Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Senators Bingaman and Domenici for their hard work to develop a bipartisan energy bill over the last several months.

When the energy bill came to the Senate floor, Democrats had one goal in mind: enhance our national security by moving America toward energy independence.

Together, we were able to achieve some our goals: a renewable electricity standard, the 3-year tax credit for renewables, oil savings, global warming, and a Federal ban on MTBE. That's why I voted for the Senate energy bill.

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts of our Senate negotiators, the conference rejected all these provisions. I sincerely hoped to have been able to vote for the energy bill conference report. I cannot support the bill.

I truly believe we have missed an incredible opportunity to establish a renewable electricity standard, provide help to consumers facing record prices at the gas pump and, most importantly, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

For these reasons, I will vote against the energy bill conference report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Pilkington of Senator Harkin's staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Stebbins of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we stay on the Defense bill and that upon completion of that bill, we go to the gun liability legislation.

Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold for one second. There is now before the Senate a request to stay on the Defense bill and finish the gun bill when the Defense bill is finished. It is my understanding the distinguished majority leader has asked to modify that request so that he would be able to call up the Defense bill at any time he wishes; is that the way I understand the request as modified?

Mr. President, I understand that. I am disappointed we are not going to the Defense bill. My statement has been spread on the Record consistently and repeatedly, so there is no need for me to give that speech again.

If I can say one thing, I think it was an oversight on the part of the majority leader, but one of the issues we have to deal with before we leave is Native Hawaiians also.

Mr. President, I am concerned about what is going on in the Senate procedurally. This is the first time I can remember, during the tenure of Senator Frist, we have had a bill where the so-called ``tree'' has been filled, allowing no amendments to be offered.

Senator Frist, I have stated, has been very fair in allowing bills to go forward, with rare exception.

I am concerned about what has gone on very recently: filing cloture on the Defense bill after 1 day of debate. I direct these remarks through the Chair to the distinguished manager of the bill. Mr. President, I direct these remarks through you to the distinguished manager of the bill.

I participated in a conversation I am confident the manager of the bill was in on this morning where the distinguished majority leader said he wanted to take a little bit of time, after having filled the tree, which is very unusual, and he would look at the amendments offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and make a decision as to which of those he would allow to be debated. He did say he had no problem with him offering amendments and we would be able to debate-- and I do not recall him saying ``vote on them''--but at least debate specific amendments that were up. But I assumed in the tenor of the conversation there would be votes on the amendments.

We have been on this bill now for 3 hours, after proceeding to it, and my friend from Rhode Island has been unable to offer any amendments. So I say to the manager of the bill, through the Chair, how much longer is it going to take before the majority makes a decision on something that should be fairly routine, as to when the Senator from Rhode Island can have some of his amendments heard before the body?

Mr. President, I am happy to hear the review is still taking place. I would hope that during the tenure of this reviewing of the amendments, a decision could be made so the Senator from Rhode Island can offer his amendments. I am happy to hear the decision has been made to allow him to do that, in keeping with my conversation with the majority leader, that amendments would be debated here on the floor.

I would also say something else as to how I look at all this. I know the majority leader has a real problem with trying to jam a lot of things in this final week before we go back to our States.

I say my friend from Rhode Island, who feels so strongly about this issue, has been willing--and I am saying publicly on his behalf and announcing to the Senate--in that we have conference reports that need to be completed, hopefully on the Energy bill, the highway bill, the Interior bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and that we have to do something on the Native Americans legislation, and other incidentals that crop up as we are trying to finish a period such as this for a 5-week break, the Senator from Rhode Island has said he is willing to allow the Senate to go forward with all these other items we have before us that I have outlined and, in fact, will waive the second 30 hours he will be entitled to after cloture is probably invoked on the underlying bill. The only thing he requires is that final passage of the bill take place, not on Saturday morning, in keeping with the rules here, but as soon as we get back, whenever the majority leader would want to do this bill when we get back. He can do it the first hour we get back here, the first day we get back here.

But I want the Senate to understand, both Democrats and Republicans, who are clamoring to go places--home or other places they have set to go during this recess--that Senator Reed is not holding this up. Under the procedures of the Senate, he has a right and will keep us here until Saturday morning, unless there is a decision made that we can finish all this as quickly as possible, eliminating the 30 hours, and going forward with the other business of the Senate. Otherwise, it is going to be real tough to jam all that in.

I see nothing lost. There has been some talk: Well, during the 5-week period both sides will run ads and things of that nature. I have no doubt that may be true. But I cannot imagine it will change any votes.

But I want everyone to understand, when people come to me and say, ``Why is Senator Reed of Rhode Island being so unreasonable?'' the Senator from Rhode Island is being totally reasonable. Some of us have spoken to him. I think it is reasonable what he has agreed to do. So if people come to me and say, ``Senator Reed is not letting us leave here when we want to, and we have all this work to do,'' everyone should be disabused of that. It certainly is not true.

We are willing to finish our work here. We could finish all the work we have to do here tomorrow, early in the evening, and not have to be here Saturday. The rest is up to the majority. They are the ones, we understand, who control what amendments we can offer on this bill. They control when we will finally dispose of this bill. It can either be Saturday morning or it can be when we get back here in September.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I would say--and I meant to say this in my response to the Senator from Idaho--no one has said he or the majority leader are violating the rules. Everyone is going by the rules here. I know them. I am just saying, it is very unusual for Majority Leader Frist. In fact, I have nothing in my memory that he has ever done this before; that is, immediately going to a bill and filling the tree so no other amendments can be offered. I have never, ever known him to do this. It is so unusual. It is not in keeping with how he has done business

here during his tenure as majority leader. While filling the tree is within the rules, it is done very rarely. And again, I am surprised that Senator Frist did this.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Yes, I have yielded the floor.

Mr. President, I would, through the Chair, ask the distinguished majority leader if the majority leader would agree that we would continue on the Defense bill, vitiate cloture on it and the gun bill, and finish the Defense bill by a time certain, say Thursday at 7 o'clock in the evening? We would try to work through our amendments. We would have time agreements on amendments. We would have the two managers of the bill set us up so we could vote on these, Republican and Democratic amendments, work through all these. I have a more extended statement I am going to give in a little bit, if we can't work something out on this. I will ask unanimous consent, but I would ask the distinguished Senator from Tennessee if he would consider a unanimous consent agreement that will allow us to finish this bill by a time certain on Thursday and, following that, in fact, what I think would be most appropriate is we finish the very important Defense bill this week, and the second we get back in September move to the gun legislation.

Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the Senator from Tennessee, the distinguished majority leader, has a statement to make. Otherwise, I have a statement I am going to make this morning.

Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Alaska say he needed a minute or two. I would be happy, if he wants to do that at the present time, to allow the President pro tempore of

the Senate, the most senior Member of the Senate, to give a statement. Then I will give mine.

Before the leader leaves the floor, I will use leader time. I don't think I will need to use more than the 10 minutes, but that would push the votes back 10 minutes. I think everyone should be entitled to the time they have. Is that OK with the leader?

Mr. President, Members heard the colloquy between the distinguished majority leader and this Senator. I ask unanimous consent that the time I use not apply to any of the order now before the Senate with regard to the four votes that are pending.

I was in Chicago over the weekend at an event. I talked to a well-dressed, very articulate man. I didn't realize he was as old as he was, but I learned later he was 83 years old. His name is Green. He had served in the South Pacific for 3 years during World War II. All those islands we hear so much about, he was on all of them, carrying a rifle, fighting for our country.

This morning I thought about Mr. Green. In World War II, do you think the Senate would have spent a matter of a few hours on the Defense bill? I don't think so. During World War II, Senator Truman, among others, debated very vociferously whether there should be an investigation into how money was being spent by the military and the Government generally. It was controversial, but it was debated. Senator Truman's actions carried.

What are we doing here today? What are we doing here today? A bill involving 1.4 million active-duty men and women serving in uniform for our country and a million Guard and Reserve, approximately 2.5 million men and women serving this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, all over the world, a bill that is costing the American taxpayer during this year approximately $450 billion--that doesn't count the usual emergency supplementals that are not part of this process involving tens of billions of dollars--we are going to spend on this bill a few hours. To this point we have not had a single vote on a Democratic amendment. It is unconscionable to do this, to end debate on these amendments that help our country.

Just a few of them. Concurrent receipt is something I have worked on with the two managers of this bill for 4 years. What is concurrent receipt? Is it important to the military? It absolutely is. Prior to the 4 years this Senate worked on it, a person who retired from the U.S. military who was disabled could not draw his disability benefits and his retirement benefits. If you are retired from the military with a disability and you worked at Sears, you could draw both, or if you worked at the Department of Interior, you could draw both. But not from the military. We have changed it. We have not changed it enough, but we have changed it a lot and it is helpful. But we need to continue to work with these disabled American veterans to get them the money they have earned and they deserve and which this country is obligated, in my opinion, morally to pay them. We won't have an opportunity to do that on this bill because in an hour or so cloture will be invoked.

Senator Nelson from Florida wants to offer an amendment authorizing surviving spouses to receive both survivor benefit plan annuity benefits and indemnity compensation, and they should be able to get both.

Senator Kerry wants to make permanent the temporary authority, including the emergency supplemental for dependents of service members who die on active duty to remain in military housing for 1 year after the person has been killed in the line of duty. That is not asking too much. We would like that amendment to be offered. We want to improve this bill. We are not trying to tear the bill apart. We want to improve it.

Senator Lieberman and others want to increase the size of the military by 20,000 a year for the next 4 years. I believe in this amendment, but we very likely will not have the opportunity to have that voted on.

Senator Murray has a childcare amendment that would help members

of the U.S. military have their children taken care of while they are on active duty.

Senator Durbin has an amendment to require Federal agencies to pay the difference between military and civilian compensation for National Guard and Reserve. This is something we very likely will not have the chance to vote on.

Senator Levin has an amendment that would provide $50 million to cooperative threat reduction to meet the new opportunity to provide security upgrades to 15 key Russian nuclear weapons sites.

Last week a report was issued by former Secretary Bill Perry that said the No. 1 problem the world faces is loose nukes. That is what this is all about.

This is a bill that is so vitally important. It is important in dealing with veterans health care benefits. It is important in dealing with Guard and Reserve, base closure, our war on terror, impact of sustained military operations to our troops and their families, detainee abuse.

Republicans have joined with Democrats in saying let's take a look at what has gone on with how we treat prisoners of war--a bipartisan amendment. We can read in any paper in the United States that last week the Vice President of our country had been calling people at the White House, Members of the Senate, to tell them not to do that. Why? What are we afraid of? This is an open society. This is the United States. We won't be able to offer that amendment. Is that why this bill is being taken away from us? Because the administration has said we don't want you to look at what has gone on in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other such places? This majority leader, apparently under pressure from this administration, decided we were not going to deal with these important issues this year. Rather than putting our troops and our Nation's security first by letting the Senate work its will on these important issues, the majority leader and this administration decided to prematurely cut off debate.

It is unheard of to do what is being done here. The hue and cry will go forth from this majority we have here saying these awful Democrats are trying to hold up the Defense bill. Hold up the Defense bill for a couple of days?

We believe we have an obligation, we Democrats believe we have an obligation to face difficult issues and not run from them, including the embarrassment of what went on in our prisons at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. We believe it is important to deal with weapons of mass destruction in this bill. Unfortunately, that is precisely the choice the majority leader is forcing this body to make today. If we do not invoke cloture on this bill and forego our right to offer these important amendments, the bill is gone. We are not going to be able to take these things up.

This work period is ending. We are going to go home. We are going to come back in September. The fiscal year is on top of us. We have the Roberts nomination that will take a little time on the Senate floor after the Senate Judiciary Committee completes its important work. What are the Republicans afraid of?

There is more to this than the administration simply wanting to cut off debate because of embarrassment to them about talking to these issues. The Republican leadership is also engaged in a very cynical ploy here today. They have pitted the interest of a very powerful special interest group against this Nation's security needs. Rather than spending the time needed to carefully consider critical national security issues--and I think that is something that again we need to focus on, national security issues--the Republican leadership has decided it is more important that the Senate instead take up gun legislation. I support the legislation, but let's be realistic about this. Legislation that would trump the men and women of America who wear the uniform of our country? I don't think so. I don't think it is a fair match. No matter how you may feel about gun legislation, it is not a match to allowing us to proceed on the Defense bill as we have done traditionally in this body.

I recognize we have wasted a lot of time in the Senate, spending one- third--one-third--of the Senate's time on voting on three judges. Every one of the people who was made a judge had jobs already. One-third of the Senate's time was spent on three judges. So I know we are crimped for time around here because of that. But we are going to take gun legislation and compare it to the men and women who I visited out at Walter Reed laying in those hospital beds. Think of my friend, my new friend, Mr. Green from Chicago, World War II veteran, proud of the service he made to this country. He gave to this country. What we are doing here today, would it ever have happened during World War II? No. I think it would be unfortunate if the Senate were to vote to end debate today, but this is a position individual Senators can pick. I haven't twisted any arms. Senators can do what they want to do.

What would be the best of all worlds is we could have a bipartisan opposition to this invocation of cloture today. That is what should happen. There should be a revolt by my friends on the Republican side to cut off debate on this bill at this time.

This is an embarrassment to this body. It should be an embarrassment to the majority. This is something that is going to be around for a long time. What is going to be around for a long time is how we have been treated on this legislation. Who is we? The American people.

I have only mentioned a few. I don't know how many amendments we have pending--probably 30 amendments already that have been laid down. We have had several others. The last time cloture was invoked on this bill we had already acted on 80 amendments, after days and days of debate. That is what it is supposed to be. And we are not asking for days and days. We are saying we will finish the bill by Thursday. Today is Tuesday.

I am happy to yield to the Senator.

I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, yes. We have been reasonable. I believe there is no jury you could have in the world that would think we are doing other than the right thing, asking for a couple days to improve a bill that will give benefits to 2\1/2\ million Americans serving in uniform and a bill that is going to cost the taxpayers $450 billion

in 1 year. We want to spend a couple days on this bill and we are not being allowed to because the administration is pushing them and the gun lobby is pushing them.

Look, I am not opposed to everything the administration does. I am not opposed to everything the gun lobby does. But I am opposed to what the administration is doing in this instance and the gun lobby in this instance because it is wrong for the people of our country.

The answer is yes. I also say, Mr. President, so there is no problem later on, so everyone understands the quandary we are in-- but we didn't get us there, we didn't spend a third of our time on three judges--here is the quandary we are in. As I understand the rules, if cloture is invoked on the Defense authorization bill, we will finish it sometime Wednesday evening. Then there will be a vote that will occur automatically on the gun handling bill legislation and then there will be 30 hours to debate the motion to proceed on the gun legislation. Senator Reed from Rhode Island has told me he wants to use all that 30 hours, he or some combination of Senators, so that will end sometime around midnight on Thursday. And then if the majority leader wants to continue the presentation of the gun legislation, there would have to be cloture filed again for a Saturday vote or maybe even have a Friday vote if he does it Friday before midnight, and then there is another 30 hours to go forward on the gun legislation. And during that period of time no other business can be conducted.

I have spoken with the majority leader about this issue. There will be a small window of time on Wednesday between whatever time the 30 hours runs out at midnight, if he decides to continue on the gun legislation, that we can in the few hours do the Energy conference report, Interior conference report, highway conference report, legislative branch conference report, and whatever else is available.

The time spent on judges has put this Senate in a real difficult position, notwithstanding that the majority leader promised the Senators from Hawaii they can do the Native Hawaiian bill.

I want everyone to understand what they are walking into. The best would be to defeat cloture. Senators from the majority side should join with us to defeat cloture, finish the bill in the ordinary course, and do whatever would come naturally after that, which would be a motion to proceed to the gun liability legislation.

Yes, I yield for a question.

I have yielded to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, we have been told that this amendment would fall. This amendment, which has already been filed, would fall postcloture. People would not have an opportunity to vote on this amendment.

I will also say, one of the points I mentioned during my statement is the Interior bill is coming up. We promised that would come up before we leave because there is $1.5 billion in that bill for veterans' benefits for this fiscal year because they have been so shortchanged.

I yield for a question from my distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, I have sat side by side with him in the Environment and Public Works Committee for many years now and have the greatest respect for him. In this instance, he is just absolutely wrong.

On Wednesday, this bill was taken up late in the afternoon, with time for opening statements. On Thursday, there were no votes after 6 o'clock in the evening. Friday, no votes. Monday, no votes. As has been mentioned here on the floor of the Senate by me, among others, on many different occasions, we cannot have work done here when we cannot have votes on amendments. Fridays have become no-work days. If there are no votes, we do not get anything done here. So I say to my distinguished friend, I don't know when they should have offered amendments. I don't know when Senator Nelson should have offered them. The point is, we have said we will finish this bill by Thursday at 7 o'clock. Pretty good time. It would give us today, tomorrow, and Thursday to complete this bill. This would be far shorter than the time we normally spend on this bill. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays is when we vote around here. I think we should vote on Fridays and Mondays, but we do not. The Monday vote is a meaningless vote, in my opinion, to get people back here.

I will be happy to yield.

I say to my friend through the Chair, not only is it true that those amendments have been filed, they were required by the rules of the Senate to have been filed because there was a 2 o'clock cutoff for the amendments to be filed.

Yes. I don't know how many.

In addition to that, I think there are a couple hundred amendments filed by both sides. As happens here, with the cooperation of these two fine managers, we work down the number of these amendments and only go to the most important ones. That is what we said we would do. I think it is a shame that we are going to be taken off this bill in about an hour. It is not good for this body, it is certainly not good for this country, and it is certainly not good for the 2.5 million people we respect so much who serve our military.

Amendment No. 1377, as Modified

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

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

Mr. President, I want to make sure the record is spread with the fact that we have offered everything. All we want is to finish this bill tomorrow at 11 o'clock at night. We even backed it off to 10:30. And the only amendments that would be in order would be those that are within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. We would have a Republican amendment, Democratic amendment, and we would go through the process by these two fine managers.

What is wrong? What picture am I missing? Why can't we go forward and do at least a little bit of work for the men and women in uniform of our country, namely 2\1/2\ million of them, plus taxpayers dollars, $450 billion for 1 year? Could not we at least spend 1 extra day on that?

Mr. President, I would just say briefly we would finish the bill at the same time if we entered into the agreement that I submitted to Senator Warner and the Republicans. Time is of no difference.

I have a parliamentary inquiry. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Virginia.

That is what I was going to do. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Now that the Senate has defeated cloture on the Defense bill, will the Senate remain on this bill, which is the bill that is to pay for our troops and protect our troops and our country, the Defense bill?

Mr. President, then I have a unanimous consent request. That request is that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the gun liability bill be vitiated and that the Senate remain on the Defense bill and complete the Defense bill this week and the Senate begin the very minute it gets back on September 6 with the gun liability bill, on cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, another parliamentary inquiry.

When we finish the gun legislation, do we automatically come back to the Defense bill?

But that does not respond to my question. It is put back on the calendar, is that right?

Mr. President, I would suggest and ask if the distinguished leader would modify his request to say that when we finish the gun legislation, we would return to the Defense bill.

Mr. President, I hope the distinguished majority leader will bring this bill back at the earliest possible time. This is such an important piece of legislation. It should not be added to the tail end of things we do around here.

Mr. President, this evening the Senate will agree to a resolution expressing our condolences to the people of Egypt for the deadly terrorist attacks that swept the resort of Sharm el-Sheik this past weekend.

Hundreds were injured, and probably when it is all over, more than 100 will have died after terrorists detonated four large bombs in a crowded hotel in this seaside resort.

Among the dead was an American, Kristina Miller, of Las Vegas, NV. Kristina was a daughter of Nevada and a citizen of the world. A 1996 graduate of Durango High School, Kristina was remembered by her friends as good-hearted, popular, and always adventurous.

She was in London on July 7 when the terrorists struck the mass transit system of London. She survived those attacks unscathed and decided to go to Egypt on vacation when these tragic attacks occurred at the resort she chose to go to.

Acts of terror, such as that which took her life, are a tragedy no matter where they occur, but the loss of one of our own spreads personal sadness across Nevada and the entire country. They also generate a sense of resolve and solidarity to hunt down and to bring to justice the thugs responsible for these heinous acts.

I am glad the Senate will speak with one voice in condemning these barbaric acts, and I personally extend my deepest sympathy to the victims, especially the family and friends of Kristina Miller.

Madam President, it is a pleasure for me to be here this morning to recognize Dr. Percell Church. As has been indicated by the Chair, he is the leader of the Zion United Methodist Church in Las Vegas.

When he came to Las Vegas a short time ago, in relative terms, he had some very big shoes to fill. The Zion United Methodist Church had been operated, pastored, by one of Nevada's very famous residents, Marion Bennett, who had served with great distinction

in the Nevada State legislature and led this very large church.

So when Dr. Church came to run the church, we were all anticipating the tremendously large shoes he had to fill. And it is easy for me to say that he has done it with distinction, honor, and class.

Dr. Church is a native of New Orleans, LA, where he earned a bachelor of science degree from Southern University. He later earned his master of divinity from Gammon Theological Seminary in Atlanta, GA, and received his doctor of ministry from Oxford University.

Serving in the ministry for more than 20 years, this young man, Dr. Church, has been a guest speaker at countless churches around the world. He has ministered in India, Nigeria, the Bahamas.

He is leading the revival and growth of the Zion United Methodist Church. He hosts a daycare center servicing working parents in the Las Vegas area. He has established a remarkable youth ministry, the purpose of which is to get young adults involved in the church and the community. That has been successful.

He is also a loving husband to his wife Angela, and a loving father to his three sons, Daniel, Ephraim, and Immanuel. They are with us today.

I commend Dr. Church for his leadership and wish him well in his ministry and his continued service to humanity. What a great addition to the State of Nevada has been Dr. Percell Church. I am proud to be able to say he is my friend, and I look forward to his continued spiritual guidance to the people of Zion United Methodist Church and the people of the State of Nevada.

Madam President, changing direction here a little bit, I say to Dr. Church, and others, I want to take up where we left off last night. I have thought about what status we are in here today. It is so disheartening to me. We took up this bill, this very important Defense authorization bill, Wednesday, very late in the day. Statements were given by the two managers.

We came to do our work yesterday, and we worked hard, and we were suddenly struck with the suggestion--we thought it was just some of the rumors that happen around here in the Senate that could not be valid. I called the majority leader: You are not going to file cloture on the Defense authorization bill after 1 day of debate, are you? And he said: Yes. I said: Well, Bill, I am going to go to the floor and complain about that because that is wrong.

Now, let me say, Madam President, on this issue I do not agree with a number of my Senators, but the thing he wants to take up next is an NRA bill, a bill dealing with gun liability. Fine. But at the expense of the defense of this country? What are we coming to around here? What are we coming to here? After 1 day of debate we are getting off to do gun liability? We can do that in September when we come back here, or finish this bill.

I want the American public to know what is happening. My dear friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, got up yesterday and, in his gentlemanly way, said: Well, it is my fault. It is not his fault. Let's be realistic about it. He does not determine when cloture motions are filed. It is done by the Republican leadership in this Senate. To think we are moving off of this bill after 1 full day of debate, and cloture is filed, should be an embarrassment to this leadership that is leading this Senate.

I attended a funeral on the Saturday I came back here a couple weeks ago in Boulder City, NV. A 21-year-old man was killed in service to our country. He was a Navy SEAL named Shane Patton. The SEALs are a very small, elite group. His commander there at that funeral cried because he had lost one of his men. I think we owe more to Shane and his family--his father was also a frogman, as they are called, Jim Patton.

The distinguished ranking member will today go over how much time we have spent on these Defense bills in years past. I guarantee you, it has been more than 1 day of full debate. People are going to say: Well, we are here on Friday.

We don't dispose of anything here today. We will offer some amendments. We will have no votes. We will vote late Monday, a few hours before cloture will be voted on.

Madam President, I don't know if I can deliver, but I am going to try. I am going to try to deliver my Democratic Senators to oppose cloture. See, I have been around here a little bit. I understand the games that are being played. The Republican leader wants to blame us for not having the Defense bill go forward. Well, I want the record to be spread, it is not us. It is them. I am going to do everything within my power to stop cloture from being invoked on this bill. We deserve better than this. Shane Patton deserves more than this. In his memory, we deserve more than 1 day of debate--a 21-year-old man, dead.

We have had one recorded vote on this bill. We could have had more, but we had to stop voting yesterday early. We have offered four amendments on this side. If cloture is invoked, Members of this body will be denied the opportunity to debate and vote on major issues.

What kind of major issues? Well, such as ensuring that our troops, active and retired, get the pay and benefits they have earned. No time to debate our course in Iraq. I don't know if I am being a little too political here, but let's think about this a little bit. We are spending about $2 billion a week in Iraq--$2 billion a week in Iraq. I wonder, as to just that alone, should we spend more than 1 day here in the Senate on this bill? Two billion dollars a week.

I wonder if there should be a little debate here on a Defense authorization bill about what is going on in Iraq.

What about the fact that we need to spend a little time talking about the spread of weapons of mass destruction? A report was issued on Tuesday, led by former Defense Secretary Perry, that we have a lot of loose nukes, that the real problem we have in this country, as far as our security goes, is what to do about these loose nukes. I think that deserves a little bit of time. Should we spend a little bit of time addressing the detainee abuse scandal? I think that would be a good idea. We can't do this unless we have time to debate issues and have some votes. The Defense authorization bill in years past hasn't taken days; it has taken weeks to complete. No one is trying to slow up things. I support gun manufacturers liability legislation. Jack Reed who doesn't like it, but I have kept him advised every step of the way. I support that legislation, but not at the expense of Shane Patton.

If cloture is not invoked, does that mean the leader, who has the right to pull this bill off the floor, will pull it off and go to gun liability and forget the promise he made to the Hawaiian Senators, a promise that he made that we would do native Hawaiian legislation?

The move that is taking place in the Senate regarding the defense of our country is unprecedented. The Armed Services Committee keeps records back to 1987. These records are thorough and highly accurate. During that period, approximately the last 18 years, no majority leader has filed cloture on the Defense authorization bill after so little time and so little action. Doing so now during a time of war, when more than 200,000 of our troops are in harm's way looking for our support, would be as disturbing as it is unprecedented.

As it stands now, if the majority leader proceeds with this motion, it is entirely possible that the Senate will vote to cut off debate on this legislation before we will have a single vote on a Democratic amendment--a single vote. Let me repeat, it is possible we will have voted to cut off debate before we have voted on a single Democratic amendment. We can go back before 1987. I can't believe anything like that has ever happened.

If this cloture motion is successful, those who support it are sending one message--they do not believe the Senate should debate the important national security issues that are very much on the minds of our troops, their families, and the American people. At the same time, the majority leader has apparently concluded we should cut off debate on this critical legislation after less than 3 days, only one of which is a real day--around here we don't do anything on Fridays and Mondays. We travel. We go around raising money. We don't have votes. We are down to a

2\1/2\-day workweek here. But we could spend more than a month, more than 30 days on five judges, every one of which had a job. A third of our time in the Senate has been spent on five people, all of whom had jobs.

The majority leader's decision raises an important question. Why would we prematurely cut off debate on critical national security legislation? Why would we want to prevent the Senate from doing everything we can to help our men and women in uniform? The Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia are role models for how to work together on legislation. He has some ideas that he wants to try to improve this bill. There are other Members who have amendments that are waiting. The Senator from Massachusetts has some ideas on how he wants to try to improve this legislation. But unfortunately, the answer to these questions is very familiar. Rather than address the concerns on the minds of the American people, our Republican colleagues are once again insisting the Senate focus its time on less important business. Earlier this year, we put judges ahead of health care, retirement security, education. Now they are apparently willing to put gun liability--and I have heard now estate tax--ahead of the needs of our troops.

Frankly, this action is not in keeping with the spirit in which this bill came to the Senate floor. To this point the process has been completely bipartisan. I should say nonpartisan. As I have already said, the chairman and ranking member, as well as the other Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, worked together to see that our security needs were addressed. Republicans and Democrats even on the committee, after reporting the bill out, said: We have a few things we would like to a try to address to the whole Senate to see if we can make the whole bill better.

The chairman welcomed input from Members on both sides of the aisle, as did the ranking member. He made no attempt to prevent Members from addressing critical issues or cut off debate, and he should be lauded for the course he chose. The majority leader should follow his example.

We want to pass this bill. We want to pass it before we go home for the August recess. That is why, for the past 2 months, I have been on this floor urging us to move to this bill. But, no, we couldn't because we were tied up with judges, the nuclear option. We were happy when he finally brought it to the floor 2 days ago. But little did we know it was apparently just an effort to get another thing off the shelf. We are here, ready to debate the numerous important issues raised by the legislation. We won't be able to do that.

I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider this action. Let us get back to work on this important bill. I repeat: We are going to oppose cloture, and that is the only thing we can do, in my mind, to make sure that Shane Patton and the other approximately 2,000 men and women who have been killed in Iraq and the scores who have been killed in Afghanistan will have at least the attention of the Senate for a few days.

Madam President, I don't need to get the last word, but I have to get make sure the facts are spread across this Senate. Let's not be misled. Wednesday, opening statements; Thursday, one amendment voted on; Friday, nothing voted on; Monday, nothing voted on. I guess we will vote Monday night sometime. Tuesday, please help me on that, we ought to vote this Tuesday morning. And then to talk about 30 hours afterwards, that is one of the biggest farces we have around here. If you are lucky, you can have a vote or two during the 30 hours, but remember, there is no necessity to have a vote on anything. It is all up to the majority what they let us vote on.

In a time of war, does that mean we speed through this? I would think that we should take an inordinate amount of time, lots of time, when we are in a state of war. And we are in a state of war. Just ask the people of Great Britain.

I am glad we are here to do business today. The managers are here. Senator Kennedy is here to offer an amendment. But especially in a time of war, let's at least do the average amount of debate on this bill.

Mr. President, to the two managers of this bill, I have said before and I say again, we could not have better managers. They do things on a bipartisan basis. This is an important bill. I have from this floor on other occasions this year talked about the need to go to this bill. I still believe that. I think it is important that we do this bill before we go home for the August recess. To think that yesterday was opening statements--I think it was yesterday, was is not? Yes. Today is Thursday. No votes tonight, no votes tomorrow, vote at 5 o'clock on Monday night--that is no way to legislate. To think that cloture will be invoked on this bill, we are here working with substantive amendments. We are not trying to slow things down, to stall things. I am a supporter of the legislation that the leader wants to bring up--not to jeopardize this bill. It is simply not fair.

I went to Walter Reed Monday. I saw lying in those beds men who are disfigured; their lives have changed forever. It is hard to get out of my mind's eye a young man there just turned 21 years old, blind in one eye, can't hear except a little bit out of one ear. I talked to another man lying there in bed; he was blown through the top of a Striker headfirst, which indicates how his head was injured. He is going to lose a leg.

We have to finish this bill. That is what we need to do. We have spent as much as 5 weeks on this bill. Should we not be able to spend 5 days on it? We have had 1 day to legislate on it. As the distinguished ranking member of the committee had indicated, we have lined up amendments for tomorrow, substantive amendments that relate to the subject matter of this legislation. We are ready to vote on them. Monday we will have people here ready to offer amendments. I think it is so unfair to people whom I visited at Walter Reed to not finish this bill and to invoke cloture on it.

So we are faced with this proposition. We have basically had 1 day. Cloture,

we will have a vote on it Monday. We have 1 day where we have votes. And the votes we had today, we didn't need to have most of them. Two of them were 100 to zero, or however many Senators we have here today. They passed unanimously. We agreed not to have votes. ``Yes, we want to have rollcall votes on them.'' Is it just to eat up time? My Democratic Senators are going to be asked Tuesday morning to vote for invocation of cloture on the Defense bill after they have had 1 day of debate, so the hue and cry will be from the majority, the Democrats are holding up the Defense bill. I want the Record to be spread with the fact that the Democrats are not holding up anything on this bill. We wanted to move to it months ago. It has been more than 2 months reported out of committee.

Everyone knows here how I like the trains to run on time. I like this place to be an orderly body to try to get things done. But this is not the way to get things done. I am terribly disappointed. I have expressed this personally to the majority leader. I told him what I was going to come to the floor and say. But he is also going to have criticism from others.

Moving off this, we have other things he has already indicated he would do: No. 1, the Native Hawaiian bill that the Senators from Hawaii have been waiting on for years to do. He has agreed, he has given us his word that we would move to that this time. When is that going to take place?

So I am terribly disappointed. I am terribly disappointed that we are in a situation where we are going to move off this bill. I don't know what legislation we could do that would be more important than the safety and security and to give proper resources to the men and women fighting all over this world in addition to giving them a pay raise.

Mr. President, I hope people will reconsider.

Through the Chair to the distinguished southern gentleman-- he really is--the mere fact that we don't have votes tonight is the least of my worries. I do say that we do more than 1 day. I would say to the two managers of the bill, based on what the distinguished chairman of the committee has said, from what I have heard, if we all lay down a number of amendments, the Senator would be satisfied that we have done enough on the bill that he would not have to seek the invocation of cloture. I don't like that. I think this is one of the bills where people should be able to offer amendments that they want to, not only on this subject but others.

But I hope by tomorrow when the majority leader returns, we can have a better understanding of what is expected of the minority. We understand we are the minority, but we are a powerful minority and we have rights, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia knows.

So again, I hope the two managers of the bill would follow the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Virginia as to what we need to do to make you feel late in the session that we have done what needs to be done where cloture does not have to be filed.

I am happy to yield.

I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from North Dakota.

Let me say one additional thing. If a cloture motion is filed on this tomorrow, I have tentatively called a Democrat caucus for 5:45 Monday night. I personally am going to ask my members to not invoke cloture. We are doing a disservice to the people of this country and the men and women in the military to not have the opportunity to try to improve this bill. There are so many things that are left undone, some of which have been named this evening, that I believe we would be remiss if we did not fully debate this bill.

I say to my friend from Virginia--again, we are friends, and I say this in the most underlined and underscored fashion--it is not fair. We basically have spent today on the bill. We know what has happened around here in recent years. Fridays and Mondays, not much happens. We will try to change that. We just have not had an opportunity to spend any time on this bill. I have not been here 27 years, but I have been here 23 years. These Defense bills take a long time--certainly more than 2 or 3 days. It is so unfair.

As I have indicated to those within the sound of my voice, I understand the distinguished majority leader has a lot to do. The Senator from Virginia is the wrong person to direct this to. We wasted so much time on these five judges--I don't know how many weeks, but we have been in session 94 days, and we have spent 31 days on judges. That pretty much says it all.

I am happy to yield.

I respond to my friend, add to that the 2 weeks and 2 weeks, add 31 legislative days on judges, and understand that wound up being five people, three of whom are now judges, two of whom are not. As I understand it, we have more than 400,000 men and women in the military, not counting Guard and Reserve. They are entitled to as much time as we spent on bankruptcy, as much time as we spent on class action, and certainly as much as we spent on five people, every one of whom had a job. They were not jobless.

There are more than 400,000 men and women, some of whom are out here in a hospital, in a bed because they cannot walk--at that hospital alone, there are more than 300 men and women who have lost limbs--and they deserve more than 2 or 3 days of Senate time.

I am happy to yield.

If cloture is invoked on the underlying bill--certainly people know the procedure around here better than I, but if cloture is invoked Tuesday morning, say 11 o'clock, add 30 hours to that, and that is when we would be finished.

During the 30 hours. Technically, you can.

Make sure that people understand this: The mere fact that there are amendments that are valid postcloture does not mean they will allow a vote on them.

Let me say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois in response to the question, the majority leader has the right to pull this bill. He can do that. He does not need to get cloture. Even though I would not be happy with doing that, he could go ahead anytime he wants to move off this bill and move to anything he wants to do because they have more votes than we have. He could do that. But at least if he did that, we could have an opportunity to complete this bill in an orderly fashion, not cut off debate willy-nilly.

So the answer to my distinguished friend's question is yes, but what it appears the majority wants to do is blame the minority for not allowing the Defense bill to go forward, and it has nothing to do with us. He has the right, today, to move off this and move on to gun liability, native Hawaiians, estate tax, flag burning, and all the other threats we have had around here.

I say to my distinguished friend, we completed the Homeland Security appropriations bill last week. That was a pretty important bill because it protects our Nation. If we are not so inclined to help the men and women who have signed up to represent us and defend this country, this is not a good sign for this Senate. Therefore, I truly believe there is nothing more important that we could be doing in this Senate than finishing this bill in an orderly fashion. To think we will have one normal voting day on this--that is what it will amount to-- before cloture is invoked. One day. Thursday. That is it because we do not work around here on Mondays and Fridays.

We had one unanimous consent vote today on DOD and a vote on the Lugar amendment. I thought there would be something on Boy Scouts, but that never came to be, on an amendment offered by the majority leader.

I believe there are six--I could be wrong, but something like that.

Mr. President, as we all know now, last night the President announced he will nominate John G. Roberts of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. I congratulate Judge Roberts on this most high honor.

Now the Senate begins the process of deciding whether to confirm Judge Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final guardian of the rights and liberties of all Americans. Serving on the Court is an awesome responsibility, and the Constitution gives the Senate the final say in whether a nominee deserves that trust. We should perform our constitutional role with great care.

Under the leadership of Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy, I am convinced the Judiciary Committee is in good hands. Two of our most respected, experienced lawyers in the Senate are going to operate this hearing process. They are exemplary of how we should work on a bipartisan basis. Since they have taken over the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee, there has been real congeniality. Members of the committee seem to be more productive. I am very happy with both Senator Specter and Senator Leahy.

It goes without saying, as we have heard from the distinguished majority leader, that John Roberts has a distinguished legal career. It is very impressive. Both in Government and in private practice, he has been a zealous and often successful advocate for his clients. As we have learned, he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. For those of us who are lawyers, that is what we would say is a big deal. By all accounts, he is a very nice man. I have not met him. I look forward to doing that this afternoon.

While these are important qualities, they do not automatically qualify John Roberts to serve on the highest court in the land. Nor does the fact that he was confirmed to serve on the Court of Appeals mean he is entitled to be automatically promoted.

The standard for confirmation to the Supreme Court is very high. A nominee must demonstrate a commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality, and fairness. Senators must be convinced that the nominee, John G. Roberts, will respect constitutional principles and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.

So the expectations for Judge Roberts are especially high because he has such large shoes to fill, and I do not mean that literally--large judicial shoes.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the Court for 24 years. She has been the deciding vote in some of the most important questions in our society: Questions of civil rights, civil liberties, the right to privacy, and the first amendment freedoms of speech and religion.

I don't know very much about John Roberts. But one of the things I am going to look for as a lawyer, as someone who has practiced in the trial bar and, to a more limited extent, the appellate level--I argued cases before the

Nevada Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, but I certainly don't hold myself out to be an expert in appellate law; I consider myself to be an expert on the trial bar--I believe it is important that we have a person on the Court who believes in precedent, stare decisis, something we learned about in law school. I am hopeful that John Roberts will follow along the same line he took up when he appeared before the Judiciary Committee last time, indicating that he believed in precedent. Justice O'Connor, therefore, should be replaced by someone like her in the constitutional mainstream.

To gather the information it needs to make this decision, the Senate turns, first and ultimately for our ability to get information, to the Judiciary Committee. As I have indicated, I have confidence that the Judiciary Committee will garner information that is important to the American people and allow us to have a better picture of this man with his impressive legal resume. Clearly, a judicial nominee should not comment on pending cases--we all understand that--but there are many other questions a nominee must answer. I encourage Judge Roberts to be forthcoming in responding to the committee's questions and providing written materials requested by the Senate.

In the end, Judge Roberts must demonstrate to the Senate that he is a worthy successor to Justice O'Connor. To do that, he must win the confidence of the American people that he will be a reliable defender of their constitutional rights. Judge Roberts has argued many cases in his career, but this is his most important by far.

Since Justice O'Connor announced her retirement, I have called on the President to choose a nominee who can unite the country, not divide it. It remains to be seen whether John Roberts fits that description. I hope that he does. I look forward to giving him the opportunity to make his case to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor one of the pillars of my hometown, Searchlight, NV--Mrs. Verlie Doing. Saturday, July 23, 2005 will be designated Verlie Doing Day, and it could not go to a more deserving or influential person.

Searchlight has never been the same since Verlie came to town in 1968 to help her late husband run Sandy's Casino. They built the Searchlight Nugget, which Verlie still owns. Verlie is a proud Texan, but she quickly adopted the citizens of Searchlight and put down lasting roots in the community that will benefit many generations to come.

For years, Searchlight did not have a senior center; so Verlie donated a building for the Searchlight Senior Citizen's Center. Searchlight did not have a church, so Verlie helped found the Searchlight Community Church, where she plays the organ every Sunday. Searchlight did not have a modern

park so Verlie established Searchlight Park, equipped with a new playground, grills, and picnic areas for the town.

These are a few of many visible contributions that Verlie made to the community, but Verlie's most important contributions exist outside of the public eye. She never asks for recognition and she does not draw attention to her actions, but her charity touches every person in need.

``She's always doing something for someone,'' said long time friend Marion Young. ``Verlie has a kindness for everyone and she'll never let someone go down the road hungry.''

Much of Verlie's philanthropy occurs behind the scenes, but her impact is felt throughout Searchlight. Each year, Verlie furnishes ice cream for ice cream socials. She has always supported the local police department, allowing the Searchlight Police to have Police Officer's Night Out. Verlie also provides a steak dinner annually for our firefighters and medical workers. Local children at the elementary school are treated to hamburgers at the Nugget for good grades. Anyone in need always comes to Verlie first, and she never turns them away.

Verlie means a lot to me personally. After my father's passing, Verlie was a close friend to my mother. She would take her to Las Vegas to shop, and looked after her because my mother lived in Searchlight alone. Her thoughtfulness and compassion helped my mother make it through tough and trying times. I will never be able to repay her kindness to my mother.

Verlie understands the importance of community. Her philanthropy-- both visible and invisible--has made Searchlight the town it is today. Verlie Doing has touched every life in Searchlight, including my own, and I know that she has changed each life for the better.

Congratulations, Verlie. I am proud to honor an authentic Searchlight hero.

Mr. President, the only two amendments I am aware of--there could be others; that is why I think it is good we make a call for other amendments--is one Senator Dorgan has indicated he may offer dealing with the Unocal sale and the amendment being contemplated by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer. And we have a pending amendment that I understand can be worked out. That is Senator Landrieu's amendment on adoptions.

So it appears we should be able to finish this bill today. I see no reason we should not be able to. We will wait until we hear from Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer. I say to them, through their staffs who are watching, they should come forward and offer their amendments if they are going to offer them.

I have a very short statement I would like to make.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Indian Prime Minister spoke today before a joint session. His remarks were thoughtful. He spoke of the great promise and values our two nations share--first of all, democracy.

I also welcome to the Senate today several Indian Americans from Nevada, including my friend, Dr. Chanderaj, and several of my friends from the Sikh community in northern Nevada. I have gotten to know them. They did a number of events for me this past year. They are very interested in government. I am so impressed with them and their community, located mainly in Carson City, NV. They traveled throughout the night so they could be here today for this historic event.

The contributions of the Indian American community to Nevada and to this country are significant. They have made such a positive impact in communities across the Nation.

What we have going on in southern Nevada is exemplary. We have an Asian-American community there. There is no distinction between Pakistanis and Indians. They meet together; they join together. Unless you are familiar with the two communities, you could not tell them apart. They work together. Our largest and most famous Indian restaurant in Las Vegas is run by a Pakistani.

So, Mr. President, I am very happy they have made such a positive impact in Nevada and communities all across this great Nation. That is why I am so pleased the Prime Minister could be here today: to join our two great democracies, to recognize the common bonds between us, and to celebrate the promising future that lies before us.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize one of the leaders of the Indian community, someone who has been involved in government and politics. He helps Republicans; he helps Democrats. He is very interested in government. He is a physician by the name of Prabhu, who is a friend to so many of us. I acknowledge him today as being someone who has done so much to bring the communities together.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time run equally against all participants.

Mr. President, if I could say a word before closure takes place, I know the burden on the majority leader is significant. There is so much to do and so little time to do it. Through the Chair, I express my desire to the majority leader that we figure out a way--he figure out a way--we can move to the DOD authorization bill at the earliest possible date. I think it is so important we do that.

I visited Walter Reed yesterday. It is important we set the right tone for those men and women fighting over there. Part of that would be to do the DOD authorization.