Floor Statements

Bingaman is done.

Will the Senator yield?

I would state Senator Baucus has a unanimous consent request and would like to make a few remarks prior to that. Will the Senator yield to Senator Baucus?

I ask you to yield to your colleague from Montana first.

We, of course, have no objection if you get the floor following Senator Baucus.

I asked the Senator from Rhode Island to yield to the Senator from Montana. He has a brief statement and unanimous consent request he is going to make. Then I have no problem.

We will be happy to wait until the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Maine finish their statements.

Mr. President, on vote No. 257, the Kennedy minimum wage amendment, Senator Corzine was absent because of a plane delay. If he were present, he would have voted ``aye''.

Amendment No. 2078

Mr. President, as we pause to observe Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I would like to focus on the need to study the causes of this frightening disease, including the possible link between breast cancer and the environment.

Women diagnosed with breast cancer inevitably all ask the same question: Why me?

The unfortunate truth in all too many instances is, we don't know. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors.

We don't know if the environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer. Studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and even electromagnetic fields. In most cases, the results have been inconclusive. Furthermore, there are many other factors that are suspected to play a role that have yet to be studied.

We must find answers. While there is much we don't know, it is clear that a better understanding of the role the environment plays in the development of breast cancer could help to improve our understanding of the causes of breast cancer and could lead to prevention strategies.

For several years now, I have worked to pass bipartisan legislation, The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, which would give scientists the tools they need to better understand any link between breast cancer and the environment. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would dedicate $30 million a year for 5 years for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to award grants to study the relationship between environmental factors and breast cancer. Under a competitive, peer-reviewed grant-making process that involves patient advocates, the NIEHS Director would award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting multi-disciplinary research.

To date, there has been only a limited research investment to study the role of the environment in the development of breast cancer--but we are making progress. Over the past several years, I have worked with my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to include appropriations language that has allowed the NIEHS to award grants to four research centers to begin to study the prenatal-to-adult environmental exposures that may predispose a woman to breast cancer.

This is a promising step in the right direction, but it is only a down payment on the task at hand. Moreover, the research strategy for these grants does not follow the nationally focused, collaborative, and comprehensive model as outlined in the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act.

More research must be done to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. If we miss promising research opportunities because Congress has failed to act, millions of women and their families will face difficult questions about breast cancer . . . and we won't have the answers.

These women and their families deserve answers. That's why we must work together to pass this bill, which enjoys broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to observe Breast Cancer Awareness Month and to support the quest for answers about this deadly disease by supporting the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use my leader time and not interfere with morning business.

Mr. President, this morning I would like to speak for a short time about a provision of the bill before the Senate, the Transportation bill, that was removed by Republican leaders when the bill was taken up yesterday. I commend my colleagues, Senators Feingold and McCain, for their leadership in advocating to the Republican leaders to take this step. The provision should not pass quietly in the night. It was in this bill. It should not have been. More importantly, it should not emerge in any way in the future in some type of a must- pass conference report.

The leadership PAC rider would have created a giant loophole in our campaign finance laws and would have permitted unseemly money transfers among incumbents and national parties.

Today, leadership PACs are bound by the same campaign finance rules as are regular campaign PACs, known as political action committees; that is, leadership PACs can't give more than $15,000 annually to the national parties. The rider inserted in this bill during markup by the Republican leadership removed this limit on leadership PACs so they could transfer unlimited funds to national parties.

My colleagues, Senators Feingold and McCain, rightly decried this move as a major circumvention of our campaign finance laws. The provision would have directly undermined the point of those laws: preventing corruption in fact and in appearance. I joined with them to oppose this provision and

assured them that the Democrats would stand united with them on a motion to strike this rider or to prevent the bill from moving forward.

Through the efforts of Senators Feingold and McCain, we had the votes to strip this provision from the bill, and everyone knew that. Recognizing that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agreed to remove it from the bill. I made it clear to my colleague and friend, the majority leader, that we would not accept a conference report with reemergence of this provision.

Compensation for Members of Congress

I also want to say another word about my friend, Russ Feingold. Russ Feingold is a person who is very talented. He is a unique advocate for many issues that affect this country. I have just talked about campaign finance reform. He is and has been a leader on campaign finance reform. There are times that I disagree with Russ Feingold but not often. He is a person who brings unique attributes to the Senate. Academically, he is without peer. He graduated from Harvard Law School and is a Rhodes scholar.

Today, he will speak on behalf of this side of the aisle on a provision dealing with compensation for Members of Congress. There are times when a COLA is certainly in keeping with the needs of this body and the country, but there are times when it is not. As I have indicated, Russ Feingold has never shied away from offering contentious, difficult amendments. Today, I am happy to see the other side of the aisle recognize that this amendment would pass, the Feingold amendment that has been offered by him alone in years past. The majority decided they would step in the shoes of Senator Feingold because they knew this was a time--with Katrina, with the many other problems facing our country--when a pay raise was not appropriate.

I want the record to be spread with the fact that Russ Feingold is a person whose good work I so appreciate. I admire him and the work that he does and want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand that this amendment we will dispose of prior to 12:30 today has been the Feingold amendment year after year after year. Now I am happy to see that others have joined with him.

While I have disagreed with him on this issue in the past, no one can take away from the fact that this has always been Russ Feingold's mantra: that he would offer the amendment to make sure that the congressional pay raise did not go forward.

He certainly was not successful in years past, but everyone recognized that he would be this year. Therefore, the majority, in an effort to take away a little recognition from him, decided they would do it. But recognition will always be there because Russ Feingold has always been out front on this issue.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, similar to all Senators, with rare exception, I spent last week's recess at home. I traveled Nevada meeting with my constituents. I met with a wide range of people. I had many conversations. But all the conversations came back to the same issues, including rising energy prices.

One of the last conversations I had was at my home in Searchlight, where some of our friends who live in Searchlight came to visit with us, Judy and Dick Hill. He works at a powerplant, the Mojave Generating Facility, about 35 miles from Las Vegas. She is the assistant postmistress of Searchlight. They have two boys. One of them is going to school. She is even taking some courses at a community college.

They spend about $500 a month on gasoline. Maybe they should get vehicles that do not use as much gas, and I am sure they are considering that, but it would not matter what kind of vehicle they drove; they need lots of gasoline to be able to do what they have to do, such as going back and forth to work, taking the boy to school.

People in Nevada are concerned about Iraq, as well they should be. I certainly applaud the people of Iraq. A little more than half of them turned out to vote. That is courageous. They are proud people, and I am glad they have shown their strength by turning out to vote. And it appears the constitution is going to pass. We will know in a few days.

We lost five soldiers yesterday in Iraq. We are very quickly approaching 2,000. We have not quite arrived at that number yet, but we are 10 or 12 short of that number.

The costs are ongoing. The war seems to be intractable. Surprisingly, the administration is still claiming, as Secretary Rice did over the weekend on a Sunday talk show, that the war is a result of 9/11. The American people do not accept that because it is simply not true.

Of course, constituents were concerned about Katrina and, of course, whether we are ready for another disaster such as the avian flu. I am sure this is not unique. I am sure other Senators had the same experiences I did these past 10 days. Americans from all walks of life are focused on these important issues, and they are looking to us for help. As the Democratic leader, I felt comfortable assuring my constituents that my Democratic colleagues are doing everything we can to meet these three areas about which they spoke.

On Iraq, we continue to press the President to answer key questions about how he is going to change course and achieve military and political success and to get an accounting of how the money has been spent.

On energy, we believe we must remain committed--and we will remain committed--to energy independence by the year 2020. And we have pushed to help families fill their tanks and heat their homes.

With Katrina, we have continued to fight to make sure the needs of displaced families are placed at the top of the Senate's agenda.

And with the avian flu, we have taken the lead in offering solutions to help prepare America and Americans for the next possible disaster.

You see, Democrats understand these issues are the priorities of the American people. That is why they are priorities for us.

Mr. President, a couple of comments regarding the statement of my friend, the Republican leader. I do not know of anyone who is calling for higher taxes, as he suggests. But I know there are people calling for doing away with the budget resolution and reconciliation that calls for $70 billion more in tax cuts--$70 billion more in tax cuts--that go to the elite of the country.

On top of that, I would suggest that we need to, in effect, get rid of the reconciliation.

The resolution that will be executed by the reconciliation process now before the Congress, that was called by all leaders of Protestant Churches the night we voted on it immoral, is even more so now, the resolution before us, not counting what the House says they are going to do. They are going to cut more, Medicaid by $10 billion, cut Medicaid more, cut medical care to the poorest of the poor in America. They want to increase it by another $5 or $10 billion. That is unconscionable.

My distinguished friend, the majority leader, said the high energy costs are a result of the storm of Katrina. That is simply without fact. Prior to Katrina, oil prices were at $70 a barrel. This is a problem that has been going on for a while. We Democrats are concerned about the priorities of the American people. I suggest that those issues about which my friend spoke are not priorities, certainly not to the people of Nevada. We are focused on addressing America's pressing needs. Republicans are acting as though nothing is wrong, that the storm caused the problems.

Take energy. The price of gas continues to hover around $3. I already told you about Dick and Judy Hill in Searchlight. Millions of other people are in the same boat as Dick and Judy. The administration's own Energy Department predicts families will pay hundreds more to heat their homes this winter.

I met with Governor Doyle of Wisconsin today. He said in Wisconsin to heat your home will cost $300 a month more. Despite these facts, Republicans have refused to help families at the

pump. They have blocked our efforts to help working families heat their homes. Senate Republicans have taken a similar hands-off approach to Iraq and Katrina. We still have done nothing to help the victims of Katrina. We have appropriated money. The majority leader says we should have somebody to make sure the money is spent right. We have begged for legislation to create a czar so this money can be spent wisely. No, no legislation in that regard. They won't allow us to bring it to the floor. The huddled masses we all saw on TV--I read the spokesperson for this administration, Bob Novak, in the Washington Post today, the columnist. He said it looks good in Louisiana, especially New Orleans: We just won't let the people come back. We will have the city about half of what it was before, and that will be great for Louisiana.

That is their response to this catastrophe. The people who needed the help the most have still gotten no help. And preparedness for avian flu, let's see what happens on that.

The best example, though, of the Republicans, the best example is the Defense authorization bill. We haven't done one. At a time of war, we have not done a Defense authorization bill. In that bill we have money for troops, for pay raises so that they will pay taxes, money for health care, for new equipment. Republicans refuse to bring it to the floor. We even agreed to 12 amendments, 12 amendments. The average number of amendments is about 150. We agreed to 12. The only real vote we have had on the Defense authorization bill was an amendment offered by the majority leader on Boy Scouts. Yet we don't have time for the Defense authorization bill. Why won't they let us go forward with the 12 amendments? Because one of the amendments calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to study what went wrong with Katrina. They will not let us do that. They are willing to bring down the whole Defense authorization bill because they know on that vehicle we have a right to offer an amendment. On the things they are bringing up now, the appropriations bills, we can't do it procedurally in the Senate. They do not want an independent, bipartisan commission to take a look at what went wrong with this administration's response to Katrina. You would think the administration would want this. But, no, they are fighting this, just as this President fought the 9/11 Commission.

I would hope that we would get someone like Senator McCain, who was the one who forced the issue on 9/11, to come forward. Let's have this as a bipartisan call for help, for review. From Defense authorization to Katrina relief, the Republican record is clear: Their plans for the future are bad. Instead of helping Americans, Republicans have decided to use the months ahead to make problems worse. For the next 5 weeks, Republicans have decided we should focus on cutting health care funding for the sick and elderly, cutting education for students, cutting housing and food assistance, food stamps. That is part of the budget reconciliation. They want to cut food stamps. Republicans will be arguing that all this is justified in the name of fiscal discipline.

Now we have about 20 people who are running the House. With Congressman DeLay's problems, the Speaker has lost control of the House. We read in papers all over America today that the House is being run by 20 renegades who are telling him what to do. It appears he is listening, and he is going to do what they want. What are some of the things they want to do? Cut Medicaid even more, more tax cuts, forget about the people in Louisiana and Mississippi. The group that now runs the House of Representatives is arguing that all this is justified in the name of fiscal discipline, and these are the same people who have brought us the largest deficits and debt increases in this Nation's history. Remember when President Bush took office, some say there was a surplus over 10 years of $7 trillion. That has all since gone. Now we are $7 trillion in the hole. Some turnaround. These are the same people who voted for trillions in additional tax cuts and hundreds of billions for Iraq without batting an eye about the fact that none of this spending was offset.

The same people would like to move forward on another round of expensive tax breaks for the elite. America can do better than this. It is time for Congress to focus on the needs of the United States. The American people have concerns about a number of issues, and we have an obligation to address them. I know the majority leader would like to proceed with business as usual, but that is not what the American people expect or want. They aren't interested in more tax breaks for the rich or perks for big oil. They want us to come together and focus on real problems. We have 5 weeks before the next recess--that is Thanksgiving--and a host of issues to address, including energy prices, Katrina, preparedness for avian flu, and other disasters.

It is the pledge of the Democrats that we will not allow these issues to be swept under the rug. Democrats will do everything in our power to make sure these issues are addressed before we leave. On energy, we will fight to make sure the Senate takes real steps to help millions of families fill their tanks and heat their homes, like LIHEAP, like price gouging. On avian flu, we will continue to push the Senate to consider our comprehensive legislation so that our country has the tools and resources it needs to focus and confront this threat. With Katrina, we will make sure hundreds of thousands of victims are helped, not forgotten. Displaced families may no longer be front-page news, but that doesn't mean their needs are met. Thousands are still without health care and housing, and we have an obligation to help. Energy costs, preparedness, Katrina relief--top priorities for the American people, and Democrats will fight to make sure they are the top priorities for the Senate as well. America must do better than what we have done.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, let the Record be spread with my admiration for the senior Senator from the State of Louisiana for her tireless work on behalf of the people of Louisiana. I think most all of us would agree that this bill is imperfect, and that is an understatement. But I so appreciate the enthusiasm, the diligence, the hard work of my friend from the State of Louisiana, Senator Landrieu.

Also, once this bill passes--and it will pass--I think the focus then moves to the other side of the Capitol. I hope those people who are listening to this who have connections with the administration would assist us in getting the House to do the right thing: not only pass what we have done here, but hopefully take out this provision which I

think is different than the people of the State of Louisiana thought they would get.

I hope that by the time the House closes business today, we have a better product than what we have here. I also think it is important for me, having expressed my appreciation to the Senator from Louisiana--I acknowledged the senior Senator, but I acknowledge the work of the junior Senator from Louisiana. They have worked together. I understand that. It is a difficult situation in which we find ourselves based on that storm none of us anticipated, at least I did not.

We are going to have to continue to work our way through this. Even though the devastation of the storm has left the mind's eye of most people momentarily--and it is only momentarily--it is so easy to conjure up in our minds the images we saw--we simply need to help those people who have been forced to leave their homes and take their children to other places.

It is a terrible situation, and we need to help. This is a first step in helping, even though, as the Senator from New York so clearly opined, this is not the best solution. It is a solution.

I again want the Record to be spread with the fact that I appreciate the work of the Senators from Louisiana, especially my friend, Ms. Landrieu.

Mr. President, my staff received a telephone call this morning, less than an hour ago, indicating Ambassador Negroponte would not be coming today because the leader or his people indicated he shouldn't come.

We have these very important elections taking place in Iraq on October 15. This is an opportunity for Members to visit with Ambassador Negroponte, who is, if not the expert on what is going on in Iraq, certainly one of the two or three top people in the world to tell Members what is going on there. This briefing is open to all Senators, Democrats and Republicans. There certainly is no reason we should not be able to do that. It is an important oversight responsibility we have.

I hope the distinguished Republican leader has not been part of telling Negroponte and his people not to come up here for that briefing at 3 to 4 o'clock. I had a meeting this morning at 9 o'clock. I invited all Senators to come who were with me. We are going to have good attendance at that meeting. This is not a meeting in any way to do with anything other than find out what is going on. We have a responsibility to find out what is going on. I would like to have the Ambassador come often. I don't know why we can't go ahead with this briefing.

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Republican leader has a statement to make, but just on this subject, on a more personal basis, the Republican leader and I had a number of meetings the last several weeks, certainly the last few days, and this issue has never been raised.

I don't see how we can have too many briefings on what is going on in Iraq. Negroponte has simply not been here. I have the greatest respect for him, but in a briefing--in 2 or 3 weeks, the elections will have been over in Iraq. That is one of the reasons people are losing faith in what is going on in Iraq--because we do not have the information to convey to the people. The administration says just stay the course. We want information.

Negroponte, if he is told by the Republican leader not to come, he is not going to come. It is too bad. It is a perfect day for this. The Jewish holiday is still on. Most Members would have the opportunity to come here. Senator Lieberman and a couple of others would not be able to, but we already have on my side about 20 Senators willing and wanting to come.

I am disappointed this will now have to become a political issue. It shouldn't. I like Negroponte. He is good. He is good for the country. I told the President personally that this was a great choice he made to lead this new intelligence agency.

There is no need to belabor the point other than to say I am terribly disappointed that my Senators--and anyone else on the other side of the aisle--want to come and listen to a presentation prior to the elections and now are going to be unable to have this briefing. That is too bad.

Mr. President, Timothy Wineman has worked for the Senate for 35 years. On September 28, the Senate noted the outstanding service of Tim by adopting S. Res. 258.

He has spent his entire 35 years of Senate service working in the Disbursing Office. That in itself is a commendable feat.

In 1970, Tim began his career as a payroll clerk and was promoted to payroll supervisor 6 years later. He continued to receive promotions and in 1998 became the Senate's financial clerk. Tim's career in the Disbursing Office has been stellar. You could always count on Tim and his staff for topnotch service and to accommodate Members and staff.

Tim and his wife Pat met in high school, got married, and have two children, Matthew and Lory. Matt and Lory have provided Tim and Pat with four grandchildren--two boys and two girls.

Tim plans to spend the first 6 months trying to get his sea legs, enjoying some ``downtime'' with his family and playing a little golf. He and Pat then plan to do some traveling. They want to go to Alaska to see what is happening there.

I salute Tim on his service to the Senate and congratulate him on a job well done. He certainly was part of the Senate family and always will be. I hope he enjoys his retirement.

Mr. President, let me say this. Ambassador Negroponte came to the Senate the last time this past May. Did he talk anything about what was going on with intelligence in Iraq or what was going on in Iraq, period? No. He talked about international terrorism. It is not as if we have been bothering the Ambassador having him come here all the time.

But I am disappointed to have to report to the American people this is what is going on with this administration: You never get to what the issue is. Put it off. Do not talk about it. Stay the course.

In Iraq we have some problems: almost 2,000 dead Americans; 15,000, 16,000 wounded, many of them very badly.

I in no way say this to disparage the managers of this bill, one of whom is a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, Senator Dan Inouye; the other served valiantly in World War II as a pilot. But their job would be much easier if they had a Defense authorization bill prior to coming here to this floor with an appropriations bill. It makes their job, if not impossible, extremely difficult.

Let me explain what I am talking about. You authorize funding in the Congress, and then it goes to the all-important Appropriations Committee, and they determine what of the authorization bill deserves money. That is basically what it amounts to. There has to be some limit to spending, and that is what the Appropriation Committee's job is; to determine whether the money should be spent.

Well, here there is no authorization bill. There is legislation in the authorization bill that deals with retirement pay for the military, with pay raises for the military, with all kinds of programs for the veterans, the National Guard and Reserve. The Appropriations Committee does not have the benefit of that. They will be working, in effect, on last year's law.

I do not know how we could ever--I am sure it has happened sometime in the far distant past. I am sure it has happened. I hope it does not happen in the future that they try to do this jury-rigged system, where you take an appropriations bill without having done an authorization bill.

There are matters in that authorization bill dealing with prisoner abuse. A number of people want to offer amendments. They cannot offer an amendment on the appropriations bill dealing with prisoner abuse.

I see my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, in the Chamber, the mover of the legislation to have a look at what has gone on in Abu Ghraib and other prison facilities the military has. I think the author of the bill, Senator McCain from Arizona, may have a little bit of expertise on prisoner of war abuse. I think he may have a little bit of authenticity when he comes before the Senate and says he wants to take a look at that.

John McCain spent years of his life in a prison camp in Vietnam, not days, weeks, months but years--try 5\1/2\ years--most of it in solitary confinement. So he wants to offer an amendment. He cannot do it unless he gets unanimous consent that he can have a vote on it. He can offer it, but it falls similar to everything else. But I will bet he is going to get unanimous consent because we want him to be able to debate this issue. Who has more standing than the Senator from Arizona to raise this as an issue?

Mr. President, we--I repeat--had a scheduled briefing at 3 o'clock today to find out what is going on in Iraq dealing with intelligence. We have never, ever had a briefing by Negroponte since he has assumed his duties as head of the so-called DNI on April 21 of this year. We have not been briefed by him on Iraq since he assumed his position. So I do not think we are being greedy taking an hour of his time.

Ducking debates about our national defense has become too topical and typical in this country because we are unable to bring matters before this floor. No amendments, no votes, no debates--that is not the way to do a bill in the Senate.

Why didn't we finish the Defense authorization bill the first time? Because we went to gun liability. So this process is unacceptable. We are a nation at war. We have troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We have an opportunity to have an open, honest debate about our national defense.

Our troops and the American people deserve better, and that is not what we are having here. And the distinguished majority leader said he was offended because I asked for a briefing by the Intelligence Director of this country. Offended? I am sorry he is offended.

Of course, I am going to object, but I want to use some of my leader time to talk about the travesty before the Senate at this time.

The Committee on Armed Services completed their work on this bill around the 1st of May, give or take a day or two. For 5 months, we have been trying to get this bill to the floor. For Members to cry crocodile tears that this might take an extra day or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, we need only look at the history of the Senate.

I heard the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. I agree with him. Can anyone imagine the Senate not having time to do the Defense authorization bill? We have men and women, as we speak, being shot at driving down roads and darkened streets in Iraq not knowing if they will make it home--because of a roadside bomb--home to their billet for that evening.

We have almost 2,000 men and women who have been killed in Iraq. We have had 15 to 20,000 wounded. Shouldn't we take a little time to talk about the work done by the duly constituted committee of the Senate, the Committee on Armed Services, take a look at what we need to do on a policy basis?

I am a proud member of the Committee on Appropriations. I have been on this committee since the day I got here. I am proud of it. It is the best committee in the Senate. But the Senate Committee on Appropriations does not run everything around here. Other committees work as hard as we do and have the right to have the matters they work on in committee heard.

We have devoted basically one day to this bill. It was pulled because of gun liability.

Now, in years past, we have worked our way through this. It has not been easy, but we have done it. The 10-year average: in the last 10 years, we have averaged 133 amendments, and we have averaged 14 rollcalls per bill. Why? Because we have had the same managers for a long time. They know how to work through these amendments. There is some give-and-take and some unhappy people, but we respect these two men. We work our way through it. That is the way it has been for 10 years.

The average for hours of debate on this bill is 47\1/4\ hours. We have spent as much as 88 hours. When did we do that? Last year. We spent 88 hours on this bill last year. We had 196 amendments.

The point I make is that the real issue here--my two dear friends, the senior Senator from Virginia and the senior Senator from Michigan, think it is defense matters. It is not. It is Katrina. That is what it is about. We want to have a vote on an independent bipartisan commission to figure out what went wrong down in the gulf coast. We have not been allowed to have a vote on that. All we want is a vote. The only way we can do it is have a bill of substance, not one on an appropriations bill, so we can offer the amendment.

So this is a system that works just fine. The Senate was not set up to be convenient. It was not set up to have short periods of time to work. It was set up to do the business of this country. It has worked pretty well for more than 200 years.

One of the things we have traditionally done in time of war or peace is the Defense authorization bill.

So here it is, I have been to this floor I don't know how many times, but many, many times since last May, saying, Let's do a defense authorization bill. I can remember talking about one of my trips to the hospital and seeing the people in bed and how I felt I owed them something to come here and ask for time to hear their views. And they have views as to what is good and bad in Iraq. I have been here many times. I have added up weeks with the ranking member trying to get some way to the floor. And here at this time of night, as we are winding things down, we get a unanimous consent request that everyone knows is going to be objected to.

The Senator from West Virginia pretty well knows how to express himself. He may come from coal-mining families. He may have been an orphan. But he knows how to talk. He explained in very good detail why we cannot have the Senate run similar to the House of Representatives.

I want the record to reflect that the Defense authorization bill should have been debated a long time ago. We are ready to debate it any time. We are willing to enter into time agreements on amendments, but to come here tonight and say we are going to do 12 amendments, does anybody object--what I should have done is not object and have that side of the aisle watch them go to the ceiling. They would not like it either.

I am standing here and saying, I not only object, I object 1,000 times, until we get back to being Senators and doing things the way we have done.

The number of amendments, 196 last year. We spent 16 days on it; in 2003, 5 days, 75 amendments; back in 1997, 8 days, 120 amendments, 44 hours. Couldn't we spend a little bit of time on this bill?

The answer is, no, we are going to do the appropriations bill.

I know appropriations. As I have said, I have been on the committee for a long time. But as much as I love my committee assignment--it is the only committee I have anymore; I gave them all up with this job, but I love the Committee on Appropriations. I repeat, there are other committees that are as important as the Committee on Appropriations. The problem is, we have strict rules of how appropriations bills are handled, for obvious reasons.

I want the record to reflect I do my best, and sometimes that is not good enough, to be a partner with my friend, the majority leader. I don't want this statement I make to reflect on him personally. I am talking about the process that comes about as a result of him being a leader. I don't like the process. I think we could have done it better. I think we should have done this bill. I could be wrong, but I say to my chair and my distinguished friend, I think the only amendment we have had in this is one dealing with Boy Scouts--four others--and that was offered by the distinguished majority leader. I know it is well- intentioned, but I don't think it had much to do with the Defense authorization bill.

Let's let the record reflect I object. I object. I object.

I have a unanimous consent request that I should have made, that we resume consideration of Defense authorization upon disposition of the Defense appropriations bill.

Reserving the right to object, I want the record spread with my appreciation to the Senators from Louisiana for allowing the Senate to move forward. We were going to work through the night and early in the morning to come up with something that would help satisfy their tremendous needs. I appreciate their cooperation so we do not have to be here at 1 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. President, four years after 9/11, the government was supposed to be prepared for a crisis like Hurricane Katrina. Yet as we all saw, the government was not. We owe it to the American people to do better in the future.

Once again, the experts are warning us. This time, it's not about levees or terrorists. It's about another pandemic flu.

According to the experts, another pandemic flu is not a matter of if but a question of when. As Dr. Julie Gerberding of the Centers for Disease Control put it: ``. . . many influenza experts, including those at CDC, consider the threat of a serious influenza pandemic to the United States to be high. Although the timing and impact of an influenza pandemic is unpredictable, the occurrence is inevitable and potentially devastating.''

The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina would pale in comparison to the potential consequences of a global pandemic. A respected U.S. health expert has concluded that 1.7 million Americans would die in the first year alone of an outbreak. A pandemic flu outbreak in the Untied States today could cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars due to death, lost productivity and disruptions to commerce and society.

Perhaps the only thing more troubling than contemplating the possible consequences of an avian flu pandemic is recognizing that neither this Nation nor the world are prepared to deal with it.

Our National Pandemic Plan is still in draft stages. We lack the capacity to rapidly manufacture vaccines in mass

quantities. We barely have enough antiviral medication for 2 percent of our population. Our health care infrastructure is not prepared to handle a pandemic. And the medical community, businesses, and general public need to be better prepared.

These are just a few ways we are not as prepared as we should be.

America can do better. An avian flu pandemic may be inevitable, but the devastating consequences are not. We need to heed the warnings and take action immediately.

Last week, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment offered by Senators Harkin, Obama, Kennedy, Durbin and me that will begin to provide the resources necessary to protect Americans against this looming threat.

Today, I am proud to introduce, along with Senators Obama, Bayh, Kennedy, Harkin and Durbin, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act of 2005. This legislation builds on our commitment to protecting Americans by preparing for the possibility of a pandemic.

Specifically, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will ensure that we have a national plan to address a flu pandemic. Under our bill, a new Director of Pandemic Preparedness and Response within the Executive Office of the President will be responsible for finalizing and carrying out the National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan. There should be no question about who is in charge of preparing our nation for this looming threat. This new position will also ensure that, in the event of a pandemic, we will have a single senior official whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the federal government's response and ensure coordination between local governments and the private sector. This is serious responsibility, and our bill will ensure that the new Director is held accountable for preparing and protecting Americans against the threat of a pandemic.

Our bill will improve surveillance and international partnerships so we may detect the emergence of a flu strain with pandemic potential immediately. Specifically, our bill establishes and implements a comprehensive diplomatic strategy targeted at nations most at risk for an epidemic of avian influenza. It also provides assistance for international surveillance and medical care, and creates an International Fund to support pre-pandemic influenza control and relief activities in countries affected by avian influenza.

Domestic surveillance efforts will also be bolstered by our legislation. Our bill improves state surveillance capacity, and expands efforts by the Department of Agriculture to prevent pandemic avian influenza.

The Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will improve our capacity to develop, produce and distribute a vaccine that will be effective against a pandemic flu. It will expand research at the National Institutes of Health so we may develop more efficient methods of producing vaccines. Our bill would enhance our vaccine production capacity by creating a guaranteed market for seasonal flu vaccine through a federal buyback program for a portion of unsold doses. And among other provisions, our bill will improve access to vaccinations during a pandemic by enhancing annual flu vaccination coverage for uninsured and underinsured adults and children.

Our legislation will ensure that we have enough antivirals, vaccines and other essential medications and supplies in the Strategic National Stockpile. Specifically, our bill requires that we procure enough antiviral medication to cover a minimum of 50 percent of the population for the Strategic National Stockpile. This legislation will protect Americans from the price-gouging of medications during a pandemic, and establishes a mass tracking and distribution system for vaccines and antiviral medications so we can direct medications and vaccines to where they are needed the most.

The Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will also improve our surge capacity so that 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. Our bill will also ensure that public education and awareness campaigns targeted to businesses, health care providers and the American public related to pandemic preparedness are conducted.

And finally, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will ensure that adequate resources are available to address this looming threat.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation so we may ensure that we do everything possible to prepare and protect Americans from the threat of a global flu pandemic.

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

Mr. President, four years after 9/11, the government was supposed to be prepared for a crisis like Hurricane Katrina. Yet as we all saw, the government was not. We owe it to the American people to do better in the future.

Once again, the experts are warning us. This time, it's not about levees or terrorists. It's about another pandemic flu.

According to the experts, another pandemic flu is not a matter of if but a question of when. As Dr. Julie Gerberding of the Centers for Disease Control put it: ``. . . many influenza experts, including those at CDC, consider the threat of a serious influenza pandemic to the United States to be high. Although the timing and impact of an influenza pandemic is unpredictable, the occurrence is inevitable and potentially devastating.''

The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina would pale in comparison to the potential consequences of a global pandemic. A respected U.S. health expert has concluded that 1.7 million Americans would die in the first year alone of an outbreak. A pandemic flu outbreak in the Untied States today could cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars due to death, lost productivity and disruptions to commerce and society.

Perhaps the only thing more troubling than contemplating the possible consequences of an avian flu pandemic is recognizing that neither this Nation nor the world are prepared to deal with it.

Our National Pandemic Plan is still in draft stages. We lack the capacity to rapidly manufacture vaccines in mass

quantities. We barely have enough antiviral medication for 2 percent of our population. Our health care infrastructure is not prepared to handle a pandemic. And the medical community, businesses, and general public need to be better prepared.

These are just a few ways we are not as prepared as we should be.

America can do better. An avian flu pandemic may be inevitable, but the devastating consequences are not. We need to heed the warnings and take action immediately.

Last week, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment offered by Senators Harkin, Obama, Kennedy, Durbin and me that will begin to provide the resources necessary to protect Americans against this looming threat.

Today, I am proud to introduce, along with Senators Obama, Bayh, Kennedy, Harkin and Durbin, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act of 2005. This legislation builds on our commitment to protecting Americans by preparing for the possibility of a pandemic.

Specifically, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will ensure that we have a national plan to address a flu pandemic. Under our bill, a new Director of Pandemic Preparedness and Response within the Executive Office of the President will be responsible for finalizing and carrying out the National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan. There should be no question about who is in charge of preparing our nation for this looming threat. This new position will also ensure that, in the event of a pandemic, we will have a single senior official whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the federal government's response and ensure coordination between local governments and the private sector. This is serious responsibility, and our bill will ensure that the new Director is held accountable for preparing and protecting Americans against the threat of a pandemic.

Our bill will improve surveillance and international partnerships so we may detect the emergence of a flu strain with pandemic potential immediately. Specifically, our bill establishes and implements a comprehensive diplomatic strategy targeted at nations most at risk for an epidemic of avian influenza. It also provides assistance for international surveillance and medical care, and creates an International Fund to support pre-pandemic influenza control and relief activities in countries affected by avian influenza.

Domestic surveillance efforts will also be bolstered by our legislation. Our bill improves state surveillance capacity, and expands efforts by the Department of Agriculture to prevent pandemic avian influenza.

The Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will improve our capacity to develop, produce and distribute a vaccine that will be effective against a pandemic flu. It will expand research at the National Institutes of Health so we may develop more efficient methods of producing vaccines. Our bill would enhance our vaccine production capacity by creating a guaranteed market for seasonal flu vaccine through a federal buyback program for a portion of unsold doses. And among other provisions, our bill will improve access to vaccinations during a pandemic by enhancing annual flu vaccination coverage for uninsured and underinsured adults and children.

Our legislation will ensure that we have enough antivirals, vaccines and other essential medications and supplies in the Strategic National Stockpile. Specifically, our bill requires that we procure enough antiviral medication to cover a minimum of 50 percent of the population for the Strategic National Stockpile. This legislation will protect Americans from the price-gouging of medications during a pandemic, and establishes a mass tracking and distribution system for vaccines and antiviral medications so we can direct medications and vaccines to where they are needed the most.

The Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will also improve our surge capacity so that 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. Our bill will also ensure that public education and awareness campaigns targeted to businesses, health care providers and the American public related to pandemic preparedness are conducted.

And finally, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act will ensure that adequate resources are available to address this looming threat.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation so we may ensure that we do everything possible to prepare and protect Americans from the threat of a global flu pandemic.

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

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

Yesterday, President Bush announced that he will nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I congratulate Ms. Miers on this high honor, and I pledge that Senate Democrats will work in good faith to ensure a dignified and thorough confirmation process. It is now well known that I suggested to the President that Harriet Miers would be worthy of the President's consideration. The President has chosen her as a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I am grateful that the President took account of my views.

Over the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about Harriet Miers. The Judiciary Committee will hold comprehensive hearings. I do not intend to make up my mind about whether to support or oppose confirmation of this nominee until after the committee hearings, and I hope everyone in the Senate will follow that. I think the hearings that were held previously in the Roberts nomination were dignified. I thought that Senator Specter and Leahy did a remarkably good job. I am confident that they will do it in this matter, also.

The reason that we must proceed in the manner that we did in the Roberts hearing is that the Supreme Court is the final guardian of the rights and liberties of all Americans. With so much at stake, we should not rush to judgment about this or any other nominee.

But even at this early stage of the confirmation process, I will say that I am impressed by what I know about Harriet Miers. She overcame difficult family circumstances to become the managing partner of a successful 400-lawyer Dallas law firm. That is a big law firm. She was the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and then the first woman President of the Texas State bar association.

In those roles, she advocated the importance of racial and gender diversity in the legal profession and was a strong supporter of legal services for the poor. Ms. Miers has not been a judge, but I regard that as a strength of her nomination, not a weakness. In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a Justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. A nominee with relevant nonjudicial experience would bring a different and a useful perspective to the Court. The nomination of Harriet Miers bears similarity to the nomination of Lewis Powell. At the time he was nominated by President Nixon in 1971, Powell had never been a judge. He had been a pillar of the Richmond, VA, bar just as Ms. Miers was a pillar of the Dallas, TX, bar. And he served as President of the American Bar Association just as Ms. Miers served as President of the Dallas and Texas bar associations.

Mr. President, I have been told that about 45 percent of all Justices who served on the Supreme Court have had no judicial experience before they were chosen by a President. I think that speaks volumes about the need to diversify the Supreme Court.

I had lunch at the Supreme Court 6 weeks ago or thereabouts--I do not recall exactly when--and at the little table at which I was seated were three Supreme Court Justices. I will not mention their names, other than to say one was a woman and two were men. So it had to either be Justice Ginsburg or Sandra Day O'Connor, one of them. And they were very clear in saying that they agreed that there should be strong consideration given to someone who had not been a judge. I have been told that Byron White, who was selected by President Kennedy, had no judicial experience. He had a qualification I am not sure we are going to find in many lawyers out there, but he was an All-American football player. If you look at the qualifications of appellate judges, I think that is important, but remember these people sit in their offices usually alone writing opinions. Three of my sons have clerked for Federal judges. Those jobs are very lonely and very confining. They don't see much of the real world, in my opinion. So I would welcome a return to the days when distinguished practicing lawyers and bar leaders are recognized as suitable candidates for high judicial office.

In recent years, Supreme Court Justices have been chosen exclusively from the ranks of Federal courts of appeal. The judges on the courts of appeal are often very smart, well credentialed, but the life of a Federal appeals judge, as I have indicated, is insular and isolated. They know the law in an abstract way but don't appreciate the impact of the law on the lives of real people.

I asked Harriet Miers in one of the first conversations I had with her, ``Have you ever tried a case?'' She was a trial lawyer. That is what she did. She is a little different kind of trial lawyer than I was. She was a corporate lawyer and tried cases involving corporate problems. But she stated to me in a conversation that I had with her that she did divorce work.

I believe that is so important, that in the future we try to make our Presidents aware that the Supreme Court does not have to have all appellate judges to go into their ranks. Federal judges are often wise, but there is a different kind of wisdom that comes from the day-to-day practice of law where they talk to clients, where they pick juries, where they argue cases to a jury, and where they talk to clients about fees they are going to charge. They participate in the community doing work for the poor.

In any event, there is certainly room for both kinds of judicial nominees on the Supreme Court--those with judicial experience and those without judicial experience. I hope in the years to come that we look favorably upon both--not just someone with appellate experience.

One thing we certainly need on the Supreme Court is independent thinking. Ms. Miers has been George Bush's lawyer for more than a decade. He is her friend. I have no problem at all with her being his friend. I think that speaks well of both of them--that they have confidence in each other, so to speak. But she needs to demonstrate to the Senate that she will put those close ties aside when necessary and stand in judgment of a President who has elevated her to this Court.

In the press conference today, just a few hours ago, President Bush said, ``Harriet Miers knows the kind of judge I am looking for.'' But if she is confirmed, I say Ms. Miers must become the kind of judge the American people are looking for--a judge committed to fundamental rights and freedom.

I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's process which will help the American people learn more about this nominee and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the historic Supreme Court. But I remind the Senate that the nomination of Harriet Miers will not reach the floor for some time, and we are going to cooperate fully, as I have indicated, as we did with Judge Roberts. The Democrats want the process to move forward expeditiously but fairly.

After we get back from the week-long recess that will start this Friday, we will have 5 weeks. We have a lot of things to do during that 5-week period. We have many pressing pieces of legislation that need to be dealt with in this period of time.

After the failures of Katrina--I should not say the failures of Katrina, Katrina did pretty well on its own as a storm, but what happened afterward was failure. And I must say that we now have a string of scandals hovering over the Capitol. It is more important than ever that we get to work on all the many things we have to do. The American people are tired of business as usual in Washington and want us to come together to get things done. They want a change. They want reform. They want a new direction. And that is what Democrats will be looking for in the months ahead.

We believe it is time for all of us to unite because America can do better.

Together, we can reform the culture of corruption and cronyism that is spreading throughout the Nation's Capitol, a culture that led to Michael Brown at FEMA and the failure of Katrina and the Republican scandals we are now reading about.

Together, we can come together to help working families who are being pinched at the gas pump. In the short term we can investigate price gouging, and in the long run we can move our country closer to energy independence by the year 2020.

Together, we can meet our obligation to keep America strong and secure. We can make a real commitment to finding out what went wrong during Katrina and fixing it. And we can pass the Department of Defense authorization bill to protect our fighting men and women in uniform representing our great country. We can insist that the President provide our troops with a clear strategy and paths for success in Iraq. Yesterday I spoke to a marine major who spent 8 months in Iraq in combat. The cities he worked to clear of terrorists and insurgents are not clear anymore.

In addition to that--a clear path for success in Iraq that the President must give us because certainly the mission has not been accomplished--we also have to confront the health care crisis--and it is a crisis. We have to confront it by bringing down costs and helping over 40 million uninsured Americans get the care they need.

Together, we can show the American people that we understand our budget priorities must change following the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history and that we understand it is not time to cut Medicaid, a program that was set up years ago to protect the poorest of the poor with their medical problems.

We can't cut education. Why would we do that? So the administration can spend more on tax breaks for multi- interests and multimillionaires? In calling for spending cuts, the President talked like a fiscal conservative, but in his 5 years in office, he has spent like a fiscal wreck. While our deficits were mounting, he had no problem spending trillions of dollars on tax breaks for

the few. But now, in the wake of this disaster, when the Federal Government begins to help rebuild the lives of Americans who have lost everything, he says he is interested in fiscal discipline. Yet whose benefits would he cut?

Just weeks after the economic and social divide in our country had been ripped open for all to see, he is proposing deep cuts in the crucial services that help American families get ahead. Around the gulf coast, some of America's most neediest families suffered the most. Why? Simply because they were poor. Now, while continuing to push for tax breaks for special interests, financed with more debt, the President wants Katrina's survivors and other vulnerable Americans to pay for reconstruction also. America can do better. We must do better. And Democrats are committed to leading the way.

There is another area where we will not give up the fight--helping Katrina victims. Today, the President made a point of mentioning how he wants to pay for ``rebuilding the gulf,'' but let us not forget that we still have to do the work that I call rebuilding lives.

This morning, the President was also asked about relief efforts and whether families are getting what they need. He said things are going ``pretty good.'' But anyone who has seen the news would question that is the case.

On Sunday, newspapers all over the country had different titles. But the Washington Post ran an article titled, ``Housing Promises Made to Evacuees Have Fallen Short.'' That is an understatement. This article talks about tens of thousands of evacuees still living in hotel rooms, if they are lucky, and facing the possibility of eviction in less than 2 weeks. That is not pretty good.

Another story over the weekend explained that FEMA is stopping its cash assistance program for hurricane survivors. When that happens, many victims will have only unemployment insurance to turn to, if they are lucky. Those who didn't have a job when Katrina hit won't be eligible for unemployment, and those who are eligible will find their benefits grossly inadequate.

Is this just a term I am using, ``grossly inadequate''? Let us look at it. For example, a formerly self-employed person in Mississippi can expect to receive $86 a week to meet his or her family's needs. That is not ``pretty good.'' If you lost your home, your job, and all your possessions, would you be feeling ``pretty good'' about $86 a week? I don't think so. America can do better than that.

For weeks, Democrats have been trying to get victims the relief they need. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not shared our sense of urgency.

Days after the storm, Democrats proposed a plan for comprehensive emergency relief. It was introduced as S. 1637, the Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005. This legislative package was designed to get families assistance in four areas: housing, health care, education, and financial relief. Here it is more than a month later while Senators Grassley and Baucus, a Democrat and a Republican, chairman and ranking member of our Finance Committee, have been working hard. This Republican Senate has made virtually no progress. In fact, most of the Senate's time has been taken up by legislation that has little or no help for the victims. Last spring, Republicans in Congress and the President moved mountains in the middle of the night to intervene in one Florida family's tragedy. But today, when thousands of displaced families are struggling to survive, Republicans are sitting on their hands.

America can do better. We can start tomorrow by finally addressing the needs of Katrina's victims in a comprehensive manner.

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