus on the job at hand, giving our troops a strategy for success in Iraq.

This week we have seen Stephen Hadley, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney lash out at their critics. Yet they all remain silent when it comes to giving our troops and the American people a plan for success in Iraq. I believe this tired rhetoric and these political attacks do nothing to get the job done in Iraq. I truly believe, Mr. President, America could do better.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Virginia Rose to Lovelock, NV. After serving the city of Lovelock for 35 years, Virginia retired as deputy city clerk on September 23, 2005.

Virginia has proudly lived in Lovelock all her life. As a young woman, she established a strong work ethic on her family's dairy farm performing daily chores with her nine brothers and sisters.

She continued her hard work as an office clerk for the city of Lovelock from 1961 to 1968. In 1977, Virginia returned as a deputy city clerk and spent the next 28 years as city clerk and treasurer. Virginia's colleagues at the city describe her as a highly motivated and gracious leader who knows how to organize and accomplish what needs to get done.

Virginia continues to serve her community today through active participation in her church, the Pershing County Alumni Association, the Pershing County Democratic Committee, the Lovelock Volunteer Fire Department Ladies Auxiliary, the Sierra Swiss Club, the Lovelock Community Singers, and several other organizations.

Well liked and respected by her community, she has been honored on numerous occasions since 1964. Most recently, she received the Northern Nevada Women of Achievement Award and the Diocese of Reno Outstanding Christian Service Award.

Virginia would likely describe her greatest honor as mother to Kim and Timothy and grandmother to Sarah, Adam, Lauren, and Caroline. She shares in this joy with Glenn, her husband of 46 years.

I have known Virginia for many years. While she is considered a pillar in the Lovelock community, she modestly describes her contributions as a privilege. Her dedication, diligence, and exceptional work has improved the lives of her fellow residents. I hope that you will join me in acknowledging Virginia Rose for her service to the Lovelock community on the occasion of her retirement from the city of Lovelock.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I will use leader time.

Mr. President, today, Senate Democrats offer the most important amendment to this most important bill. Our amendment asks the Bush administration to give our troops in Iraq a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifices and heroic service.

Three years ago, America invaded Iraq with the finest Armed Forces in the world. Our military forces were unchallenged and unmatched, and they remain so today. Unfortunately, the President and this administration have not exercised the leadership our troops deserve. They place our troops in harm's way without a plan for success and have damaged our standing in the world.

It is long past time for the President, the Vice President, and the rest of the Bush White House to level with the American people and present a winning plan and strategy for Iraq and our troops and for the American people. They both deserve this, the troops and the American people.

For the last 3 years, Democrats have stood with our troops and have tried to make certain we did everything we could to help them succeed. From the outset, we offered the administration concrete proposals that would have greatly increased our prospects for success.

We called on the administration to put more troops on the ground, but the administration rejected this call. We fought to provide more body armor and equipment for our troops, but the administration rejected this call. We urged the administration to increase international participation to secure and rebuild Iraq, but the administration rejected this call. We stressed the importance of putting together a plan to win the peace, but the administration rejected this call.

Now, to remind my colleagues, it was not just the advice of Democrats that the administration chose to ignore. It ignored the advice of our senior generals, our friends and allies around the world, teams of weapons inspectors, and even senior officials in the previous Bush administration.

The President and his team also chose to disregard the Powell Doctrine, which holds that military actions should be used only as a last resort where there is a clear risk to national security.

According to this doctrine, if we do choose to fight, we should use overwhelming force, we should ensure that the conflict is strongly supported by the American people, and we should develop a clear exit strategy before we get into the conflict. That is the Powell Doctrine.

Before this administration took office, the Powell Doctrine was supported by the previous two Presidents, our military leaders, and congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle. But this administration turned the Powell Doctrine upside down. They determined that military action should be a first resort, not a last. When the risk to our national security was not clear, they manipulated and cherry-picked intelligence to hype the threat. Instead of using overwhelming force, this administration rejected our senior military leaders' advice and deployed a smaller force. And as we all know, there was not, and is not, an exit strategy to win the peace and bring our troops home.

While we are determined to understand the mistakes this administration made that brought us to this point, we are just as committed to finding a way forward to succeed in Iraq. Every day that goes by, it becomes increasingly clear that the administration's Iraq policy is adrift and rudderless. All they are offering is a bumper- sticker slogan: ``Stay the course.''

``Staying the course'' is not a winning strategy. More than 2,050 soldiers

have died and about 16,000 have been wounded. Iraq now risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for international terrorists and, as we saw in Jordan, a new launching pad for terrorist attacks.

In addition, America's taxpayers have already contributed more than $250 billion and are spending an additional $2 billion every week this war continues. In short, our troops deserve more than a slogan. They deserve a real, clear strategy for completing their mission in faraway Iraq.

Our amendment sets forth in the clearest terms the Democrats' view of what the President and the Iraqi people must accomplish to succeed in Iraq and complete our mission.

First, it is time to see a significant transition toward full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi forces helping to create the conditions that will eventually lead to the phased redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces. Two thousand six should be a year we take the training wheels off the Iraqi government and let the Iraqi people run their own country.

Second, the administration must tell the Iraqi people, clearly and unambiguously, that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely and that Iraqis must achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency.

Third, the President must submit to the Congress and the American people a plan for success in Iraq. The American people deserve to know the conditions we seek to establish, the challenges we face in achieving these conditions, and the progress, if any, being made. As an example, the administration said repeatedly that our forces can stand down as Iraqi forces stand up. The American people deserve to know what that means in real and clear terms. How many capable Iraqi security forces are needed so that we can begin phased redeployment of U.S. forces as our tasks are achieved? How long will it take? Is it no longer acceptable that the President refuses? The answer is yes, it is no longer acceptable not to answer these and many other basic questions about his policy in Iraq. It is not acceptable to this Member of Congress, and it is certainly not acceptable to our troops. Many of those troops are serving their third tour of duty with no apparent end in sight.

With this amendment, Democrats are standing with our troops and the American people, insisting that the President and the Republican- controlled Congress do their jobs. The President must be held accountable and tell our troops and the American people his plan for Iraq and what additional sacrifices will be expected of our troops and the American people. We must honor our troops. We must preserve our national security. We must protect the American people. That is the least we should expect from our Commander in Chief.

I am going to vote for both amendments. Understand that the Democratic amendment and the Republican amendment have the same purpose. It is on both amendments. Purpose: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States in Iraq and to require reports of matters relating to Iraq. That is the purpose.

Based on what I see here today, the Republicans have no plan and no end in sight. We want to change the course. We can't stay the course. I appreciate, though, the Republicans following the Democrats as far as they have on this amendment. It is a tremendous step forward because we all agree--all 100 Senators, obviously--to clarify and recommend changes in the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on matters relating to Iraq. That is the purpose of both amendments. We stand united. The Democrats stand united. We appreciate the support of the Republicans in this amendment process.

I yield my leader time to the Senator from Michigan.

I yield time to the Senator from Michigan. I think I have a minute or 2.

Mr. President, in a series of votes last Thursday and today, the Senate has voted to deny the availability of habeas corpus to individuals held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I rise to explain my vote against the Graham amendment last week, and my votes in favor of the Bingaman amendment and the Graham-Levin amendment earlier today.

First, let's put the whole issue of the rights of suspected terrorists in context. As Senator McCain said over the weekend, terrorists are ``the quintessence of evil. But it's not about them; it's about us.'' This debate is about respect for human rights and adherence to the rule of law. It is about the continued moral authority of this Nation.

For the past four years, the Bush administration has advocated a policy of detaining suspects indefinitely and largely in secret, without access to meaningful judicial oversight. This policy is inconsistent with our core

values as Americans. In addition, a policy so inconsistent with human rights will further damage America's image abroad and provide more ammunition for those who wish to do us harm.

The writ of habeas corpus is one of the pillars of the Anglo-American legal system. It is the mechanism by which people who are held by the government can seek an independent review of the legality of their detention. Very often the people who rely on habeas corpus are unpopular, whether they are convicted criminals or suspected terrorists. But habeas corpus protects all of us--it is the way we ensure that the executive branch acts within the bounds of the law.

The amendment offered by Senator Graham last week created an exception to the habeas corpus rights established in title 28 of the United States Code. It contained a separate, essentially hollow review of whether the Defense Department had complied with its own procedures in declaring someone an enemy combatant. In a practical sense, the amendment put the actions of U.S. officials with respect to the Guantanamo detainees beyond the reach of the law, and created a legal no-man's land. I opposed the Graham amendment for this reason.

Nobody thinks that detainees should be able to file habeas petitions about what kind of peanut butter they are served or whether they can watch DVDs. That is not what this is about. This is about whether we are going to permit the President to detain a human being indefinitely without independent judicial review.

I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to an op-ed published in the Washington Post yesterday by one of the pro bono lawyers for the Guantanamo Bay detainees. The lawyer describes the importance of habeas review for his client, who remains in jail despite the military's determination that his client was innocent and was not associated with al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The writ of habeas corpus is for people like this. It is for figuring out whether those held at Guantanamo are in fact terrorists--and whether they are held lawfully and in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.

In addition, the Senate recently passed, by a vote of 90 to 9, the McCain amendment to prohibit the use of torture at Guantanamo and elsewhere. The Graham amendment would undermine this prohibition by preventing its enforcement by the Federal courts. The Federal courts exist to vindicate important rights. In general, this jurisdiction- stripping amendment would trample on the independence of the judiciary and violate principles of separation of powers.

Today the Senate voted on two amendments to improve the Graham amendment. I supported the Bingaman amendment, because it would have preserved the fundamental right of habeas corpus, while at the same time streamlining judicial review of Guantanamo cases and ensuring that only the most serious cases are before the Federal courts. I applaud the Senator from New Mexico for his defense of habeas corpus and I regret that his amendment did not pass.

I also voted in favor of the Graham-Levin amendment because it is an improvement over the original Graham amendment, which, as the vote last week demonstrated, would have passed the Senate with or without improvements. Importantly, the Graham-Levin amendment 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, and would allow for court review of the actions of military commissions.

As a supporter of the Graham-Levin amendment, let me state my understanding of several important issues. First, I agree with Senator Levin that his amendment does not divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear the pending case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. I believe the effective date provision of the amendment is properly understood to leave pending Supreme Court cases unaffected. It would be highly irregular for the Congress to interfere in the work of the Supreme Court in this fashion, and the amendment should not be read to do so.

Second, I do not understand this legislation to represent a congressional authorization of the military commissions unilaterally established by the executive branch at Guantanamo Bay. We would hardly authorize these commissions based upon a few hours of floor debate. Instead, I regard this legislation as establishing a process for the federal courts to review the constitutionality of the commissions. To the extent that question turns on whether Congress has authorized or recognized the commissions, nothing we have done today lends support to the argument that the commissions are a valid exercise of executive authority.

Third, Senator Specter raised the question of whether the grant of ``exclusive jurisdiction'' to the DC Circuit precludes Supreme Court review of the DC Circuit's final orders in these cases. I do not understand the amendment to strip the Supreme Court of such appellate jurisdiction. Congress often grants ``exclusive jurisdiction'' to one court or another, but that phrase is not understood to preclude appeals through the usual means.

Finally, there may be questions about what Congress meant when it directs the courts to review ``whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such standards and procedures is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.'' In my view, the Federal court should hear any factual or legal challenge by a detainee who contests being classified as an enemy combatant in the first place.

Even after adoption of the Graham-Levin amendment, the underlying Graham amendment still strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions. For this reason, I oppose the final Graham amendment as amended. I hope it is either improved in conference or deleted altogether.

But even if the Graham amendment is enacted into law, the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings to define the rights of the detainees at Guantanamo with greater care and to develop sensible procedures for enforcing those rights. It is of the utmost importance that this Congress work to preserve the principles of human rights and the rule of law upon which this Nation was founded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the recess, which is already part of the order of the Senate, be extended until 2:30. I am sure both caucuses have a lot of work to do, and we could convene at 2:30.

Of course.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, Senators Shelby and Mikulski, for being understanding. I ask unanimous consent that the recess be extended until 2:30.