Floor Statements

Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague leaves the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the Appropriations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3130, the veterans health care supplemental bill, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and that the bill be amended to increase the funding level to $1.5 billion; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, if I could just briefly say, I appreciate the statement of the distinguished majority leader. I want this matter to stay before the attention of the Senate. I think it would be better to do it this way and send it to the House. I think that would be so much better. It would be done, I believe, more quickly.

But I also say at this stage the veterans programs are being cannibalized. Those programs for capital construction are being used for health care. I think it would be better if we dispose of this. I will watch the conference committee very closely. It is really not a place for veterans funding programs, but we will take it wherever we get it. Again, I am sorry we were not able to work it out more quickly, but I do look forward to completing it in this work period.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a question I want to ask my friend.

The money in the Interior bill, I hope it is additional money, not money coming from other programs. Does the distinguished majority leader know about that? Do you understand my question? I hope it is new money. I hope it is not money we are taking from other programs.

Because if it is going to come from other Interior programs, I would even go so far as to suggest maybe the Presiding Officer would not want $1.5 billion to come out of the Interior bill for programs that are not within the Interior bill. I know I would not like that.

That is real good news.

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

Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague leaves the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the Appropriations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3130, the veterans health care supplemental bill, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and that the bill be amended to increase the funding level to $1.5 billion; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, if I could just briefly say, I appreciate the statement of the distinguished majority leader. I want this matter to stay before the attention of the Senate. I think it would be better to do it this way and send it to the House. I think that would be so much better. It would be done, I believe, more quickly.

But I also say at this stage the veterans programs are being cannibalized. Those programs for capital construction are being used for health care. I think it would be better if we dispose of this. I will watch the conference committee very closely. It is really not a place for veterans funding programs, but we will take it wherever we get it. Again, I am sorry we were not able to work it out more quickly, but I do look forward to completing it in this work period.

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

Mr. President, I have a question I want to ask my friend.

The money in the Interior bill, I hope it is additional money, not money coming from other programs. Does the distinguished majority leader know about that? Do you understand my question? I hope it is new money. I hope it is not money we are taking from other programs.

Because if it is going to come from other Interior programs, I would even go so far as to suggest maybe the Presiding Officer would not want $1.5 billion to come out of the Interior bill for programs that are not within the Interior bill. I know I would not like that.

That is real good news.

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

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

Mr. President, briefly in response to my friend from Kentucky, the distinguished majority whip, I agree with him. We should have a civil debate on the Supreme Court nominee. That is going to happen based on what the President has done to this point.

He met with me in a one-on-one meeting prior to the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. He called me the day she resigned. There was a meeting this past Monday in the White House with Senator Frist, this Senator, and the two leaders of our Judiciary Committee. I thought it was a very good meeting.

What happens regarding a Supreme Court nominee is dependent on the President. From all the indications I have gotten, he does not want a big battle, nor do we. I am hopeful and confident that will be the case.

However, I say directly to my friend from Kentucky, there is no reason we can't make the October 1 date if the President selects someone next week or the week after or the week after that. We can have the FBI working. We can have the Judiciary Committee staffs working. The first or second week in September, there can be hearings that last a week. Everyone can ask all the questions they want. Especially if it is a Supreme Court Justice who is one the President thinks, and he indicated he would allow us to--certainly I would like to conominate, but I know that is not our purpose in the Senate. He did indicate if there is someone who is deserving of a red flag for reasons that maybe he does not anticipate, we can maybe help in that regard.

Keep in mind, Sandra Day O'Connor, being the brilliant woman she is, made her resignation effective upon appointment of her successor. It would be better if we had the new Supreme Court Justice when they begin their Court hearings in October. We are going to try to do everything we can to cooperate in that regard. If it does not happen, Sandra Day O'Connor will still be there. During this period of time, the summer months, she is still handling her circuit duties, doing everything she needs to do as a member of the Supreme Court. I admire her for not making the resignation effective upon the President receiving that letter. Everyone should cool the rhetoric and see what will happen. The ball is in the President's court.

As has been indicated, a significant number of names were discussed with him. We did not discuss anyone with him in a negative tone. Every person we talked about with him was positive, some of whom he knew, some he knew personally.

I am hopeful this will all work out for the good of the country. When I say ``good of the country,'' it would be better for everyone--the President included, the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate--that we did not have a protracted problem in the Senate regarding Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement. We would do her honor by having someone move into this position without a lot of problems.

Mr. President, my friend, the distinguished majority leader, noted this morning that we have been in session for over 6 months. That is certainly true. My colleague from Tennessee is correct, we have made progress over these last 6 months.

But it is important to the American people that the other side of the story, as Paul Harvey says, is also told. What is that other side of the story? He cited progress we have made but made no mention of the wasted time in this Senate on the so-called judicial option, the nuclear option. The time we wasted there was multiple weeks. I don't know if anyone has kept an accounting of the exact time, but the rough calculation I have made is more than one-third of the time we have been in session--about 89 days--we have devoted all or most of 30 days to that issue. More than one-third of the time we have spent in the Senate was spent on the so-called nuclear option.

What did that involve? First of all, we approved, prior to starting, 208 of the President's nominees and turned down 10. The President, as soon as he was reelected, renominated 7 of the 10 we turned down. Three of the individuals decided they did not want to be judges or they did not want to go through the process. One of the judges retired who the President recess appointed. We spent more than one-third of the Senate's time on seven judges.

From the very beginning of the President's reelection, we said with two of them, there is no problem, the two Michigan judges. No problem whatever. Just bring them here, we will vote on them, and they can go through.

The reason they were turned down earlier is because of all the problems in the past when the majority at that time--the Republicans sometimes were in the minority; it flipped back and forth; but they would not allow some judges who came from Michigan. It was a procedural problem. Upon the President's reelection, we said: You have those two Michigan judges. So we have spent one-third of the Senate's time on five people, five nominees.

These people could be members of the President's family, but would you spend one-third of the Senate's time on that while leaving important issues dealing with this body alone, ignoring them and rejecting them? I don't think so. But these were not members of the President's family but people who wanted to be judges. What did it amount to when we finished? Out of the five, three have been chosen as judges, two were not. It boiled down to three people. That is what it amounts to. I don't think that is a good allocation of our time, and that is a gross understatement.

Not a single day have we spent in this Senate dealing with health care--not a debate on health care, let alone legislation. I don't think we can find a person anyplace in America who would not say, Boy, this problem with health care is significant. Why do they feel that way? Because 45 million Americans have no health care, and millions more are underinsured, meaning they have insurance but it is not very good. This problem is affecting the very core of our society.

Employers know their employees are happier and they are better employees when they have health insurance. Why did these employers not have health insurance for their employees? They are not mean. They are not miserly. They have no health insurance because they cannot figure out a way to get it. With the present state of our society, employers all over America cannot buy health insurance. Once they buy it, it is canceled if someone gets sick or is in an accident. It is a problem we should be spending time on. Ignoring it does not do the trick.

Education. I have said in the Senate, and I will say it again, I met some time ago with all 17 superintendents of schools of the State of Nevada. We have a wide range of sizes of our school districts. The Clark County school district, Las Vegas, has about 300,000 students. It is one of the largest school districts in all of America. That was

one of the 17 with whom I met. One of the 17 is from Esmeralda County, Goldfield. That whole school district has 88 students. So 300,000 versus 88, and in between we have different size school districts.

All 17 superintendents, without exception, when they walked into that meeting with me--I didn't ask if they were Democrats, Republicans, or Independents--all 17 told me, as we went around the room, spending about an hour and 45 minutes together, that the Leave No Child Behind Act is destroying public education in Nevada. I didn't make this up. That is what they told me. It must be a problem. The State of Utah, our neighbor, has dropped out of the program. But we have not spent time in the Senate talking about education--not a single day on education legislation.

Not a single day have we talked about minimum wage. Minimum wage is a very important issue. We have people in Nevada working two and three jobs in the service industry, earning minimum wage, trying to make a go of it. It became so pronounced in Nevada that the State of Nevada, which is known as a pretty conservative State, raised the minimum wage. Now the legislature has to vote again. We are going to put that in our constitution because the Federal Government has not lived up to its expectation.

There are many issues we need to deal with in the Senate. These are issues the majority leader failed to talk about when he was here today. He talked about some of the things we have done, and we have worked closely. Everyone knows I like to have the trains run on time. It is hard for me to get over that. It is difficult for me to want to slow things down. I have lived on this Senate floor for 6 years, and I want as much order as we can have in the Senate. We have worked hard to try to cooperate.

Even though all Democrats did not support the bankruptcy bill, it passed, working through the process. Same with the class action legislation. But some of the things we have passed have not been good for the country.

My distinguished friend, the majority leader, talked about the budget. In this Senate, right before the vote, I read a letter from the leaders of the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Church of Christ, and others. It was their letter, not mine. They said the budget that was about to be passed--and now is law before this country--was an immoral document. These are church leaders.

I met recently with the leader of all the bishops of the Catholic faith in my office in Washington. They are very concerned about what is happening to the poor, the oppressed in this country with the budgetary folks. They have addressed that to the White House. This budget passed on trillions of dollars of debt to our children, and at the expense of them the wealthiest in this country did much better in this budget.

We have staggering debt in this country. A press conference was held a couple of days ago by the President and others bragging about the deficit not being so big. The budget the President submitted--now we find the midterm report shows it is going to be the third largest debt in the history of this country, only surpassed by two other Bush budgets. And if he added in the disguise he has in this budget where he does not count the Social Security surplus, the debt would be about $600 billion, the deficit for this 1 year. We have not talked about this issue.

I see in the Senate today my friend from the State of North Dakota. No one, bar none, has spoken more about another problem we do not address in this Senate and the majority leader failed to mention, which is the trade deficit. There was almost a celebration held yesterday regarding the trade deficit this past month which was ``only'' $55 billion--only $55 billion. I am not misspeaking, I am not saying ``billion'' when it should be ``million.''

I don't think we need to brag about the fact we passed CAFTA, which will just make it even bigger. The Catholic Church in Honduras and other places in Central America where CAFTA is going to apply opposed it. Labor unions will oppose it because it is unfair to the working men and women of that part of the world. We should not brag about CAFTA. We should talk about trade policy.

Yes, we passed an energy bill, and I appreciate the limited support we got from my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is better than the House bill, but still it is a very bad bill. It is better than the House bill, no question about it.

We are going to march to conference, and I have agreed to let my folks go to conference on the Energy bill. I hope we can hang on to what we have. Even though it is not very good, it is so much better than the sellout, for lack of a better word, to my folks on the other side of the aisle for the major oil companies. We must still make it through conference where House Republicans remain determined to strip away the good the Senate did and insert giveaways, protections for big energy corporations and chemical companies.

We just finished Homeland Security appropriations. I respect the work of my friend Judd Gregg and Senator Byrd, the chairman of the subcommittee. We cannot brag about this. I am glad it is finished, but keep in mind, this bill we have in the Senate came with a recommendation from the President to cut spending for first-line responders by about $412 million.

But when my friends in the majority got finished with it, the amount of money taken from first-line responders, in the bill, totaled $492 million less than last year. We have thousands of police stations, thousands of fire stations filled with police officers and fire fighters, ambulances, medical responders, and this Homeland Security budget took money away from them. There were efforts made on the floor yesterday by members of the Republican Party, the majority, to take money from the budget, and it was literally to rob Peter to pay Paul. Thank goodness those amendments did not pass.

So we cannot brag about what we are doing in homeland security. For transit, it was a little better, and I am happy to see that. But there are so many things we need to do that are not being done. We have chemical plants with no protection, nuclear power generating facilities with no protection. We are unable, in the State of Nevada, to respond to each other, one police agency with another police agency. But it is not only Nevada. It is all over the country.

So as we look back on these 7 months we have been in session, more than a third of it was devoted to three people who are now judges. We have done nothing with retirement security, even though we had the scandal with United Airlines. Pensions and savings are going downhill.

Stem cell research: I know we are tying to work something out, and I appreciate and admire what the majority leader, a physician, is trying to do on that. I appreciate his help. We still have not done it yet.

The defense authorization, we have not done that. We have been in session, as I have indicated, for 19 weeks. It is a blemish on this Senate's record that we are 80 percent completed as to the work period this year and we have done about 10 percent of the work we need to do. With only 6 weeks left until the target adjournment, we have done virtually nothing for the American people. It is no wonder the American people have lost confidence in the Republican leadership in this Congress.

We brag about the bankruptcy bill. Who is that for? It is not for the common working men and women in this country. It is for banks and big credit card companies.

Class action legislation: That is not for the American consumers. It is for big business.

So at this time now, we have to turn our attention to a Supreme Court nominee. As I have indicated, when it comes to that nominee, I hope the President will use this opportunity to bring the country together. We really need that, as President Reagan did when he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor. By choosing a consensus nominee, that can be done. It has been done, and we need it so badly today. We need to move away from the partisanship and back to the commonsense center, not just on judges but on all the work we do in the Senate.

The American people sent us to work for them. They have not seen very many results in the first 7 months of this session. But in the weeks ahead, I hope we can change that. I am happy to work with my counterpart and move forward. I want the trains to run on

time. But this was a subject brought up by the distinguished majority leader, and I felt it was appropriate to answer. I have done the best I can in responding.

Mr. President, I say this to my colleagues or their staffs watching. We have spent considerable time on this bill. Yesterday was a little disjointed because of the funeral of Gaylord Nelson and the space shuttle blastoff that did not occur. We had a number of Senators who had gone to both of those events.

Under the order now before the Senate, the leader and I have the ability to offer amendments. I have one Senator who has come to me, and I think the amendment he has asked that I offer is appropriate, and I will do that. I will confer with Senator Judd Gregg before I offer that amendment.

All good things need to come to an end, and we need to stop any amendments we now have with the dozen pending now. I prevailed upon the majority leader not to file cloture yesterday or Tuesday. I think that is appropriate.

For Members who have amendments to offer, if they have something they believe is extremely important, they can come to me, and I will make every consideration I can.

It is time we finish this bill. I don't know if we can finish it tonight. I hope we can. The leader said we will stay in tonight and work through as long as we need to. It is my understanding, regardless of what we do tonight, that we are going to try to move to another bill tomorrow, which is fine with me.

I say to my colleagues, if there are Members who have something to say

on this amendment or any amendments filed, do that because there is a time when the sun goes down and everyone will be in a hurry to get out of here. The fact is, if we have a lot of amendments stacked, we will not be able to do that.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 15 minutes and Senator Jack Reed has 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to this vote the pending amendment be set aside so I can send this amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be read.

Mr. President, I ask that my leader time be used now.

Mr. President, I want everyone here today to be clear on what we are talking about. You can call it politics; I call it government. I call it good government. We are talking about a matter of national security. At least one--there could be more--at least one senior White House official disclosed the identity of a CIA intelligence officer to a reporter or reporters, and then this administration proceeded to deny and deflect the truth after it was discovered it had been leaked. It put this agent's life in jeopardy. I repeat, it put this agent's life in jeopardy, plus people she had dealt with from other countries and here in America. It put our intelligence community at risk and, of course, jeopardized our national security.

Even the President's father, my friend, President George Bush, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recognizes the seriousness of this offense. He said:

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray

the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in

my view, the most insidious of traitors.

Whoever did this, according to George Bush, the first Bush President, would be an insidious traitor.

But instead of dealing with the problem, this administration, this White House, and the majority in the Senate want to divert attention from this breach of national security. Unfortunately, it is a pattern we are all too familiar with from this White House. When they are on the ropes, they attack. If you do not believe me, you need look no further than yesterday's Washington Post, July 13, 2005, which detailed the Republican strategy for this affair:

The emerging GOP strategy--devised by--

RNC chair

[Ken Mehlman] and other Rove loyalists outside the White

House--is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for

Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President

Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selections to drown out the

controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.

This is what is known as a coverup. This is an abuse of power. This is a diversion from what we should be dealing with in the Senate.

No interest in coming clean and being honest with the American people. This afternoon, the majority is bringing this strategy to the Senate floor. Mehlman's strategy is being brought right here, but the American people can see right through this.

This morning, the Wall Street Journal, not a bastion of liberality, had a poll which said only 41 percent of Americans believe the President is being honest and straightforward. That is from the Wall Street Journal this

morning, which confirms and underlines what I have said that this is a coverup. It is an abuse of power. It is diversionary.

It is time to quit playing partisan politics with our national security. It is time for the White House to come clean. It is time to address the pressing issues facing this country. This second-degree amendment--and I have been in the Congress more than two decades--is about as juvenile and as mudslinging as I have seen. We are here to protect the country. We are here with a bill that deals with homeland security. We are here to talk about issues such as leaking information about our CIA agents. Is that not part of our national security? I certainly hope so.

We have pressing issues facing this country. The reason the American people have lost faith in this administration is because we are not dealing with the problems they care about: 45 million Americans with no health insurance, millions of others underinsured; our educational system is wanting; K-12 have big problems; our public educational system is under attack. With college education today it is how much money one has as to where they can go to school and when they can go to school. It is how much money their parents have. Only half of American workers today have pensions, and more than half of those pensions are in distress.

People are worrying--just like those people who worked all of those valiant years at United Airlines--are they going to lose their pensions? Are they going to be cut? Are they going to be whacked?

This administration is obstructing progress. The American people deserve more. The Republicans should stop playing games, come clean, and work on issues to help this country.

What we have today, with this little second-degree amendment, is a diversion. It is an abuse of power, and it is a coverup.

Absolutely, yes.

I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

I am happy to do that.

He yields on your time.

My friend from Michigan is answering the question.

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.

This amendment is an amendment that deals with the following:

No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed,

classified information, including the identity of a covert

agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not

authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to

hold a security clearance for access to such information.

How in the world can anyone in this Senate vote against this? The only reason I can figure out is that there is an attempt to divert attention, an attempt to cover up. It is an abuse of power. This is absolutely something that everyone should vote for.

There have been wails of concern from the other side but very little discussion of this amendment. I simply say, when they talk about the Executive order, I learned in law school that a Federal law would supersede any Executive order.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from California. No one works harder in the Senate than this Senator. She serves on the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Judiciary, Rules and Administration, and Intelligence. She has served honorably on the Intelligence Committee and spent days of her life in the Intelligence Committee. I very much appreciate her statement.

How much time remains with the majority and the minority?

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

What time remains on both sides, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I would ask, under the usual status here, under the usual procedure, that I would have the close here. But we have more time than you have, as I understand it--17\1/2\ minutes--and you have 10; is that right?

I was just thinking we were in the majority, but I guess we are not.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, I will use my leader time. I believe this is a shining moment. It is shining the spotlight on what is going on in this country--abuse of power, diversion, and, of course, a coverup.

The analogy my dear friend from Kentucky used about the wallet is, for lack of a better description, without foundation. Anybody who thinks what we are doing is unimportant, I invite them to travel with me--as I did a number of years ago--to the CIA. When you walk into that facility at Langley, the first thing you see are the stars up on the wall for each CIA agent who has been slain, killed in the line of duty. I have never forgotten that. That is what this is all about.

We have someone who has obviously disclosed a name. We read it in the paper. Whether it is Karl Rove, I don't know. Someone did. This amendment says if someone does that, they should not have a security clearance. My friend, who I care a great deal about, the chairman of the homeland security authorizing committee, came to the floor and said the American people are fed up with what happened. She is right about that, too, because not much happens on issues they care about--issues like this staggering deficit. There was a celebration at the White House yesterday because the deficit was only the third largest in the history of the country. Education is failing. We know we have all kinds of problems in health care. Those are the issues we should be dealing with. Gas prices--maybe people care about that. We know they do.

So this is important. But when my friends on the other side are on the ropes, they attack. Just like in the Washington Post yesterday, I quote again:

The emerging GOP strategy, devised by RNC Chairman Ken

Mehlman, is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for

Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role, and wait for President

Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the

controversy.

This is a coverup, an abuse of power, and it is a diversion. They have no interest in coming clean and being honest with the American people. The American people are seeing through

this. When I mentioned the Wall Street Journal, I say to my friend from Minnesota, I wasn't vouching for the editorial policy. I don't read them. I was vouching for a news story that had a poll they conducted with NBC. The poll showed that only 41 percent of Americans believe the President is being honest and straightforward. That is what this is about. It is a coverup, an abuse of power, and a diversion.

It is time to quit playing partisan politics and do some legislating for the American people. It is time for the White House to come clean. Everyone should support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I withdraw amendment No. 1200.

I send an amendment to the desk for Senators Byrd and Stabenow.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, does anyone want to speak on this issue?

Mr. President, with the permission of the Senator from Arizona, I would ask that a quorum be called.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Boulder City, NV, lies 25 miles east of Las Vegas, near Lake Mead. The city was constructed in 1931 to serve as a home for the workers who built Hoover Dam. It has seen limited growth over the last 70 years and has never lost its smalltown feel.

Every summer, Boulder City holds a Fourth of July celebration. Like most communities, it has fireworks, parades, and barbeques. But what separates Boulder City is its people. Folks who left long ago return to Boulder City on the Fourth of July to reunite with family and friends, and to remember the freedoms that make this country great.

This year, one of Boulder City's sons did not come back. Shane Patton, a lifelong resident and 2000 graduate of Boulder City High, was killed in action last month defending our freedoms in Afghanistan. He was a Navy SEAL and a hero to us all.

I did not know Shane, but I am very familiar with his grandfather Jim and his great-uncle Charlie. We were high school rivals some 50 years ago. They played sports for Boulder City. I played for Basic High. Jim and Charlie were athletes, and we competed against each other in baseball and football.

At that time, anyone who went to Boulder City was an arch enemy of anyone who went to Basic. But eventually we mixed and had friends in common. Jim even took a roadtrip from Nevada to the Panama Canal and another to Mexico with my friend Don Wilson in the 1970s.

Shane's grandfather has a sense of adventure and a commitment to country. It rubbed off on Shane's dad J.J., who was a SEAL, and eventually on Shane, who followed in his father's footsteps by joining the Navy and becoming one of our country's elite SEALs.

Being a Navy SEAL is one of the most physically and mentally difficult jobs in the world. The SEALs' training is legendary for its toughness. Their missions are dangerous and secret. They work in small teams, on the frontlines of war. Only the best of the best can serve as Seals, and Shane Patton did it with honor and distinction.

In Afghanistan, Shane died during a combat mission. He was buried last Saturday at the Southern Nevada Veterans Cemetery in Boulder City. He now rests among other Nevada heroes--brave men and women who dedicated part of their lives to protecting and preserving the freedoms we hold dear. I attended Shane's funeral and extended the appreciation of a grateful Nation.

A year from now Boulder City will again celebrate the Fourth of July. As is tradition, people from all over will journey back to the city they used to call home. Shane Patton will not be there. But he will live on in the hearts and minds of everyone in Boulder City and in everyone who pauses to remember the freedoms we enjoy.

Shane's life's work was keeping us safe. His service was his gift to us all. And his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Lance Corporal Thomas William Fritsch

Mr. President, regarding the statement of my distinguished friend, my counterpart, the Republican leader, 90 percent of what he said is right on target. It is absolutely true that we need a process. That is why Senators Hatch and Specter have been working on this for several weeks prior to the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. The process is moving along very well.

I acknowledge that the meetings I have had with the President on this matter have been very productive. They have been good and are pointed in the right direction.

However, on a couple of things I disagree with my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee; that is, we need to be very careful and put these problems we have had behind us, dealing with the so-called nuclear option. It is easy to throw words around like ``obstructionism,'' but the fact is the vast majority of the President's nominees were approved easily. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe 210 out of 219 were approved, and a number of them withdrew. The battles over 5 turned out to be 5 out of 219. We do not need words like that. We need to look at this in a positive sense.

There are times, as has been indicated in the recent debate that occurred in the Senate, where certain nominees have to be viewed very cautiously and carefully. For example, the person the President has chosen to go to the United Nations has caused close scrutiny of this individual.

The other two people the President sent to the United Nations as our Ambassador are people who the minority proudly voted for. Ambassador Negroponte went through here very quickly. And then, of course, Jack Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri, whipped through here and was our United Nations Ambassador. John Bolton is a different story. We had to take a look at him. That is not obstructionism. We asked for certain information. It was not forthcoming.

So as I said, I agree with my friend from Tennessee that this is a process that needs to have the view of the American public, and they need to be proud of the work we do. I think we are headed in the right direction. I am cautiously optimistic we can move through this. I have given President Bush the benefit of every doubt that he is doing this with his heart in the right place. I have told him personally and in writing how much I appreciate his reaching out to me. And I continually will be optimistic until there is no need to do so.

It would be so good for the country if they could see the Senate at its best, moving a nomination that is a consensus candidate; that is, someone Democrats and Republicans both support to this very high, honorable position, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I look forward to my continued consultation with the administration. I had a conversation yesterday with one of the President's representatives, his legal counsel. I am going to continue to do whatever I can to make this process move as quickly as possible, and not only as quickly as possible but as dignified as possible. And having done this, it would be a strong message for us to send to the people of America.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Under the authority of the agreement pending before the Senate, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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 call up amendment No. 1161, which is at the desk. I wish to have it reported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, in the 2005 Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, the House and Senate conferees agreed to an extensive set of Defense Department reporting and benchmarking requirements on Iraq that addressed the security, economic, reconstruction, and governance areas.

This report was due on July 11, and has yet to be provided to Congress.

This amendment conveys the Sense of the Senate that this information is critical to formulating a strategy for success and that the report should be delivered to Congress as soon as possible.

Over the last few weeks, the American people have been assured by the administration that they have a strategy for success in Iraq.

Unfortunately, too often the rhetorical excesses of senior administration officials have left an impression with the American people of a credibility gap.

Overly optimistic statements such as that by the Vice President that the insurgency is in its ``last throes'' have not matched what real experts, including the administration's own intelligence analysts and senior military officers, have said about the challenges ahead.

With all this obfuscation, the American people are right to be concerned and right to demand that the administration report more cold, hard facts about Iraq on a regular basis.

As the administration asks Congress for billions more in funding for the Iraq war in coming months, on top of the more than $218 billion we have provided so far, the American people are entitled to information measuring whether those resources are having an impact and moving the ball forward in Iraq.

Let me remind my colleagues that this is important not just for our debate about Iraq but for our debate about other priorities such as homeland security. We spend more on Iraq in a month than we spend on first responders in an entire year. Since 9/11, we have spent $500 million on mass transit security--an amount that we

spend every 3 days in our operations in Iraq. This puts a premium on ensuring the taxpayers' money is being well spent.

We won't know whether our strategy in Iraq is making true progress until real report cards start coming in.

The amendment is a reminder that the first of these report cards from the administration was due this past Monday, and that the representatives of the people in Congress are waiting.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what is the amendment now pending in the Senate?

I ask that the Senate act on the amendment at this time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Who has the time?

I yield back the time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the distinguished majority whip, the assistant leader. I acknowledge we have a lot of work to do during this work period. I hope we can accomplish a great deal. We had a great couple of weeks right before we left. I hope the week off, the Fourth of July, was good for everyone. I know it was for me to get away from Washington and breathe some of that good desert air.

Sandra Day O'Connor retired just over a week ago. As the first woman to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, she blazed a trail which I hope many will follow. She decided cases the old-fashioned way, based on law, not politics.

As a westerner, she brought to the Court a love of the land and an appreciation for individual rights. I salute the people of Arizona for giving us such a dedicated public servant, someone who served in the State of Arizona as a State legislator, a member of an intermediate court of appeals and, of course, an inspiring career as a Supreme Court Justice.

Now we have begun the process of finding her replacement. The Constitution gives the President and the Senate shared responsibility to fill this vacancy because a President may only act with the advice and consent of the Senate. I appreciate very much President Bush beginning this process of consultation the way he has. I will always be grateful for the private meeting he and I had prior to her retiring and the phone call he placed to me the day of her retirement.

It speaks volumes that his chief of staff, Andy Card, was calling various members of the Senate from Scotland. Harriet Myers called various members of the Senate. That is important. I appreciate it very much. In the days and weeks ahead, it is important that meaningful consultation continues. Together we can find someone who will bring the country together.

The President has asked the majority leader, the ranking member and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee meet with him early tomorrow morning. I look forward to that meeting.

This is what President Reagan did when he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor: He brought the country together. Both parties cheered her nomination. That can happen again if President Bush nominates us a Justice we can all be proud of, a mainstream Justice committed to protecting the rights of all Americans. There are large numbers of conservative jurists and lawyers who fit that description perfectly.

Events in London last Thursday reminded us that the freedoms and rights Supreme Court Justices protect are a threat to those with a very different view of the world. My heart and my prayers go out to the victims of the London attacks and the people of Great Britain. The bombings were the acts of cowards. We must redouble our effort to track down the murderous thugs who committed those terrible acts. We must continue our effort to track down the murderous thugs who would do us harm.

I have great affection and admiration for the people of Great Britain. Their proud tradition of resiliency and determination was on display last week in the face of this latest attack on their people and the great city of London.

Unfortunately, the British people have considerable experience with attacks of terrorists on their homeland, including repeated terrorist attacks from supporters of the Irish Republican Army. There are important lessons that can be drawn from the British response to these attacks. First, Britain remains determined not to change its way of life and its principles while at the same time vigorously pursuing those responsible for the criminal acts.

It is important to note the people of Great Britain care about the Irish people, just as we do. I have been to that wonderful emerald isle. I love the country. I love the island. The fact that a few people perpetrated those acts of violence does not take away from our admiration for those people.

The same applies in Britain with the acts of Islamic terrorists. That does not take away from the fact that the people who follow the Islamic religion are good people who follow a very important, good religion. The morality code of that religion is significantly important. They are good people. I have gotten so close to them.

My wife's two physicians, a surgeon and an internist, are Pakistanis. They are among our closest friends. We visit each other's homes often. We celebrate different holidays together. We exchange presents. They are wonderful people. These are two devoutly religious men whose religion we have learned to respect greatly. The people of Great Britain understand that. They did not sever relations with an entire people because of the actions of a very few who are part of that people.

There was great concern in the wake of these attacks about a backlash against the Arab community. What we saw was just the opposite: a couple of broken windows by a few troublemakers, but basically nothing. The people of Great Britain have come together, all people have come together, all walks of life, all religions. That is an example for us. I am hopeful Great Britain and we in the United States will continue to heed both of these lessons in the wake of last week's bombings.

As the distinguished assistant leader mentioned, there is a third lesson we can draw from the London attacks and it is relevant to matters in the Senate. I say what my distinguished colleague mentioned, the senior Senator from Kentucky. We are going to take up the Homeland Security bill. The lesson we need to learn is simple: Fighting terrorism overseas is not enough to ensure that terrorists will not strike where we live. Today the Senate begins consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. That will occur in less than an hour. We spend more in Iraq in a single month than we spend on first responders all year. Failure in Iraq is not an option, and we will continue to support our troops, but we must do more to support the war on terror here at home.

The minority, the Democrats, are committed to doing everything possible to defeat terrorism abroad. We have repeatedly argued that we need to be equally vigorous in our efforts to protect the American people from terrorist attacks at home. Unfortunately, the administration has never grasped this reality. We have offered amendment after amendment and they have been defeated on party line votes.

We supported establishment of the Homeland Security Department before September 11. And as we recall, this administration opposed the establishment of this agency even after September 11. Once the administration relented and a homeland security agency was established, Democrats repeatedly sought to ensure that this agency received the resources it needed to make Americans and America more secure.

Democrats sought to beef up our security on rail and transit systems, our chemical plants, our nuclear power generating facilities, and this administration and the Republican Senators in this Senate said no.

Democrats sought to increase security on chemical and nuclear facilities, as I have indicated, and other critical infrastructure. It was ``no'' again. Democrats attempted to improve security at this Nation's ports and the Bush administration, Republicans, said no. Finally, we sought to ensure that this Nation's first responders obtain the resources they need to deter terrorists from attacking, and again Republicans said no.

The bill before the Senate presents another opportunity for all Members. We will have amendments to address each of these areas this week. I am hopeful, with everything we know, the majority will at long last agree with Democrats that we should be doing much more to protect the Nation from terrorist attacks at home.

Veterans

Let me close with a few words about our Nation's veterans. After months of denial--in fact, more than a year--that a problem even existed, Senate Republicans late last month agreed with Democrats-- reluctantly--that our veterans were not getting the care and resources they earned and deserved. Remember, we brought this up before committee on at least two occasions, as well as on the Senate floor, and every time it was voted down by a strict party line vote and we did not get the veterans what they wanted.

With great fanfare, Senate Republicans announced they were wrong for opposing Democratic efforts to provide additional efforts to the veterans health care system and would not support providing an additional $1.5 billion.

We appeared to be on the road to getting something done for our veterans. Unfortunately, rather than quickly passing the Senate figure and ensuring our veterans immediately got the resources they need, House Republicans decided to play games and give our veterans significantly less in the process, more than half a billion.

Even worse than what the Republicans in the House did, rather than standing up for a vote they had cast a day or so earlier, Senate Republicans blinked and backtracked. Senate Republicans objected to a unanimous consent request to make the House-passed bill consistent with the level they had supported just a few hours earlier.

Our first amendment, then, on this bill will be to give the Senate majority another opportunity to show our veterans and the American public where they stand. We will offer an amendment to give the veterans an additional $1.5 billion. Probably that is not enough because from some of the statistics we hear it is now closer to $2 billion. But what if we are wrong? What if we are giving the veterans a little more? Is there anything wrong with that? I do not think we are giving them a little more. We are giving them less. But would there be anything wrong with that? I hope the resounding answer is no.

So I hope that the majority will join us in supporting this amendment. And, just as importantly, let's not play politics with America's veterans.

I again thank my friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, for allowing me to speak now because he did have the floor.

What is the matter now before the Senate?

I first express my admiration for the two managers of this bill. Of course, Senator Byrd is a legend, having held every leadership position, sometimes more than once. I enjoyed very much serving in the House with my friend from New Hampshire, and I recognize his stellar career as a Governor of his State and now as chairman of the Committee on the Budget and also the chairman of his subcommittee.

Amendment No. 1129

I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Patty Murray, Senator Akaka, and Senator Byrd.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

I appreciate the managers of the bill allowing me to offer this amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I rise today on the occasion of his retirement, to honor the 27 years of public service of Robert V. Abbey of Reno, NV. Bob hails originally from Mississippi. He was born in Clarksdale and earned his bachelor's degree in Resource Management at the University of Southern Mississippi. Over the past 8 years, I am proud to say he has become a Nevadan.

Bob began his public service working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Later he moved to the Bureau of Land Management where he has distinguished himself as a dedicated land manager, visionary leader, and exceptional citizen.

Bob's early career at BLM included tours of duty as a budget analyst in Washington, DC; assistant district manager in Yuma, AZ; district manager in Jackson, MS; and associate and acting State director in Colorado. Since the fall of 1997, Bob has served as the Nevada State diretor of the BLM. His job may very well be the toughest in Nevada and perhaps in the ranks of the BLM; in any case, it is among the most important for both.

Although his address has changed many times during his career, his commitment to public lands and public service has never wavered. The West and Nevada are better for it.

Today, Bob Abbey leads a staff of 750 employees who manage 48 million acres of public land in Nevada. He has led the Nevada BLM during an exciting and historic time. Increased public land use, record population growth, evolving management mandates and shrinking budgets represent just a few of the challenges facing the Nevada BLM. Bob Abbey has handled every difficulty with grace and vision.

During his tenure, Bob directed the implementation of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. This is no small task given that Clark County, NV leads the Nation in sustained growth and development and ever increasing recreational use of public lands.

Bob and his staff also helped me and the other members of the Nevada congressional delegation in the development of the Clark and Lincoln County land bills. These bills were among the most significant public lands legislation in the 107th and 108th Congresses, respectively, and Bob's leadership helped make them possible.

Bob's motto that we have more in common than our differences has set the tone for the best working relationships between Federal land managers and Nevadans in my memory. He has inspired his employees to solve problems, take pride in their work, and serve the public with distinction. The results serve as testament to his character, courage, and conviction.

At the end of next week, Bob Abbey will retire from Federal service with a remarkable record of achievements. But perhaps his greatest contribution as a land manager will come to fruition while he is enjoying his retirement with his wife Linda.

After wildfires devastated vast swaths of rangeland in Nevada and other Western States in 1999 and 2000, Bob played a key role in crafting a blueprint for rangeland and ecosystem restoration in the West. The so-called Great Basin Restoration Initiative is a grand vision and roadmap for heaIing the landscape in Nevada. Unfortunately, to date, the BLM and Department of Interior have yet to match Bob's vision with appropriate funding. It is my hope that this is a temporary delay and that one day soon, a thriving Great Basin ecosystem will serve as the enduring legacy of Bob Abbey's public service.

Although I regret that Bob Abbey is retiring, I know I speak for thousands of Nevadans when I thank him for his exemplary public service and wish him well with his future endeavors. We know Bob has made Nevada and our Nation a better place.