Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have heard, since I have been in Washington these many years, about what a tough town it is. I rarely have felt that in my work here. But today I feel what some have said. For Harriet Miers, this is a tough town.

Here is a fine woman, gentle and kind, has a lengthy career. Her record: First woman to become a member of a large law firm in Texas; first woman to be president of the Dallas Bar Association. The Dallas Bar Association is larger than most State bar associations. She followed that with being the president of the Texas Bar Association, one of the three or four largest bar associations in the United States. She has served in elective office for a short period. She has had extensive experience in the courts.

I was in Texas this past weekend with a bunch of Democratic lawyers, members of the Democratic Party. They all said the nicest things about Harriet Miers. She was a fine litigator.

It is no secret I thought she would be an appropriate nomination for the President. I suggested that to the President in a meeting that was attended by the distinguished majority leader. I believe the 35 to 40 percent of the people who have served on the Supreme Court with no judicial experience before getting there have been equally as good as those people who have come to the Court with judicial experience. I believe those Justices with whom I had lunch a few months ago, who said, we would like to have people with no judicial experience come to the Supreme Court--that is what they said--were right. I believe they are still right.

I have talked a little bit about Harriet Miers. She called me this morning. I agree with the distinguished Republican leader that she was upbeat, but she wasn't happy. She was very disappointed. It was obvious she was very disappointed. Who wouldn't be? In her experience as a lawyer, elected city councilperson, in her whole career she has shown that she has been a strong supporter for law firm diversity policies, a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. She made statements, written and otherwise, where she spoke her beliefs on basic fairness.

I believe, without any question, that when the history books are written about all this, it will show that the radical rightwing of the Republican Party drove this woman's nomination right out of town. Apparently, Ms. Miers didn't satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologists. The only voices heard in this process were the far right. She wasn't even given a chance to speak for herself before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her credentials, which are excellent, weren't good enough for the rightwing. They wanted a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.

I hope our President, in choosing a replacement for his lawyer--and that is what she is--will not reward the bad behavior of his rightwing base. President Bush should reject the demands of these extremists and choose a Justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. The President should listen to all Americans, not just extreme elements of his own party.

I repeat what the distinguished Senator from Maryland said, Ms. Mikulski, that she sensed a whiff--I think that is a direct quote--of sexism in all of the attacks on this nominee.

Mr. President, it is over with. She has given her withdrawal to the President. I don't think it is a good day for our country.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York.

How much time do we have, Mr. President?

And that is equally divided; is that right?

While the distinguished majority leader is here, Mr. President, through you to the distinguished Republican leader, we had a half hour set aside and I took more than my share. You didn't take much time. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes for morning business and the vote at 10 o'clock be scheduled at 10:15.

I understand the Senator from New York is not talking in morning business. I withdraw my request. I yield to her whatever time she may consume.

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

Mr. President, this is a quote:

A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United

States of America faces. It's a bigger threat than terrorism.

In fact, it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in

government.

This is not a quote from me or from the Presiding Officer. These are the words of Richard Falkenrath, who until very recently served as President Bush's Deputy Homeland Security Adviser. He is not alone in this assessment. Administration officials and public health experts have warned the next flu pandemic is not a question of if but a matter of when. If we don't take action now, the consequences of a global flu pandemic could be devastating. And perhaps that is even an understatement.

A respected U.S. health expert has concluded that 1.7 million Americans could die in the first year alone of an outbreak. Remember, in 1918, the last flu pandemic, as many as 60 million people died in the world. The world's population was one-third of what it is now.

In addition to the 1.7 million Americans who could die during the first year, according to health experts, the economic costs would be enormous.

Every week, the possibility of this threat grows closer. It is now in Croatia. Anyone who watches the news knows that the bird flu is sweeping much of the globe.

When we started debating a possible flu pandemic here in the Senate, the bird flu was contained in parts of Asia. Now it has moved into Turkey, and even as far west as Great Britain. Anyone who watches the news knows scientists recently determined that the last flu pandemic outbreak in 1918 started in birds, and it made its way into humans.

It has not been shown without any fault, any degree of being wrong, because it could be wrong--because the birds are dying from avian flu doesn't mean it will get to us, but it did in 1918. Will the virus jump to humans? That is the question. Shouldn't we be prepared if in fact that is the case?

I read one news account of a friend in Congress who said we don't want to spend a lot of money for something that might not happen. We have to be prepared. We have to be prepared. We should do everything we can to make sure Americans are prepared and protected--and we are not prepared.

Despite repeated promises, this administration has yet to release the President's Pandemic Influenza Response and Preparedness Plan. We have written letters; no response. I don't know why.

The World Health Organization deems such a plan essential to proper readiness. A draft of this plan was ready months ago, but no final plan has been released. At least we were told it wasn't.

As a result, preparations for a pandemic have been needlessly delayed and the Federal Government is ill prepared to handle such a pandemic. We don't have the capacity to rapidly manufacture vaccines in mass quantities. We lack an adequate stockpile in antiviral medications, and our health care infrastructure is woefully unprepared.

We are already behind nations such as Canada, Britain, and Australia, and we are falling further behind these nations each day we fail to act. Some nations finalized their avian flu plans months ago. They are implementing the protections, and we are still waiting for this administration to give us something as basic as a plan. America can do better. In fact, America must do better.

Senate Democrats have provided leadership on this issue. We have added much needed resources for pandemic preparedness in the Senate appropriations bill we passed nearly a month ago. We have offered legislation, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act. That would build on our commitment to preparing our Nation for the possibility of a pandemic. Unfortunately, the funding remains tied up in a conference with the House and the Senate, and we haven't acted on this comprehensive legislation.

The recent spread of bird flu to Europe proves we can't afford to drag our feet. The Senate must act immediately so we can limit the human and economic costs of a potential avian flu pandemic. That is why I am cosponsoring Senator Harkin's amendment to provide $7.9 billion for a comprehensive national effort to prepare for an avian flu pandemic. The amendment will allow us to take the following steps to prepare our Nation for a potential pandemic:

No. 1, quadruple our funding for global surveillance relating to avian flu so we may rapidly detect the emergence of a new strain of flu; dedicate more than $3 billion to vaccine research and improving our domestic infrastructure.

We are woefully unprepared to do this.

We must increase our hospital surge capacity and funding for State and local health agencies so the American people can be assured there will be an adequate supply of health care providers and institutions to care for them in the event of a pandemic.

The legislation calls for conducting an outreach program to health care providers and to the American public.

With this legislation, we must stockpile effective antivirals adequate to treat at least 50 percent of the population and other medical supplies.

Finally, it calls for improving research and lab capacity related to an avian flu pandemic. This, to me, is the most important.

I congratulate the ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Harkin of Iowa, for this legislation. It is badly needed. I hope there will be a bipartisan vote to support this amendment.

I understand there are efforts being made to weaken this so-called second-degree amendment to give the President the authority to do all of this, and he would be obligated to do it only if he saw it was necessary. We are looking at that second-degree amendment now to see if there is any way we can work with the majority, who are offering this amendment.

The avian flu pandemic may be inevitable, but the devastating consequences are not. We need to heed warnings and take action now. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting us by making the investments necessary to make sure this Nation does everything possible to protect Americans from the threat of the global flu pandemic.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Leahy is not on the floor; therefore, we would have to object.

Mr. President, very quickly, this is a very big bill. It is very important for millions of people in this country. The management of this bill has been spectacular. Senator Specter and Senator Harkin should be congratulated. They did a very good job in a short timeframe. We should all recognize the outstanding job the two of them did.

mathematics and science education

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation focused on a devastating condition known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). I am pleased that Senator Cochran has once again joined me in the fight against this painful and debilitating disease.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease, are chronic disorders of the gastrointestinal tract which afflict approximately 1.4 million Americans, 30 percent whom are diagnosed in their childhood years. IBD can cause severe abdominal pain, fever, and intestinal bleeding. Complications related to the disease include; arthritis, osteoporosis, anemia, liver disease, growth and developmental challenges, and colorectal cancer. Inflammatory bowel disease represents a major cause of morbidity from digestive illness and has a devastating impact on patients and families.

In the 108th Congress I was proud to sponsor bipartisan legislation focused on IBD that attracted 36 co-sponsors. Several important provisions of that bill were incorporated into legislation known as the ``Research Review Act'' which was signed into law by the President last November. Specifically, the ``Research Review Act'' called on the Government Accountability Office and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to submit reports to Congress on three issues of critical importance to the IBD community, 1. Social Security Disability, 2. Medicare and Medicaid coverage, and 3. the epidemiology of the disease in the United States.

The legislation I am introducing today builds upon the progress made last year by calling for an increased Federal investment in biomedical research on IBD. The hope for a better quality of life patients and families depends on basic and clinical research sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIDDK). The ``Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Act'' calls for an expansion of NIDDK's research portfolio on Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in order to capitalize on several exciting discoveries that have broadened our understanding of IBD in recent years. By increasing our investment in this area, we will maximize the possibility that we will be able to offer hope to millions of Americans who suffer from this debilitating disease. At the same time, progress in this area could also mean we would save millions of dollars in net health care expenditures through reduced hospitalizations and surgeries.

In addition to biomedical research, this legislation also calls on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a ``National Inflammatory Bowel Disease Action Plan.'' This plan will provide a comprehensive approach to addressing the burden of IBD in the United States, including strategies for raising awareness of the disease among the general public and health care community, expanding epidemiological research focused on the prevalence of IBD, and preventing the progression of the disease and its complications.

The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, an organization that has been a leader in the battle against IBD, has strongly endorsed this legislation. In addition to CCFA, the following organizations have endorsed this bill: The North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Digestive Disease National Coalition, the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, and the Pennsylvania Society of Gastroenterology.

I urge all Senators to join Senator Cochran and me in this important cause by co-sponsoring the ``Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Act.''

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation focused on a devastating condition known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). I am pleased that Senator Cochran has once again joined me in the fight against this painful and debilitating disease.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease, are chronic disorders of the gastrointestinal tract which afflict approximately 1.4 million Americans, 30 percent whom are diagnosed in their childhood years. IBD can cause severe abdominal pain, fever, and intestinal bleeding. Complications related to the disease include; arthritis, osteoporosis, anemia, liver disease, growth and developmental challenges, and colorectal cancer. Inflammatory bowel disease represents a major cause of morbidity from digestive illness and has a devastating impact on patients and families.

In the 108th Congress I was proud to sponsor bipartisan legislation focused on IBD that attracted 36 co-sponsors. Several important provisions of that bill were incorporated into legislation known as the ``Research Review Act'' which was signed into law by the President last November. Specifically, the ``Research Review Act'' called on the Government Accountability Office and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to submit reports to Congress on three issues of critical importance to the IBD community, 1. Social Security Disability, 2. Medicare and Medicaid coverage, and 3. the epidemiology of the disease in the United States.

The legislation I am introducing today builds upon the progress made last year by calling for an increased Federal investment in biomedical research on IBD. The hope for a better quality of life patients and families depends on basic and clinical research sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIDDK). The ``Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Act'' calls for an expansion of NIDDK's research portfolio on Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in order to capitalize on several exciting discoveries that have broadened our understanding of IBD in recent years. By increasing our investment in this area, we will maximize the possibility that we will be able to offer hope to millions of Americans who suffer from this debilitating disease. At the same time, progress in this area could also mean we would save millions of dollars in net health care expenditures through reduced hospitalizations and surgeries.

In addition to biomedical research, this legislation also calls on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a ``National Inflammatory Bowel Disease Action Plan.'' This plan will provide a comprehensive approach to addressing the burden of IBD in the United States, including strategies for raising awareness of the disease among the general public and health care community, expanding epidemiological research focused on the prevalence of IBD, and preventing the progression of the disease and its complications.

The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, an organization that has been a leader in the battle against IBD, has strongly endorsed this legislation. In addition to CCFA, the following organizations have endorsed this bill: The North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Digestive Disease National Coalition, the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, and the Pennsylvania Society of Gastroenterology.

I urge all Senators to join Senator Cochran and me in this important cause by co-sponsoring the ``Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Act.''

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

If I could direct a question to the distinguished majority leader, it is my understanding we are not going to recess at 1:45 for Negroponte. People can go or not, and we will still continue Senate business.

Mr. President, I came here to speak on another subject, but I have to comment on the statements made by my distinguished colleague.

The American people are smart enough to understand what is going on in this country. The House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled by Republicans. The White House is controlled by a Republican. All the agencies of Government are headed by individuals appointed by this President. For someone to come and lecture us on spending when both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans and the President is a Republican takes a lot of nerve.

Of course, we are all opposed to Medicaid fraud and abuse. Of course, there are programs that need to be implemented. But I say to my distinguished friend from South Carolina, the President has the tools to do that right now, without any new laws. The tools are there. Have his Justice Department do something about it. In fact, some time could be spent on that, for sure.

My friend spoke about some of the things going wrong in the State of New York. I would suggest that my friend look at this White House as to what is going wrong. The person who was in charge of procurement at the Office of Management and Budget was led away in handcuffs because of alleged corruption. When this President took office 5 years ago, the 10-year surplus was expected to be about $5 to $6 trillion. This has been squandered in 5 years; squandered. In 5 years of this President we have a debt now--not over 10 years but right now--of $8 trillion. So don't lecture us on a spendometer.

This Government is controlled by Republicans. What happened when we had

a Democrat in the White House? Some of the time we had a Democratic- controlled Senate, 2 years during President Clinton's administration we had Democratic control of the House of Representatives. What happened? In 1993 his Budget Deficit Reduction Act passed. How did it pass? Without a single vote by the Republicans in the House and without a single vote by the Republicans in the Senate. A tie had to be broken by Al Gore, Vice President of the United States. What happened after that, this country went on the most prolonged economic boom in the history of the country. In the last 3 years of the Clinton administration the debt was being paid down by some half a trillion dollars. We were spending less money than we were taking in.

So don't lecture us on how money is to be spent. This White House has squandered trillions of taxpayers' dollars.

I did not come up with the verbiage describing the budget that is now going to be reconciled in the next couple weeks. I didn't come up with the verbiage. The leading Protestant churches in America came up with the verbiage that the budget is immoral. And that was before Katrina hit us. If this budget was immoral then, it is really immoral now.

What are we going to do? What do the Republicans want to do? I say to the American public, they want to cut more. What do they want to cut it from? Not the elite of America, but the poorest of the poor, starting with Medicaid, programs for the poorest of the poor. The people suffering the most from Katrina are still suffering. I was with some of them in the House of Representatives yesterday. They came and met with us. One woman lost her job. She was a janitor. The school is gone. She has applied for Medicaid. They turned her down because we can't get our bill out of this Senate. In the House, they apparently want to cut student aid as part of reconciliation. And to top it off, Republicans in the House and Senate want to give more tax cuts to the rich. If they want to have a better looking program around here, wash out some of that.

So I want everyone to know that when someone comes to the floor and makes statements that are basically without foundation, we are going to respond to them. We don't have to stand and be lectured to about the White House, the House, and the Senate squandering the legacy of this last administration--namely, the Clinton administration--without our ability to respond. Don't give me a spendometer. Give me the ability to get the spending of this country in order. For 5 years, we have seen it go out of whack.

I want to say one other thing about the statement made by my friend from South Carolina. He talks about amendments offered by Democratic colleagues on different pieces of legislation. With rare exception, those all had offsets. So what that means to the American public is it wold not have cost the American public any more because it was offset by spending cuts in other places.

Again, I want everyone to understand, when statements are made that I think are without foundation, keeping in mind we have a Republican President, a Republican House of Representatives, and a Republican Senate, either this Senator or someone on this side will be available to answer those statements.

Reserving the right to object, what was the request? Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have been informed by the chairman of the committee, he has no objection to this. Senator Stabenow would agree to your amendment, that your judge be included in the resolution.

If we had a voice vote, the distinguished chairman of the committee could still be recorded as voting no; is that correct?

She has included yours.

There is a unanimous consent request pending before the Senate at this time.

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 ask unanimous consent that Calendar No. 260, the Rosa Parks Federal Building, be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with the amendment to it affixing the William B. Bryant Annex to that. It is my understanding that this will be done by voice vote. Those who don't like it can tell the Chair that, and it will be a no vote. I ask unanimous consent that this matter be called now.

I ask for a voice vote, Mr. President.

That is what I tried to do. That is what I did do.

Mr. President, this is not the time for protracted debate on why we are here, why we are not here. We are here. One of the most important bills this Congress must decide every year is this Defense authorization bill.

The majority leader and the two managers of the bill, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, know--because I have sent them every letter I have sent to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Tennessee--I strongly support the Senate consideration of the Defense authorization bill since it was unanimously passed by the Committee on Armed Services last May. We have a lot to do around here. I suggest there is nothing more important than taking care of the U.S. military. This is not the way to handle the bill, I recognize that, but it is the only way left we can handle this bill.

I hope the two managers can help work through these amendments. I know they are ready to accept scores of amendments once we get to this bill. I hope the 12 on each side are amendments that will be good for the Senate, good for this institution, and, of course, very good for the armed services of our country. If that is the case, it will be good for our country.

As I have said, this is not a time for pointing fingers. I am glad we are here even though that is not how I wanted to get here.

Mr. President, it was a great privilege for me to serve in the House of Representatives. I loved my job in the House for a lot of reasons, one of which is I got to know a man by the name of Ed Roybal real well. Congressman Ed Roybal died Monday. I will sure miss him. My thoughts and my prayers are with his wonderful family.

For those of us who knew him, it is a time to reflect and really be sad. I remember Congressman Roybal as a very quiet man, with an unwavering commitment to justice and compassion. He was not much for giving speeches, but he was much for getting work done. He worked tirelessly over the past four decades on behalf of the poor, the elderly, those who are disenfranchised.

To get a glimpse of the kind of man he was, here he is, a senior Member of the House of Representatives, chairman of the Aging Committee, and one of the leaders on the Appropriations Committee. My dear wife became extremely ill, and she spent more than a month at UCLA Medical Center. I had just been elected to the Senate. I would fly from here to L.A. Ed Roybal would meet me at the airport and drive me to the hospital. That is the kind of guy he was.

He was always there for the people of California, just like he was there for his friend from Nevada. For the people of California and this country, he fought to increase educational, political, and economic opportunities.

As an advocate for Hispanics, he had no peer. He was a pioneer and a relentless leader. When he was young, Ed Roybal created an organization called Community Service Organization. This group began a crusade against discrimination in housing, employment, and education and also conducted voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives within the Latino community.

It is my understanding that he was the first Hispanic elected to the Los Angeles City Council--if not, he was one of the first. He was elected to Congress in 1963, the first Hispanic from California to serve since 1879. When he came to Washington, Ed Roybal was one of the few people fighting for the progress of Latinos. There was no Congressional Hispanic Caucus when he arrived, so he created one. It was founded by Ed Roybal. Later in 1976, he helped create the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

Getting more Hispanics involved in the political process was a passion of his, and he was a mentor of many Latinos. As part of this effort, he cofounded the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. To this day, this organization is bringing a new generation of talented Latinos into the political system and supporting them as they follow in Ed's footsteps.

I served on his Aging Committee. His fingerprints are all over the last major immigration bill we had here. I went to Ed Roybal to find out how I should vote. I had great confidence in his integrity.

I wish we could all have known Ed as I felt I knew him. Everyone in Government should have known Ed Roybal. He, to me, was a shining example of what Government is all about: selfless, compassionate, committed to equality. He lent his voice and his life to making the American dream a reality for everyone.

On a more personal level, he loved to come to Las Vegas. He loved Las Vegas. I talked with his daughter, Lucille, yesterday and reminded her of that. She said: Yes, but he always left his credit cards at home. He only took enough money so he could have a good time. He would be there for me. He did Hispanic conferences for me. He did Aging Committee hearings. He was always there for me.

I know how proud he was of his daughter, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard. She has taken up his cause, so his legacy lives on in her work. But the burden does not fall only on her; it falls on us all.

When he died, opportunity lost one of its greatest champions. It is up to all of us to pick up on his absence and continue opening doors and building an America that works for everyone.

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

Mr. President, this is a solemn occasion, to have the Senate stand in silence in respect for the sacrifices made by the fighting men and women of this country. Our thoughts go out, not only to the lives of these individuals but to their families. This is only a small token of what we can do to recognize the sacrifices they have made, leaving behind their sons and daughters, the husbands and wives and friends. We all have been touched by the deaths of these 2,000 in one way or the other.

It is my prayer that the sacrifices made will prove to have been warranted.

I am grateful to my colleagues for being here today on both sides of the aisle, and I am grateful to Senator Frist who has joined in this moment of silence. It is something that I will remember, and I hope we all do.

Mr. President, I want the majority leader to understand how much I appreciate his breaking up his schedule to come here to offer this unanimous consent request. I appreciate it very much.

As I indicated a short time ago, the solemnity of this occasion is significant. I want the record to reflect that we have reached, as has been said here several times today, regrettably, a milestone in Iraq; that is these 2,000 killed. Frankly, Mr. President, it is no longer 2,000. It is now 2,002.

There has been--and will continue to be--heated debate about our involvement in Iraq, about the flawed pre-war intelligence that some say existed, and it appears pretty certain at this time, the selling of the war by administration officials, the poor planning, and the ideologically driven attempt by the President and others to reshape the Middle East through the force of arms.

These debates will go on, and they should. That is what our country is all about. But today--right now this minute--I think it is appropriate to set the debate aside and reflect on this solemn mark that we have reached so that we can pay tribute to the heroic services and the sacrifice that each of these brave Americans made to our Nation.

A few months ago, I was able to travel along with a number of my colleagues to the Middle East where I spent time with scores of Nevadans serving in Iraq. Any one of us who traveled to the region meets with U.S. troops and comes back so impressed and so proud of the men and women who serve our country. Many are young, as Senator Durbin has so graphically described, just out of high school, and this is their first time out of the country. Others are more senior, having served in the first Gulf war or in Afghanistan. Most were given short notice, year-long deployment, and were serving away from family, children, spouses, parents and friends.

The Nevada Guard unit that I spent time with was tasked with transporting critical supplies from Kuwait through Iraq and into Baghdad to support combat forces. These were dangerous missions, carried out with the real possibility of an attack by Iraqi insurgents.

I also met with some young Marines from Nevada who were assigned to protect U.S. facilities in the fortified Green Zone. Eager, enthusiastic, and with a great sense of spirit, these young men took pride in their duties, and we took great pride in them.

But there can be no question that the effort in Iraq has taken a huge toll on Americans, and on Nevadans.

So far, 13 Nevadans have died in this conflict. But the number 13 does not tell the whole story.

Let me take just a minute. I will be brief. But I would like to, as my dear friend, the junior Senator from Maryland, outlined, tell you just a little bit about these 13 Nevadans.

Marine LCpl Donald Cline, Jr., of Sparks as the first Nevada soldier to die in Iraq. During the initial invasion of Southern Iraq, LCpl Cline was killed in combat while assisting injured soldiers on March 23, 2003. He left behind a wife and two sons, Dakota and Dylan.

Marine 1LT Frederick Pokorney of Nye was killed in action on March 23, 2003. He left behind a wife and a 3-year old daughter. Lieutenant Pokorney was the first Marine from Operation Iraqi Freedom to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Sgt Eric Morris of Sparks was only six weeks into his tour of duty when he was killed by a homemade bomb on April 28, 2005. He was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for his bravery.

Marine Cpl William I. Salazar of Las Vegas was killed on October 15, 2004, in a suicide bomb attack. Corporal Salazar was the first Marine combat photographer to be killed in action in more than 35 years. He died on his father's birthday.

Marine PFC John Lukac of Las Vegas was killed on October 30, 2004, when his convoy was attacked. The son of immigrants who escaped Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, Private Lukac had been interested in joining the Marines since the age of 12.

LCpl Nicholas Anderson of Las Vegas died on November 12, 2004, when his Humvee crashed. It had only been one year since he graduated from Bonanza High School.

Army PFC Daniel Guastaferro of Las Vegas was determined to join the Army, despite suffering a snowboarding injury that left him with a steel plate in his arm. Private Guastaferro died on January 7, 2005, when his vehicle ran off the road. He was 27 years old.

Marine LCpl Richard A. Perez, Jr. of Las Vegas died in a truck accident on February 10, 2005. LCpl Perez enlisted in the Marines shortly after his graduation from Coronado High School and volunteered to go to Iraq. He died only 10 days before he was supposed to return home.

Cpl Stanley Lapinski died on June 11, 2005 from injuries sustained in a roadside explosion. After college, he worked at several jobs, finally winding up at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas. September 11 prompted him to join the Army. The 37-year old was known in his unit as ``Pops.''

Marine Cpl Jesse Jaime of Henderson was killed on June 15, 2005 when the vehicle he was riding in hit an explosive device. The 22-year-old had followed his twin brother's footsteps by enlisting in the Marines.

Spc Anthony S. Cometa of Las Vegas was killed on June 16, 2005 when his Humvee flipped over. He was a member of the 1864th Transportation Company, which I met with when I visited Kuwait and Iraq. Specialist Cometa was the first Nevada Army National Guard soldier to die in Iraq. He died just one day after his 21st birthday.

2LT James J. Cathey of Reno was killed by a roadside bomb on August 21, 2005. After graduating from the University of Colorado in 2004, he headed to Quantico, VA, for officer training. Known as ``Cat,'' Cathey and his wife had just found out they were going to have their first child before he left for Iraq.

Spc Joseph Martinez of Las Vegas was killed on August 27, 2005. He was killed in combat while serving his second tour of duty in Iraq. His mother said he always wanted to be a soldier.

To all of these Nevada families--and to the families of all 2,000 U.S. troops who have fallen in Iraq--our Nation will forever be in debt to you. Your sons and daughters are heroes, and their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, yesterday, our Nation lost one of our heroes, Rosa Parks--the mother of the modern civil rights movement. The movement that she helped launch changed not only our country but the entire world, as her actions gave hope to every individual fighting for civil and human rights.

While history proudly remembers December 1, 1955, as Rosa Parks' bravest moment, her fight against oppression and segregation began long before that day. Mrs. Parks was active in the Montgomery NAACP, serving as secretary and as an adviser to the NAACP's Youth Council. She also worked to register African Americans to vote and was active in many other civil rights causes. While it was her act of defiance in 1955 that garnered national attention, she had been thrown off a bus 12 years earlier--by the same driver--for refusing to move. Why was she thrown off the bus? Even then, she refused to give up her seat.

Rosa Parks' bravery triggered the Montgomery bus boycott. The boycott gained national attention, ushered in an atmosphere of change, and was the precursor to landmark legislation--most importantly, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Eventually, the issue of segregation and Montgomery's bus policy ended up in the Supreme Court-- another reminder of how important the institution is in protecting the rights of every American.

And we should not forget something else. The boycott introduced the Nation to a young minister, a Baptist preacher named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

While the Nation will miss Rosa Parks, we take heart in the fact that her legacy will be felt by generations to come. As Senators, all of us have a special responsibility when it comes to the legacy of Rosa Parks. It is not enough for us to celebrate her life with words. As leaders of this country, we must honor it with deeds, deeds that continue the fight Rosa Parks began almost 50 years ago.

Specifically, we must reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, which has opened the doors of political participation to countless Americans. We must work to increase educational opportunities so that all young people have a chance for a better life. We must ensure that our policies build a better America for the meek and vulnerable, not only the powerful and strong. This work is how we will truly celebrate the life of Rosa Parks. All of us in this Chamber have it in our power to further the fight she began, and we owe it to every American to ensure her legacy endures.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I have kept quiet the last 8 or 9 months on this issue, but I am glad to hear somebody raising the issue of how long these votes take. It is so discourteous, so impolite of Senators to have us wait around here for 35, 40 minutes on a vote. It is not right. People have other

things to do than wait for somebody who is finishing a phone call or some appointment. The only way to do this is to cut off the vote, have people miss votes. If I am late, cut off the vote. Senators come in here ``hang tooth,'' sad that they missed a vote, after we keep the vote going for 35 or 40 minutes. I served in the House of Representatives. We had 15 minutes to vote in the House. It is over with. There are 435 Members over there. They all manage to get over and vote on time. I know we have a rollcall, but it is simply unfair to this institution to waste hours every week. My Democratic Senators, if they are late and there is equal pain around here and you cut off your Republicans, I will cut off my Democrats, and I will handle them. I want everyone within the sound of my voice, all the staffs, to hear that it is my understanding, based upon the urging of Senator Specter, that we are going to cut these votes off. I hope that is the case. It is a pet peeve I have around here. Where else in the world would you be so discourteous as to have people standing around waiting for you to do something that none of us care about? I don't know what they are doing over there. We hear the excuses, the plane has just landed, they are on their way. They have had too many tardy slips. Let's not accept that anymore. I think if we did it once, the second time it would be a lot easier. And the third time it would never happen. I hope the distinguished Republican leader will force our Senators to recognize that they have the obligation of voting on time. It is the main reason we are here. If they miss a vote, they miss a vote.

Mr. President, I think most Americans have been to Florida. It is such a pleasant place, and beautiful, with wonderful beaches and tremendous weather. But nature has been very unkind to Florida in the past few years. There have been numerous storms, devastating storms. Florida is now being buffeted by Wilma. Winds are over 125 miles an hour with torrential rains, flooding many parts of Florida. Over 20,000 people have sought safety in shelters. Many have chosen to ride out the storm, and that is unfortunate. According to reports, less than 10 percent of the residents of the Florida Keys have evacuated, and it appears this may turn out to be the most damaging hurricane to hit this region in more than a decade. This afternoon, Wilma's victims are certainly in our thoughts. The storm is still there.

In recent weeks, we have seen how destructive nature can be. The people of Florida know we stand ready to help if, in fact, that is necessary.

Victims of Hurricane Wilma join the growing list of the Americans who need our help. While Wilma is upon us--we had Rita before that--we cannot forget the people who have suffered such devastating losses from the storm that hit the gulf, Hurricane Katrina. But it is obvious that the majority has forgotten about them.

We have had bills agreed upon by the Finance Committee and others-- bipartisan bills--that we cannot move to the Senate floor. We cannot move them. Now I am told a bill that started out at

$8 billion to help the people who are in such need of medical care and attention, the Medicaid bill, has now shrunk to less than $2 billion. It will be, of course, a Band-Aid. It will give the majority something to say: we are trying to help. The fact is, they are not trying to help.

Weeks have gone by, and now Wilma is upon us, and Wilma will likely create the need for more help for people in Florida, which will push Katrina's victims, in the minds of the majority, further off the radar screen.

The American people, even before Wilma, were already looking to the Senate for help with rising energy prices, and preparedness for future disasters, such as the avian flu. We must add Wilma's victims to this list.

It is my hope that the majority in the Senate will join Democrats in focusing on these priorities. These priorities are about doing something about these staggering energy costs--heating fuel, filling the gas tank--or doing something about being prepared for what we have been told is going to be a pandemic, the avian flu. We have seen it leave the Far East and travel to Europe. And what are we going to do about the Katrina victims?

With few weeks remaining in this work period before Thanksgiving, we need to come together and make sure the agenda of the Senate reflects the agenda of the American people. Unfortunately, it does not at the present time.

This week, the Senate Budget Committee will mark up the bills they get from the various committees and move forward with budget reconciliation. This is legislation that cuts health care for the neediest of the needy, the Medicaid recipients. It will cut housing. It will cut programs for farmers. It could put at risk the pensions of millions of working Americans. But the majority's mantra is: Rich people of America, we are coming to your rescue; we are going to cut your taxes some more.

I am appealing to my colleagues in the majority: Don't do this. Postpone this effort. We have very real needs to address in this country. I repeat, rising energy prices, hurricane victims, and preparedness for the avian flu. These issues should be the focus of every Senator, not cutting programs to help those most in need and providing tax breaks for special interests.

Democrats voted against this immoral Republican budget once before Katrina hit. Now, after all we have been through, I think it is even more of an embarrassment to this institution that we are moving forward to cut the poor even more and cut taxes for special interests even more.

After a summer of rising energy prices and multiple hurricanes, hundreds of thousands of families are struggling to meet basic needs. The cuts in the Republican budget will only make these problems worse. Of course, even if Republicans move forward with their plans, Democrats will continue to insist the Senate address the priorities of the American people.

As we did last week, we will continue to try to bring forward legislation that will help working families. On energy, we will fight to make sure the Senate takes a real look at price gouging and takes steps to help millions of families fill their tanks and heat their homes. On avian flu, we will continue to push the Senate to consider our comprehensive preparedness legislation so our country has the tools and resources it needs to confront this pandemic. If we do not do something, we are told 48 percent of the people who get this flu are going to die. And with Katrina, we are going to do everything we can to make sure hundreds of thousands of victims get the health care, housing and economic opportunities they need.

This weekend brought a new round of stories about how gulf coast communities are struggling. The problems of Katrina have not gotten better. For many families they have gotten worse.

With Katrina, we also have to ensure we get answers to how this happened so we can do everything possible to prevent it from happening again. The Senate has an obligation to act.

I say to my friends who now, as we see from the morning papers, are concerned about how many Iraqis are killed and soon--it may have already happened--just a matter of hours from now, 2,000 Americans will have been killed in Iraq. No one was looking for offsets and have not been looking for offsets on the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the Republicans blocked our attempts to help the American people last week. We could have made real progress. Instead, the Senate wasted much of its time. America can do better. We do not have time to lose. Every day that goes by, the problems faced by Katrina's victims grow worse. Every day that goes by, families are squeezed tighter by the energy crunch. Every day that goes by, we lose precious time in preparing for the avian flu pandemic.

We can do better. America can do better.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I apologize for interrupting.

In the New York Times today on the front page there is a column that says: ``GOP Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges.'' Is the Senator aware that the senior Senator from Texas said she hoped ``that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened''--referring to the Rove-Libby scandal in the White House--``that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality. . . .'' Will my friend comment on this statement?

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

Mr. President, we are voting on a lifetime appointment of Brian Sandoval to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada.

Brian Sandoval is presently the attorney general of the State of Nevada. This is an elected position. I have known Brian Sandoval for many years. He served previously in the Nevada State Legislature as an assemblyman. He served as Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. Brian Sandoval was recommended by this Senator to be a Federal judge. At the time I made that recommendation, I knew he was a Republican. When the Democrats had control of the Senate and we had a Democratic President, I asked Brian Sandoval at that time if he would be agreeable to my sending his name to the President. He said he was not ready at that time.

My friend, the junior Senator from the State of Nevada, when he learned there was going to be a Republican President, said that he would allow me to recommend every fourth district court judge. This is something he did not have to do. He did it to be nice, and I appreciate that. That is how I came

to have the opportunity to send the name of Brian Sandoval to the President.

There is a lot of controversy over judges, but I think Brian Sandoval is the kind of person who should become a judge. He has not generated controversy. That is because he is a person who, in all of his activities, has been very bipartisan and fair. As a judge, he will be nonpartisan. He comes from a good family. Frankly, the reason he decided to leave elected office to be a judge is because he felt spending the time it takes to campaign and raise money took away from his family, his wife Kathleen and his children James, Madeline and Marisa. I am paraphrasing what he told me. But he said: I didn't want to be in Alcoa when my children are involved in extracurricular activities. I should be there.

These are choices we all have to make. I am confident Brian Sandoval made the best choice for him, his family, the State of Nevada, and the country. He will be a fine judge. I am honored to have the opportunity to recommend him. The Senate will vote for him overwhelmingly, and he will not disappoint us in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee fellows and interns be allowed the privilege of the floor

during consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill: Richard Litsey, Jorlie Cruz, and James Reavis.