Floor Statements

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the two managers of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman and ranking member. I understand why there is a little distrust on both sides because of all the stuff we have gone through on judges. They have done good work, and there is no reason that anyone should be concerned about the work of the Judiciary Committee.

The waivers that have been made by the Senators as to the 1-week layover and 2-hour meeting time for the committee to meet is something to show we are trying to move forward on this in good faith.

I have no doubt, with the work of these two men, that we will be able to work our way through any hurdles we have. We all know the date the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, is shooting for is to make sure Judge Roberts is seated by October 3. We want to make sure that everyone understands that there are no games being played. Nobody is trying to do anything untoward. We are going to do our very best to work toward that date.

The entire Democratic caucus has the utmost faith in our leader, Senator Leahy. The Judiciary Committee has been, for 7 months, his. He has done extremely good work, as he has always done. I have been on this floor many times when I served in different capacities where I would talk about the Senator from Vermont in the most positive terms.

I feel the same way about the Senator from Pennsylvania. The Senate is fortunate to have the Senator from Pennsylvania leading the Senate in this most complicated, difficult committee, with the most vexatious issues, it seems, all the times.

I have spent quite a bit of time, in the last few days, with them and the majority leader and Senator McConnell. It has been worthwhile. This is going to move forward.

As the Senator from Vermont has stated, materials are needed. We understand the power of a committee chairman in this instance. He has tremendous power. We don't take anything away from the power he has. He can set the markup whenever he wants, within reason. He can call for votes when he wants. But he has, in the past, been very fair, and he will continue to be. I have no doubt that is the case.

I also want the record to reflect that I did not get the floor before the majority leader; he was not here. That is why I grabbed the floor before someone else did. I certainly would not try to speak before the majority leader. Protocol would say that isn't the case. The majority leader was not here, and I did not want somebody else to grab the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.J. Res. 59, a joint resolution that expresses the sense of Congress with respect to the women suffragists who fought for and won the right of women to vote in the United States. It is my privilegte to join Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, my colleague and fellow Nevadan, in the effort to honor and celebrate their hard-won achievements.

Our Nation was founded on the principle of ``consent of the governed.'' Yet for the greater part of America's history, women were denied the fundamental right to participate in our democracy through the power of the vote. Today, it would be unthinkable and unconscionable to hold elections where not every vote properly cast is counted. Eighty-five years ago--perhaps within the lifespan of our mothers or grandmothers--this was not the case.

Next month we will observe the 85th anniversary of the 19th amendment, which finally secured women's right to vote in the United States. The 19th amendment does not just represent voting rights. It also represents a profound victory for women suffragists long seeking to be affirmed as equal partners in America's civic, cultural, and social affairs. But as victories with enduring and far-reaching consequences tend to, this one required the suffragists to first overcome numerous setbacks.

In 1866, Elizabeth Cady Stanton ran for Congress to test women's constitutional right to hold public office--and received only 24 of 12,000 votes cast. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony registered to vote in Rochester, New York, and cast a ballot--and subsequently was arrested. Two years later, the Supreme Court considered whether citizenship itself conferred voting rights and ruled that it does not for women. During the several years leading up to 1920, many suffragists, including Alice Paul, exercised their right to engage in civil discourse through protest and were thrown in jail for doing so.

These names may not sound familiar to everyone. Nor are these events the full extent of the challenges that the women suffragists faced as they fought for the ratification of the 19th amendment. The joint resolution would let us remember them and give them their due tribute.

The women suffragists commended in this resolution were instrumental not

just in securing women's right to vote. By winning for women the power of the ballot, they moved countless others to strengthen women's voice in charting the course of the nation. By asserting women's equality in the mechanism that sustains our democracy, they helped future generations fight for equality in all aspects of American life. By opening the voting booths, they spurred on the work to open our institutions of higher education, our athletic fields, and our boardrooms. And by having persisted in their convictions, they inspire young women today, like Hannah Low and Destiny Carroll of Henderson, Nevada, to continue the effort to ensure that their triumphs will not be forgotten.

On behalf of Hannah and Destiny, as well as my friend Congresswoman Berkley, each person a credit to Nevada, I am pleased to support the passage of this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act that Senator Akaka and I are introducing today. We are pleased that Congressman Honda, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, is introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Native American Caucus.

My first elected position was on the board of trustees of the largest public hospital in Southern Nevada--a hospital known today as University Medical Center (UMC) of Southern Nevada.

Since my time on the hospital board, Nevada has become not just one of the fastest growing states in the nation, but one of the most diverse. The Asian and Hispanic populations have grown by over 200 percent, and the African-American population in Nevada has increased by 91 percent. As a result, health care providers are struggling to meet the needs of Nevada's diverse population.

In one example, a woman arrived at a Las Vegas emergency room hemorrhaging. Doctors determined that she needed a hysterectomy, but she did not speak English. Her young son had to interpret, but was embarrassed to explain the diagnosis, so instead he told his mother she had a tumor in her stomach.

In areas with rapidly growing diverse populations, miscommunications like this one are all too common.

In another incident, a woman at a lab in Las Vegas was diagnosed with breast cancer, but lab employees couldn't find anyone to explain her test results to her in Spanish.

Unfortunately, a shortage of interpreters and translated material is just one problem that contributes to the high rate of health disparities among racial and ethnic groups.

According to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control, African-Americans are 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease and cancer than whites, and 40 percent more likely to die from stroke.

Yet, despite a substantial need for health care, minority groups are less likely to have health insurance and are less likely to receive appropriate care.

If we do nothing, the health care divide will only get worse. Since 2000, millions more Americans are without health insurance and health care cost have skyrocketed. About 33 percent of Hispanics, 19 percent of African Americans and 19 percent of Asians are uninsured.

In just one year--from 2002 to 2003--the number of Hispanics without health insurance increased by one million people.

And for the first time in four decades, infant mortality rates in this nation have increased. The infant mortality rate for African Americans is more than twice as high than for whites; and is 70 percent higher for American Indian and Alaska Native infants.

The legislation we are introducing today will help to: expand the health care safety net, diversify the health care work force, combat diseases that disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, emphasize prevention and behavioral health, promote the collection and dissemination of data and enhance medical research, and provide interpreters and translation services in the delivery of health care.

Everyone deserves equal treatment in health care. I hope that all of my colleagues will support the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act so we may begin to close the health care divide.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act that Senator Akaka and I are introducing today. We are pleased that Congressman Honda, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, is introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Native American Caucus.

My first elected position was on the board of trustees of the largest public hospital in Southern Nevada--a hospital known today as University Medical Center (UMC) of Southern Nevada.

Since my time on the hospital board, Nevada has become not just one of the fastest growing states in the nation, but one of the most diverse. The Asian and Hispanic populations have grown by over 200 percent, and the African-American population in Nevada has increased by 91 percent. As a result, health care providers are struggling to meet the needs of Nevada's diverse population.

In one example, a woman arrived at a Las Vegas emergency room hemorrhaging. Doctors determined that she needed a hysterectomy, but she did not speak English. Her young son had to interpret, but was embarrassed to explain the diagnosis, so instead he told his mother she had a tumor in her stomach.

In areas with rapidly growing diverse populations, miscommunications like this one are all too common.

In another incident, a woman at a lab in Las Vegas was diagnosed with breast cancer, but lab employees couldn't find anyone to explain her test results to her in Spanish.

Unfortunately, a shortage of interpreters and translated material is just one problem that contributes to the high rate of health disparities among racial and ethnic groups.

According to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control, African-Americans are 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease and cancer than whites, and 40 percent more likely to die from stroke.

Yet, despite a substantial need for health care, minority groups are less likely to have health insurance and are less likely to receive appropriate care.

If we do nothing, the health care divide will only get worse. Since 2000, millions more Americans are without health insurance and health care cost have skyrocketed. About 33 percent of Hispanics, 19 percent of African Americans and 19 percent of Asians are uninsured.

In just one year--from 2002 to 2003--the number of Hispanics without health insurance increased by one million people.

And for the first time in four decades, infant mortality rates in this nation have increased. The infant mortality rate for African Americans is more than twice as high than for whites; and is 70 percent higher for American Indian and Alaska Native infants.

The legislation we are introducing today will help to: expand the health care safety net, diversify the health care work force, combat diseases that disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, emphasize prevention and behavioral health, promote the collection and dissemination of data and enhance medical research, and provide interpreters and translation services in the delivery of health care.

Everyone deserves equal treatment in health care. I hope that all of my colleagues will support the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act so we may begin to close the health care divide.

Mr. President, this Saturday marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in Independence, MO. There are currently 87 million people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or both, yet we often talk about these two programs with inhuman terms and confusing acronyms. It is easy to forget that Medicare and Medicaid have human faces too.

Pauline Goldmann in Las Vegas is one of those faces. Two months ago, Pauline suffered a collapse related to diabetes. She is back at home now, thanks to Medicare's coverage of services she needed in a rehabilitation hospital. Without coverage for those services, she would have had to go to a nursing home. Eventually, she would have become eligible for Medicaid, and the Government would have picked up the tab for that costly institutionalization. More importantly, Pauline would have lost her independence and the ability to live in her home and community.

She is just one of the 42 million people currently served by Medicare. Before Medicare, about one-half of seniors could afford private health insurance. Now it is a program that they know and trust. Without it, many seniors and people with disabilities would have no health coverage at all. That this is practically inconceivable now is a testament to Medicare's success.

Over the years, Medicaid has helped ensure that children in poverty have access to the health care services they need. It has made sure that pregnant women get the prenatal care we know is so important for healthy babies. It has helped our senior citizens to pay for the costs Medicare doesn't cover. And it has assisted people with disabilities as they struggle to afford the services they need.

In the past 40 years, we have made changes to these programs. For example, we have expanded Medicare to cover people with disabilities and end-stage renal disease in 1972. In 1997, we created the successful Children's Health Insurance Program. And a new Medicare drug program will begin in 2006.

For years, we worked to add drug coverage to Medicare, but I am afraid Republican leaders fell short in 2003 when they created this new benefit. I am very concerned as we enter this time of uncertainty in the drug benefit's implementation. I hope we will have the opportunity to revisit some of the problematic aspects of that legislation so we can make it less confusing and give seniors and people with disabilities the drug benefit they deserve.

These are also uncertain times for Medicaid. Republican leaders have demanded cuts to that vital program. To be sure, the cost of Medicaid is growing, and our states struggle with their budgets as a result. But Medicaid's problems are the same 5 problems that exist in our health care system as a whole. Medicaid's rolls grow as more people become uninsured, and Medicaid faces the same unchecked health care cost increases we all do. Moreover, Medicaid fills in Medicare's gaps, covering long-term care and prescription

drugs for people eligible for both programs. Rather than alleviating those drug costs, the new drug benefit continues this cost-shift to the States.

As our Republican counterparts look at ways to derive savings from Medicaid, we call on them to eliminate waste or other problems in the program, but also to redirect those savings to Medicaid. We also implore them to reject increases in cost-sharing for beneficiaries or allowances for changes to Medicaid's benefit package. Most of all, we ask them to keep in mind the faces of people covered by Medicaid.

Neither Medicare nor Medicaid could perform their missions without the providers who participate in the programs. I thank these individuals and institutions for the services they provide every day. Their commitment to the health of our citizens is tremendous, and in exchange, we must ensure that they are fairly treated by our public programs.

Today, I join my colleagues in submitting resolutions commemorating this important anniversary. Democrats created these two great programs in 1965. They are two of our proudest achievements. I look forward to many future birthday celebrations as these programs continue to address the basic health care needs of America's seniors, children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.

Mr. President, last week, after negotiations that went late into the night and early morning, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved S. 1389, a bipartisan, compromise bill to build on the PATRIOT Act.

This bill, entitled the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, is not perfect. Like all compromises, it includes provisions that are not supported by everyone in this body. However, Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee came together in a spirit of cooperation and compromise to agree on this bill, and I strongly support it.

I am very pleased that we have also been able to bring Republicans and Democrats together in the full Senate to pass this bill by unanimous consent. Given the divisions we have seen over this legislation in the years since it was passed, I believe it is very important for our Nation and for the American people that we have been able to compromise and to come together in a spirit of bipartisanship to pass this legislation unanimously.

This bill preserves the vital tools the Government needs to protect our national security. At the same time, it puts in place some important checks on the expanded authorities granted the government by the original PATRIOT Act.

Although Members of both parties may feel there are additional improvements that can be made to this bill, Senate Democrats have agreed to join our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take up and pass the compromise legislation approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee with no amendments in order.

The President and other officials in his administration have repeatedly called upon Congress to renew the PATRIOT Act as quickly as possible. Senate Democrats agree with the President that we should reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and do so quickly. We

are pleased to be able to pass this bill today.

I only hope the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation we have witnessed to this point continues throughout the rest of the legislative process. The next step in this process is a conference with the House. The Senate is passing a very good bill, and I urge Senate conferees--Democratic and Republican--to do everything they can to defend its provisions in the conference report. If they do so, I am confident the bipartisanship and cooperation we see today will continue and we will get a conference report that will be strongly supported by Members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, we, at least the Democrats, on Tuesday will have a regular party caucus. So since I did not hear that, will we be recessing on Tuesday from 12:30 to 2:15?

Mr. President, I know the hour is late. I will be as quick as possible on this very important issue.

Four months ago the Senate Finance Committee reported S. 667, the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act, known as the PRIDE Act. This would reauthorize temporary assistance for needy families, which was due for reauthorization in 2002. It is a bipartisan bill and received virtually unanimous support in the committee, a compromise that demonstrates how things can work.

The PRIDE Act contains increased funding to help parents cover the costs of childcare, among other things, so that they can join the workforce. It contains critical transitional medical assistance so that parents who work do not immediately lose their health care benefits in the transition to work. In short, it will help tens of thousands of Americans who are simply trying to do the right thing by their families and their communities.

That is why our Governors and State legislatures, both Democrats and Republicans, have asked that we reauthorize the program and pass the PRIDE Act at the earliest possible date.

Unfortunately, instead of helping working families and listening to our Governors and legislatures by immediately taking up this important bipartisan legislation, Republicans have spent months fighting among themselves, delaying its consideration. In the meantime, these working families that I have described in our States have had to live with uncertainty about whether this program will continue and, if so, in what form and at what cost.

While we have been forced to wait several months for the majority to work out their intraparty squabbles, Congress has had to pass a series of stop-gap extensions to keep the program going. Just before the last recess we passed what was the tenth extension of this program. However, that extension will expire at the end of September if we do not act on permanent legislation before then.

Even more threatening, some of our Republican colleagues are interested in including TANF in reconciliation, which will mean serious cuts, not increases, in many of the important programs contained in the bipartisan legislation reported by the Finance Committee.

I commend Senators Baucus and Grassley, the chairman and ranking member of that committee, for their efforts in behalf of this legislation and the American people. The chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee have been working together for months in an effort to bring the committee-reported bill to the floor, but we must consider this measure soon. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that no later than the close of business on September 9, the Senate begin consideration of Calendar No. 60, S. 667, the PRIDE Act, and that all amendments be relevant to the subject matter of the bill without the need for textual reference; and that the bill be completed before the Senate considers any reconciliation bill.

Mr. President, prior to our leaving the body for the day and for a number of weeks, I want to express my appreciation for the pleasure it has been to work with the leader. I have enjoyed it. We have differences every day about what Members want to do in this body. We have tried, and I think we have accomplished civility. I have never to my knowledge raised my voice to the majority leader, nor has he raised his voice to me. We have distinct differences on occasion, but we have been able to work through those. I hope our ability to work together, in spite of the differences of the two political parties, has been good for the country.

We have spent time talking about what we need to do and how we are going to accomplish that. We have sometimes even disagreements on that. But the disagreements are not in any way unpleasant.

On behalf of the Democratic Senators, I express my appreciation for your always being able and willing to respond to my phone calls quickly. Mr. President, I say through you to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, he is always a gentleman, for which I am very grateful.

Mr. President, prior to the distinguished majority leader leaving the floor, I have a short statement I would like him to listen to. Then I will propound a unanimous consent request.

Two months ago, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Two months in legislative time may not seem like a lot of time. But in the lives of people who are sick or who have loved ones who are sick, it can be an eternity. The bill that passed the House was a rare victory of bipartisanship. I sincerely hoped, after having read that it had passed, that we would embrace the same spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate and pass this legislation that offers hope to millions of Americans who suffer from deadly disease, and their families.

In May, I spoke with my friend, the distinguished majority leader, about the need to take up this crucial legislation as soon as possible. I was assured that Senator Frist would work with Members of both sides of the aisle so that we could consider the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act before we broke for our August recess.

The month of July, of course, is almost over. We hope to be able to complete things in the next day or two or three. But this legislation, in the lives of the people I mentioned, can't go on forever. We believe this legislation could produce and will produce stunning medical breakthroughs to some of the dread diseases that affect mankind.

What we have been asking is simple. We propose that the Senate take up two bills: the stem cell bill, which is H.R. 810, and a blood cord bill, which is S. 1317, just like the House bill. Instead, we have heard that we are going to consider six bills, and now we read seven bills. We haven't seen the language of all seven.

It doesn't have to be that complicated, I don't think. The House dealt with the issue very simply, and we should do the same.

A bipartisan majority supported the stem cell bill in the House. I believe there is a tremendous body of Senators who will also support this legislation. Every day we delay consideration of this bill is another day we deny hope to millions of Americans and people throughout the world with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, and diabetes, to name only a few.

These patients, as I have said, don't have the luxury of time like some of us do. Let's have an up-or-down vote on these bills and send them to the President as quickly as possible--like today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 119, H.R. 810, the stem cell research bill, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 156, S. 1317, the cord blood and bone marrow transplant bill; that the committee substitute be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I say through the Chair to my friend that I believe there is a significant majority in the Senate that would quickly support both of these bills. I say that without any hyperbole. I believe without question that a significant number would vote for this legislation.

Mr. President, I have spoken with scientists, physicians, people who have diseases, and the families of those who have diseases, and there is a sparkle of hope and anticipation from the scientific community, from the people who are ill, and from their loved ones--a sparkle of hope and opportunity that I have never seen before. There is the hope that these children, for example, who are stuck with needles tens of thousands of times in their little lives will no longer have to have that done; the hope that someone who is beginning Parkinson's syndrome will be able to be cured. This is hope I have never seen before.

We need to go forward with this as quickly as possible. That is why for us in the Senate, a couple of months is not much. For those people who are sick and the loved ones of those people, it is an eternity. I can remember Steve Rigalio, an executive at Nevada Power, the largest power company in Nevada, who got sick with this disease. I personally watched this man. He had Lou Gehrig's disease. I personally watched this man deteriorate before my eyes. He was dead in a matter of months. The average life expectancy from the time the disease is diagnosed is 16 months. That is why the time we spend here is so important and why we must move forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this time I have taken this morning be charged to leader time and not to morning business time.

If I would not offend my distinguished friend from Rhode Island or my dear friend from Virginia, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I appreciate everyone's patience and courtesy this afternoon as we worked through this matter that led to our agreeing to this agreement just a minute ago. It has been very difficult. It is a very contentious issue. Feelings are high on both sides. Everyone acted like ladies and gentlemen. We worked it out, and I think it speaks well of the Senate.

I would ask the distinguished majority leader, having reserved the right to object on his latest request, it is my understanding that immediately upon this request being adopted, we will go to S. 792; is that right?

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I apologize for not raising this with the majority leader a second ago, but I would ask consent that this legislation be known as the Domenici Energy bill. I ask consent. I would ask that we do a correcting resolution, that it be done.

Mr. President, we will supply forthwith the text for the correcting resolution.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a second? I will be very brief. I know everybody is tired.

Senator Domenici kept his word on the Energy bill. It was very difficult. The conference was a real conference. They met until 3 o'clock in the morning. Senator Domenici has worked very hard on this bill. There are a lot of people who do not like the bill, but it is not because of him. He did everything he could to please Democrats and Republicans. So that is why the majority leader and I join in the request that has just been granted regarding Senator Domenici.

Will the leader yield?

Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished majority leader: We are going to finish the debate on energy tonight?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic time be allocated as follows: Senator Schumer, 10 minutes; Senator Kerry, 30 minutes; Senator Wyden, 15 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 20 minutes; and whatever time is left over will be allocated to Senator Bingaman.