Floor Statements

Mr. President, before the Republican leader leaves the floor, I would like to say, through the Chair, that Senator Frist and I were in his office when we were approached by the Sergeant at Arms about an incident in front of the Capitol. People were able to watch on national TV what took place. Parts of the building were evacuated.

The reason I mention this, without going into a lot of detail, is because of the great police force we have that takes care of the U.S. Capitol. They did work that was brilliant. I spoke to the Sergeant of Arms before we went into session. What they did to get ready to take that man down was extraordinary.

We have the finest trained police force anyplace in the country. I would put our men and women up against anyone else. They do such a wonderful job. I express my appreciation for the whole Senate for the work of the Sergeant at Arms and Chief Gainer. This is professionalism at its best.

What we do not see, of course, are the many times when they work off camera, when they do it late at night in various parts of this building where there are not a lot of people watching them.

Mr. President, again, I applaud and congratulate every member of our Capitol Police force.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I will say that one of the things we are also working on, and I am willing to go forward without this stage, we were moving along with the colloquy of Senator Stabenow and Senator Lindsey Graham--I am quite certain that was the cosponsor of the amendment--an amendment dealing with international trade. I spoke to Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley indicated he would be willing to enter into a colloquy with her. That was being prepared when the problem arose with the New York Senators and Senator Dodd. As a result of that, the colloquy was never finalized--at least brought to the floor.

I hope when we return to that bill, whenever that might be, we can complete that colloquy because, in fact, what Senator Grassley said is that if the amendment were not filed at this time he would be happy to take a look at it. He has another amendment coming and he basically said he agreed with the content of her amendment, but he didn't agree it should be brought up on this bill. He felt his Finance Committee has jurisdiction.

I want that spread on the record. This does not call for anyone agreeing or disagreeing with what I said, just in the future I hope we can work that out.

Madam President, the motion to table has been made. If we did it 5 minutes, 5 minutes, and then the vote?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Oregon for 5 minutes, the Senator from Indiana for 1 minute, and then we vote on his motion to table.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the distinguished Republican leader is going to make a statement regarding the Pope. I think that is timely. I will do so at a later time today.

I wanted to pay tribute to Howell Heflin. He was a wonderful man who served in the Senate for 18 years. He actually revolutionized the court system in Alabama. The first amendment they ever had to their Constitution was a result of his reorganization of the court when he was chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Howell Heflin holds the record here, serving as a member of the Ethics Committee for 13 years. He did that with dignity during some of the most difficult times we have seen in the Senate with some of the problems Senators had.

I had the good fortune of traveling to Alabama yesterday to be with his widow Mike at that funeral in the rural community of Tuscumbia, AL. That is where he had his home and law practice and where he died. He had very little suffering. He was 83 years old. He got sick one afternoon and died within an hour or two after that.

The Senate will always be a better place as a result of Senator Heflin having been a Member. Death comes at inopportune times. I want his widow to know that even though there were only a few Senators there, including Senator Bingaman, and Senator Shelby, who had another funeral he had to go to, Senator Sessions was there, it came at such an inopportune time. It was the end of the recess period. People didn't know about it, and it was hard for people to be there, but it doesn't take away from the dignity of that proceeding. It was a wonderful funeral. I received a number of phone calls yesterday and today of people wanting to be there. For example, the wind was so heavy yesterday that they had to change the place of takeoff from Andrews to Dulles. As a result of that, Senator Biden, driving down from Delaware, could not make it. He had to drive 35, 40 miles.

Again, we send our condolences to Tom, his son, and Mike, his widow. As a Senate family, we felt so good about Senator Heflin in life and in death.

Address of President Yushchenko

I also say this to the majority leader.

I had the good fortune during this break to lead a bipartisan CODEL. We had the opportunity to sit down and talk to President Yushchenko. Here is a man they tried to kill. We think we know who tried to assassinate him. Here is a man whose face is a little disfigured, but his spirit is not. He has the ability, I believe, to bring about a change in that country that will be for generations to come. It is a burgeoning democracy. Things are on the move, and he has a dynamic personality. I am glad he is going to be able to address a joint session of Congress because he is what our country is all about. So I commend and applaud the Speaker for arranging for this man, a good man, to speak before a joint session of Congress. It will make us all better for having the ability and the opportunity to listen to him.

I apologize to the leader for taking more time than usual, but I will return at a later time and make some remarks about the Pope, who passed away.

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

Mr. President, a number of years ago, maybe 15 years ago, I had the opportunity to read a biography of Pope John Paul II. It was a big book given to me by a friend. I started reading it and I couldn't put it down. It read like a novel. He was a tremendously interesting, fascinating, wonderful human being I came to appreciate. I did not know much about the Pope, but after reading that book I tried to read everything I could about him.

The only personal situation I ever had involving the Pope was shortly after I read that book I traveled to Central America with a congressional delegation. This was during the time of the Iran contra conflict. One of the people we met was the Interior Minister of Nicaragua, a Communist. I met him. He was a pleasant man. He was a Catholic priest.

He talked about the fact he had been to Nevada. He was a relief priest. He would relieve priests in rural Nevada for their vacations. He talked about Battle Mountain where he had administered the last rites to a sheep herder. He was a very pleasant man. I learned later, however, about a story when the Pope had been through Nicaragua earlier. There was a long line of priests, as is traditional in the Catholic faith, that kiss the ring of the father, the Pope. When this man came by, the Pope withdrew his ring. He knew what this man had done in Nicaragua. He was a Communist, and he did not like what he had done, and he didn't kiss his ring; the Pope pulled it back.

Pope John was a man of conviction and very strong feelings. One of the strongest convictions he had was about communism. He knew what it had done to his country of birth.

He is exemplary of why the former Soviet Union could beat down religion in every country it oppressed except Poland. It couldn't do it. And Pope John was an example of how the Poles reacted to communism. They tried to shut the schools. The Catholic schools flourished during all the time of communism. They could not shut them down.

This weekend, the Catholic Church lost its spiritual leader and a spiritual leader of the world. Just because you are not of that faith does not take away from the spiritual power of this man. I acknowledge his spiritual power. In the book I read, I learned it was not unusual for Pope John Paul II to pray for 4 or 5 hours at a time. He was a man of great spirituality. Without any reservation, the world lost its spiritual leader and incredible role model. He displayed amazing strength, courage, and compassion throughout his life, his life of service to his fellow man.

As we know, he was born in Poland near Krakow. During his 84 years, he had enormous impact on the people and politics of his time. His lifetime and acts are full of lessons for all of us. But as so often is the case with life, you may not have guessed this from his early years. He was also a gifted athlete and extremely smart. He spoke fluently seven languages. His favorite sport was soccer. He, in his adult life, was an actor. He enjoyed acting. He wrote poetry. At the university he studied literature and philosophy and still found time to take part in the theater they had, becoming what many have called a gifted actor. That is what they called him at the time. For a while, his ambition was to be a professional actor.

Pope John did not become part of the priesthood as a teenager. He was in his midtwenties before he became a priest. In the early 1940s, his life led him to the priesthood and his ultimate calling. He was elected not long thereafter to be head of the Catholic Church in 1978. For 27 years he has changed lives and touched the world in countless

ways. Some say he was too conservative. Some say he was not progressive enough. But he made his mark wherever he went.

I will remember the Pope for the strength he showed throughout his life. It all started in reading the book about this great man. In the face of communism, he stood with the people of Eastern Europe and empowered them in their pursuit of freedom. In the face of hunger and despair, he challenged powerful nations, including our own to do more to reach out and lift up our struggling neighbors. In the rush to war, he sought peace always. At the end of his days when sickness had taken his physical strength, he still showed grace and courage in tending to his flock.

The last pictures we see of the Pope in some of our minds' eye, having gone through surgery, he was still standing in front of the throng that came to see him, and still doing his very best to speak. He couldn't speak. How frustrating that must have been.

There are many lessons we can draw from the life of Pope John Paul II. He traveled the globe more than any Pope in history. He was a skier in addition to being the Pope. He skied while he was the Pope.

He did not have to travel the world, but he did, realizing that he brought the spotlight of media and attention to the cause of many who otherwise would have been ignored.

He was shot by a would-be assassin. As soon as he was physically able, he went to the prison cell of the man who shot him and forgave him in the prison cell in a one-on-one meeting with his would-be assassin.

We now know as a result of that assassin's attempt they developed a new vehicle for him. In this age of terror, the Popemobile is something we all understand. He waved to people from this little bulletproof vehicle which he rode around in like a golf cart. It was not a limousine. It was the Popemobile.

He also reached out to leaders. He did not always agree with these leaders he reached out to, recognizing that problems are better solved by working together. In our own country, he reached out to former Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, and worked closely with our current President. He did not alienate or reject leaders who disagreed with him. He sought common ground in championing the causes of his fellow man.

But ultimately, I believe the life of Pope John Paul II is a reminder that one man or one woman can make a difference. It does not matter where we are born. It does not matter what we aspire to early in life. It can change for the better. It does not matter what paths we have wandered. We all have the ability to rise up and help our fellow man in immeasurable ways. There is no better example of that than Pope John Paul II.

As the world mourns the loss of the Pope, may we keep that lesson in mind, and find inspiration in his life and the work he has accomplished.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the next amendment in order?

It is my understanding that on this amendment there are 20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Clinton and others.

Mr. President, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, Democrat or Republican, this amendment advances goals we should all share: reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions, and improving access to women's health care.

This amendment would allow us to increase funding for national family planning, title X, pass the measure Senator Snowe and I have worked on, and improve awareness of emerging contraception and improved teen pregnancy prevention programs.

One-half of the unintended pregnancies in this country wind up with abortion. Why can't we move forward with this amendment? It should be bipartisan. It is an amendment that would really help--$100 million to help these programs. These moneys come from closing tax loopholes for corporations that go overseas and, I believe, cheat Americans out of their rightful tax dollars. This money would stay in America.

There was a column in the paper yesterday that said this bill--now this amendment--has been greeted with the sound of one party clapping: the Democrats. Why can't we get support from the majority party for this amendment? We continually talk about the issue of abortion. Here is a way to cut as many as 3 million abortions over a 2-year period of time. That seems like a worthy goal. That is what this amendment is all about. It is about fairness, about making progress in a problem that is creating problems in this country. We should hold our heads high in doing this.

I hope this doesn't become a pro-life, pro-choice issue. This is an American issue. It is good for the American people, and it is especially good for young girls, teenagers. We need to stop the scourge of teenage pregnancy. There are only a couple of nations in the world that we are behind in teenage pregnancies. I hope that this amendment will be adopted by an overwhelming vote. I have some doubts that it will be, because we seem to be in partisan mode here, and that is too bad.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time run equally.

Mr. President, through the Chair to the two managers of the bill, it is my personal feeling we shouldn't have the 1 minute on each side. It is an inordinate amount of time. It never amounts to 1 minute. I think we should just vote. When we take 1 minute when we have 25 or 30 votes, it will add an inordinate amount of time to these amendments. I have not spoken to the majority leader, but it would be my feeling that the Members have had

their say and we should run right through the votes.

This can only be done by unanimous consent, obviously. One of the managers of the bill doesn't agree. I should tell everyone this is going to add at least an hour to the votes--I will bet more than that. We have staff here. We have nice staff. If people do not know what the votes are, that is unfortunate. But, anyway, it takes unanimous consent, and I understand that.

Does the Senator think that 30 seconds for each side would be better than the 1 minute? Could we accept that? I am indicating that if everything goes well, we will be finished with this stuff at 12 or 1 o'clock tonight.

I have not checked with Senator Frist. I wouldn't want to do anything without checking with him. I don't think it would be appropriate. If he doesn't agree to this, I would be happy to rescind the unanimous consent request. In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent the time between votes be 30 seconds per side.

Mr. President, before we start, I know the majority leader would agree. We have to keep a better tab on the time around here. It is possible to speed things up. I am sure this vote will take more than 10 minutes. After that I think we should enforce the 10-minute rule. If people can't get here to vote because they have business to conduct, they may have to miss some votes.

I hope the majority would allow the 10-minute vote to be a 10-minute vote. I understand that if there is a vote which is close and people have to play around the votes a little bit, that stalls a little bit. The majority has the right to call votes to a close. I hope they would do it, recognizing that every minute they allow these votes to go beyond the 10 minutes is additional time people could be doing other things.

Amendment No. 229

Reserving the right to object, we are working with a number of Senators on this side of the aisle to see if we can work out something on this legislation. So I tell the majority leader that we need more time because there is a number of Senators who have concerns. So I object.

I ask for the regular order.

Mr. President, the manager of our bill, the Senator from North Dakota, is very busy, and his person to work with on these amendments is Senator Durbin. If people would help Senator Durbin and Senator Conrad and help us move through amendments on our side.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to many Members of this caucus for their cooperation. This is a very difficult issue. It has been hard for everyone. I especially applaud my friend from Michigan, Senator Levin. I joke with him sometimes, but he is a Harvard-educated lawyer, and he really lives every minute of that. He understands the law, and he has helped the Senate get something that is appropriate for what we are trying to do. I appreciate that very much. A number of other Senators, including the distinguished Senator from Oregon, have worked with us, and I will not run through the entire list, but we have had Senator Baucus, Senator Feinstein, Senator Harkin, Senator Murray. We have had a lot of cooperation. I apologize because I have left some names out. It is very difficult.

We believe we have an obligation to do something. Something is going to happen anyway. I think this will wind up being the best of what we could do.

Reserving the right to object, the amendment that has been worked on the past few hours, is it at the desk?

Mr. President, I also ask consent that this be increased to 16 minutes because the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, wishes to spend a couple minutes on it.

No. Seven and a half minutes to you, a minute to the Senator from Florida, and that is the only request for time I have received.

That is true.

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for just a brief statement?

Mr. President, I talked about everybody except one of the most important people, if not the most important person, this afternoon, and that is Senator Nelson from Florida. He has been here during the whole day, and I want to extend my appreciation to him.

Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Florida, and 42 seconds to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, we cannot leave until the majority leader gets on the floor. We have to find out what we are going to do when we get back here.

Does the leader have an idea what we are going to do when we get back?

Tuesday will be our first vote?

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

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

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

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

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

I note the absence of a quorum with the condition that the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cantwell amendment to strike the language in the budget resolution that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The decision whether or not to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a defining moment for national energy and environmental policy.

This debate reflects two divergent views of our Nation's values and future.

We have a choice: either we can continue building oil wells in environmentally sensitive areas, or we can broaden our Nation's energy base while honoring our commitment to our natural heritage.

Instead of diversifying our energy supply, investing in new energy technologies and promoting energy efficiency, the Bush administration's priority is to look for the next domestic oil field.

No matter how clever they view this backdoor scheme to insert this proposal into the budget, the proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge cannot escape the facts.

The Arctic Refuge is home to an unparalleled diversity of wildlife including 130 species of birds, caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, grizzly bears, and wolves.

Estimates show there may be only 6 months' worth of oil, and it would not be available for 10 years.

The three largest oil companies in Alaska have stated they are not interested in drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

This proposal will do nothing to reduce the price of gas at the pump and will do nothing to make our country more energy independent.

This issue is too important to the public and to future generations to be snuck through in the budget bill. It should be brought to a vote on its own merits.

Supporters of oil drilling will not stop at the Arctic Refuge. The White House and its allies continue to push to drill in the Arctic Refuge because they believe it will create momentum to drill in other environmentally sensitive areas in the Rocky Mountains and off the coasts of California and Florida.

Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is already open to drilling and exploration. The last 5 percent--the Arctic Refuge--is the only wild stretch of Alaska's North Slope that remains off limits.

America produces just 3 percent of the world's oil, yet we consume 25 percent of that supply.

The answer to our energy challenge will not be found in the Arctic Refuge. It will be found in our willingness to encourage American innovation and break the habit of spiraling energy consumption.

We have met this test in the past. In the 1970s, Congress increased fuel efficiency standards and began to encourage the development of renewable fuels.

Today, those fuel efficiency standards save our country the cost of three million barrels of oil every day, and renewable energy technologies produce the equivalent of the oil we currently import from Iraq daily.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to save wild places such as the Arctic Refuge for future generations. Our national park, wildlife refuge, and wilderness systems are a living legacy for all Americans, present and future, and are widely envied and emulated around the world. The Arctic Refuge is one of the greatest treasures. It should be protected.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Cantwell amendment to strike the language to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request by my friend from New Hampshire be modified that there be no second-degree amendments in order regarding the Feingold amendment and that all votes be 10 minutes after the first one.

Has the unanimous consent been agreed to?

Has the unanimous consent request been approved by the Chair?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have, in effect, agreed to use 5 hours of the time on the budget today. The real work on

it will start Monday at 10 o'clock in the morning. It is one of the rare instances in this body where we have a set time. That time is 50 hours. We are now down to 45 hours. It is also unique in that the time for voting does not count against the budget resolution. So there is a lot of work to do on this budget, and there will be a lot of amendments offered.

A couple of days ago I met with a group of ministers from a host of Protestant denominations. The reason they came to meet with me is they are extremely concerned about President Bush's budget. They shared with me their observations of it, and they based their presentation to me on a story from the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament.

In this story, there is a rich man and a poor man who lived in the same vicinity, and the poor man, Lazarus, was very poor. In life, the rich man lived a grand life and paid no attention to the poor man, or poor people generally, refusing to come to the poor man's aid when he should have. But in death, we are told in Scripture, it was Lazarus who went to Heaven and the rich man who did not.

Their purpose in sharing this story with me was to point out the immorality--that was their word: ``immorality''--of turning a blind eye to economic injustice. And they wanted to make a larger point about the Bush 2006 budget, which, as they put it, has ``much for the rich man and little for Lazarus.''

When you examine the Bush budget through a moral lens, as they were doing, you can clearly see the injustice and the lack of values in this budget.

The President is proposing that we make deep cuts in many programs that are important to working men and women, for those in real need. And why? To pay for large tax breaks for the very wealthy and to provide a variety of giveaways to special interests.

In his budget, the President is ignoring the lessons of the Gospel, the lessons there of the rich man. For example, the President's budget cuts health care for the most vulnerable citizens. The budget would cut Medicaid, which ensures that more than 50 million children, pregnant women, elderly, and people with disabilities have access to the medical services they need. At the same time, the budget maintains a slush fund with billions for HMOs. That is not right.

The President's budget also calls for cutting education. More than 48 education programs will be affected, with the cuts exceeding $1 billion. So our children will suffer. At the same time, the budget calls for opening a precious wilderness area in Alaska for the oil and gas industry. That is not right.

The budget cuts benefits for veterans. The men and women who served our Nation with such bravery and courage over the decades, the people who have put their lives on the line on behalf of this Nation, are going to have to pay more for their health care. At the same time, the administration wants to protect the drug industry by denying Medicare the right to bargain for lower prices. That is not right.

The budget cuts the COPS Program. It is an over 90-percent cut. That is the program that helps communities hire police officers to keep streets safer. So our men and women in uniform and the neighborhoods they serve will suffer. At the same time, the budget does little to close the special interest loopholes that are allowing big corporations to avoid paying taxes. That is not right.

The budget underfunds environmental protection. At the same time, it lets big polluters off the hook from paying the cost of cleanups. That is not right.

The budget fails to adequately fund the National Family Planning Program, which provides critical health care services to low-income women and helps reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. At the same time, it continues to support so-called health savings accounts, which are tax shelters for the wealthy that fail to meet the needs of those of modest means. That is not right.

America is a country that values everyone, the worker just as much as the CEO of the largest company in America. And most Americans would agree it is not right to cut health care for children and the elderly, cut education, cut benefits for veterans, cut law enforcement, while handing out a wide variety of giveaways to special interests and the powerful. That is not just bad policy, it is wrong, it is immoral.

Unfortunately, the budget resolution approved yesterday by the Budget Committee, with a few changes in the margins, is based largely on the President's deeply flawed budget. I think we can do better. I think we can create a budget that is as good for Lazarus as it is for the rich man.

Next week, we will take up the budget resolution, as I have indicated. We will work to make it better. But if the last couple weeks is an indication, there will be marching orders given to the majority, and they will march down here and vote against veterans, against children, against women, and against education generally.

So we will do our best. We will present these issues to the American people, and the American people will see what is happening in this country. The programs that are important to this country are being starved, starved at the expense of the American people. And the tax cuts go on.

Our goal is to turn this budget into a moral document for which we can all be proud, a document that truly reflects our Nation's priorities and the values of the American people.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.