Floor Statements

Has the bill been reported?

On this time, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Is there still time on both sides under the order that has been entered?

The Senator from Delaware gets 5 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask the time be charged equally.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, if I may say to my distinguished friend, the Senator from Vermont, time was evenly divided, and the minority's time is gone. We were not aware of the Senator from Vermont needing time.

I ask the Senator from Maine, does she wish to make a statement? All the time left is hers.

They have had an opportunity but have not taken it. We need to get this vote off near the time. The Senator from Vermont needs 3 or 4 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont be recognized for 4 minutes and that time also be added to that of the majority, so there would be an extra 8 minutes. We cannot extend it past that time because there are things people need to do.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Could we make that 2:15?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have spoken just now with the two managers of the bill. There is not going to be a vote in the immediate future. As the record indicates, this legislation has to be completed by 4:30, so final passage certainly will take place at 4:30. There may be an amendment or two before that time, but there is nothing right now. If people are on their way over, they should turn around and go back. There probably won't be anything, probably within the next hour.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, while the distinguished comanager of the bill is on the floor--I am sorry Senator Collins is not on the floor-- on behalf of the whole Senate, we need to extend to you our congratulations. We all applaud and commend the great work done. This has been a very difficult job. While those of us who were home in August, doing the things we do--having townhall meetings and doing campaign events--you and Susan were here doing work to get us in a position so when we came back here there would be an instrument that you could recommend to the other members of your committee who worked with you during this downtime in August--most of it down. This vehicle is now about to be completed. It is a sea change. It is the first part of what the 9/11 Commission recommended, and it is good work. The Senator from Connecticut and Senator Collins should feel very good about their accomplishment. I think it is not only a significant improvement from what we had, it is a sea change in what we had before. The American people are going to be safer as a result of this. Congress is going to be more responsible as a result.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I, first, extend my appreciation to Senator McConnell. Senator McConnell and I were given a task and we have done the best we can. I have served in the Congress now for 22 years. This is one of the hardest things I have ever had to do, if not the hardest. It has been a very difficult 3 or 4 weeks that Senator McConnell and I have spent working with Members.

I have known Mitch McConnell for many years, the senior Senator from Kentucky, but as happens when one is thrown into a situation of stress, working closely together, one develops a different relationship, and the bond Senator Mitch McConnell and I have formed over this last month is one that will be with us forever.

I appreciate his willingness to allow me to drop in his office unannounced and call on him all times of the night and day. He has a fine staff and he has worked extremely well with my staff. Without belaboring the point, I appreciate all he has done to get us to this point. Without him, we could not be where we are now.

I have five children. My oldest child is a girl. I have one girl, my daughter Lana. I can remember as if it were yesterday, my little girl was going away to school, to college. I can still remember I cried that day, I felt so sad that my little girl was going to go away. I still feel some emotion when I think about it.

The reason I mention that is my daughter leaving to go to college is only an example of how difficult change is. Why did I feel bad? Because of change. I had been with my little girl for 18 years, and suddenly she was going to leave. Change in our lives is always very difficult. Change in the life of the Senate is difficult. What Senator McConnell and I have brought before the Senate is a change. I repeat, I only give the example of my daughter for illustrative purposes. But change here for 98 Senators with whom we have been working is difficult. It is not the same as sending a daughter to school, but it is still a change. Any time you change, it is difficult. That is what this has been about.

We have been considering ways to reform the executive branch of Government for 2 weeks. It is now done. Now it is time to turn the focus on reform of the Senate. A lot of change is taking place here in the waning days of this Congress, important changes brought about as a result of more than 3,000 Americans being killed through a terrorist act. That is why we are doing this.

A commission was appointed, led by long-time Congressman Lee Hamilton and former Governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean. They had members who worked very hard for a year. They had 80 full-time staff. They came to us with recommendations as to how we had to change the executive branch of Government. We have done the best we can in

that regard. We have changed, as far as the Senate sees it, the executive branch of Government. It has been painful. It has been painful for a lot of Senators. But we did it because we had to do it.

I will elaborate on that a little bit later, but the Commission said doing one without the other is doing nothing. If we walked away from this body now, as some have suggested, and said we have done our job, we have done the executive improvement, we may not have done everything, but we have done all we have time to do--we cannot leave here without having done this.

What we do tonight and tomorrow is nothing the President has to sign. The bill that passed here earlier this evening by a vote of 96 to 2 is something the President has to sign. He does not have to sign this. This is something the Senate is doing on its own. We are doing it because the Commission said you cannot have one without the other.

As I said, some have said, Why do this? Some have said, Maybe the House isn't going to do anything; why does the Senate have to tackle this issue?

We can't maintain the status quo after 9/11. We have to look at every facet of our Government. We did this: The homeland security functions, our intelligence functions, and our congressional oversight.

I extend my appreciation to Senators Roberts and Rockefeller. They have, during the most difficult times in the history of the Intelligence Committee, been asked to guide this country through these perilous times, and they did it without having much to do it with. The Intelligence Committee, as indicated by the 9/11 Commission, is weak and toothless. So I appreciate very much the work of these two very wise men. Being able to work together--it wasn't easy. They had a difficult time. The members of the Intelligence Committee also worked well.

But, as the 9/11 Commission indicated, we need to give the Intelligence Committee more authority and power. That is what we are in the process of doing. We, in effect, said, Can we do better? Can we do better for Rockefeller and Roberts and others, not only today but in the years to come? We have found, under the leadership of the 9/11 Commission, that oversight of the intelligence community is not strong enough--not enough power, not enough resources, not enough muscle.

As my friend Senator McConnell has indicated, the homeland security oversight is now splintered among 88 committees and subcommittees--not 8 in the Senate, not 8 in the House--Governor Ridge and I came together in 1982, each as a Member of Congress. I don't know the exact number of times he has come here, but I think it was 164 times so far this year. Think about it. We can do better.

We do not need these weak and fractionalized subcommittees and committees, all wanting a piece of the Secretary of Homeland Security. We are not going to make a tweak here and a tweak there. As the 9/11 Commission found:

Tinkering with the existing committee structure is not

sufficient. The United States needs a strong, stable and

capable committee structure to give America's national

intelligence agencies oversight, support and leadership.

We can't make all these changes in the executive branch which we did in this bill we just passed and not put our own house in order. The 9/ 11 Commission made that point very clear:

The other reforms suggested, such as the National

Counterterrorism Center and a National Intelligence Director,

will not work if Congressional oversight does not change too.

It has not been easy. We have taken 10 standing committees and taken jurisdiction from each of the 10 and given them to this new committee that will be formed from the Governmental Affairs Committee. It will now be the Homeland Security/Governmental Affairs.

People have had to give things up. Some have given them up graciously. Some have given them up kicking and screaming. There will be amendments offered here to reverse some of the changes we have recommended in the amendment that is now before the Senate. Senator McConnell and I recognize that should be a fair, open process. We are not infallible. Maybe we made some mistakes, but we certainly tried not to.

The Commission made the point clear that it will not work if congressional oversight does not change also. So here we are, with a resolution encompassing some of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission--no doubt the most difficult. Obviously we would not be here without the fine work of the 9/11 Commission that I boasted about more than once, and without the urging of many brave families whose lives were shaken by the tragedy of 9/11.

I served in the House of Representatives with Lee Hamilton. I served under his leadership on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives. He is a fine man. He was a mentor to me. He and Governor Kean have made their mark upon the country with their excellent report. We are also here on the verge of landmark reform because of the strong partisan interest of our colleagues in reforming this institution. There may be different opinions about some of the details, but I believe the consensus is very strong about bringing much-needed reform to the intelligence and homeland security functions.

As I started my statement using an example of my dear daughter Lana, I said change is hard. I understand that. I am a member of committees. The committees on which I serve have given up things to make this work.

I also want to extend my grudging appreciation to the two leaders, Senators Daschle and Frist. The next time they have one of these nice things to pass out, they will think of someone else. This has been very hard for Senator McConnell and me, but they have stood with us. They are fine leaders. And if we get this done--and I am hopeful and confident we will--it all goes directly to their leadership. Both of these men are so busy that they look to their assistants. I am the assistant Democratic leader, the whip. Senator McConnell is the assistant Republican leader, the whip. We have done our best representing our caucuses. We run separate and apart from our two leaders. I run elected on my own, as does Senator McConnell. But we believe this was the time when without any question the two leaders were doing absolutely the right thing. That is why we have spent so much of our time, energy, and effort in carrying out what they have directed us to do.

I jokingly said I grudgingly send my appreciation. I really don't do that. I am happy Senator Daschle had enough confidence in me to allow me to go forward on this noble experiment.

I have spoken to members of the 9/11 Commission on quite a few occasions in conference calls and personal meetings, and I appreciate their time. The time is up for this Commission, but they are still devoting large blocks of time to people like me who come to them for direction, guidance, and understanding. They wanted first of all to know what we were doing was nonpartisan. I think Senator McConnell and I proved to them time and time again that it was.

Let us talk about the specifics.

The so-called task force recommended that the Senate inplement virtually all of the congressional reform recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. I will go over what we have done. There are three basic areas we looked at. One is to reform the Intelligence Committee process. The other is to create a different, new committee on homeland security, which I have talked about, and the other is to make sure the appropriations process was part of this.

What we have done to strengthen collection of intelligence is eliminate term limits. We have to ensure that the majority has no more than a one-member advantage. This came directly from the 9/11 Commission. We maintain apportioned slots for these committees. The chairman and ranking member of Armed Services. I will offer an amendment because I heard directly from the Intelligence Committee itself that they also wanted in addition to the Armed Services Committee members of the Foreign Relations Committee doing that. In this instance, it will be Senator Lugar, chairman of the committee, and Senator Biden, ranking member, who will serve as ex officio members. I will offer an amendment at a subsequent time, and elevate the status, as I heard Senator McConnell talk about, from B to A.

We have maintained the majority and minority leaders' ability to appoint all committee members. Members not appointed will serve without term limits.

This is so important. Frankly, this is not anything that the 9/11 Commission recommended, but it came from Senator Warner in meetings we had with Senator McConnell and me. Senator Warner has been here a long time. I have served with him from the day after I came here as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has been so easy to work with. If there were ever a stereotype of a southern gentleman, it is John Warner. And John Warner in his typical gentlemanly fashion suggested to us that for a committee which is important, the chairman and ranking member should serve at the pleasure of the two leaders.

The reason for this is what I refer to as the ``Wilbur Mills problem.'' Wilbur Mills was a long-time Member of Congress and became chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. This was a man who never had a problem in the world as far as anything dealing with ethics and morality. Suddenly, for whatever reason, Wilbur Mills--this distinguished Member of Congress who served 30 years--started doing a lot of things very publicly that were an embarrassment to this institution. He was there based on seniority and there was no way he could be disposed of. We don't want that. It is something that probably would never happen, but we need that protection. The people who are representing and leading this Intelligence Committee have to be above reproach ethically and morally. The two leaders should have the ability to do that.

That is why Senator McConnell and I, along with Senator Warner--that is where this came from. We believe that committees around here are too large. One of the things we set out to do was not have more committees. We wanted to do what we could to make the committees smaller. We did this. We reduced the size of the committee from 17 to 15. That may not sound like much, but it was a step forward. We have followed our philosophy and reduced the size of the committee. This is something the 9/11 Commission recommended. The staff positions for each member-- maintain nonpartisan professional staff, give the Intelligence Committee a stronger role in reviewing civilian intelligence nominees. This is something else the 9/11 Commission recommended.

That is one of the things they recommended in intelligence. We have done that. But we have gone a step further, and said not only that but the Intelligence Committee should be able to form whatever subcommittee they feel would help that committee perform the functions they have for the country.

Maintain committee subpoena authority; require the committee to make regular reports to the full Senate.

For the purpose of showing how much we did related to the recommendations of the of 9/11 Commission, all we have to do is look right here. We have done what they have recommended, and more.

If you look here, the committee conducts ongoing oversight, checked off; create subcommittee dedicated to oversight, another check; ensure committee has subpoena authority, check that off; ensure majority has not more than one-member advantage, check that off; ensure apportioned members slots for Armed Services, Appropriations, Foreign Relations and Judiciary; one-year term limit; reduce the size of the Intelligence Committee; ensure the Intelligence Committee has a nonpartisan professional staff.

I think we have done that. It is good work. It was not easy, but good.

We have talked about the operations committee, which recommended 14 specific measures to give the committee greater stature and power.

We believe the proposed measures such as elevating the committee from B to A, ending term limits, and creating a subcommittee on oversight will give the committee muscle and that will be oversight of the intelligence agencies.

I have talked about the need for the Appropriations subcommittee to focus on investigations. We have done that.

What I have not talked about is Senator Bob Graham. Bob Graham was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, ranking member, served in a very good way, former Governor of Florida, served in the Senate for 18 years. He is leaving now. He is retiring. When someone suggested to him that you should put the function of the appropriations and authorization all in one committee, he said it would concentrate power in too small a number of people and it would be devastatingly wrong for the intelligence community. So what we came up with, we feel, is something better than that; that is, as one distinguished Senator said, if we can have an Appropriations subcommittee for the District of Columbia, for agriculture, and the legislative branch of Government, we ought to have one for intelligence. It is simply too important, and we agree. Senator McConnell and I agree.

Therefore, we have now merged the Military Construction Subcommittee, which I chaired for a Congress or two, with Defense--again, we don't want to create more subcommittees or more committees--leaving 12 subcommittees for Appropriations. We have created another one on intelligence.

There has been a lot of complaints that the monetary function of the Intelligence Committee was hidden in the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations. That won't be the case anymore. It will have chairmen selected based on seniority. I am sure it will be one of the senior members of the Senate. That is about all you have on the Appropriations Committee, and I think it would do well. This is a significant development.

We will increase the number of members and staff who oversee the intelligence community spending and finally shed light on programs that have been tucked away far too long.

Governor Kean was asked at a recent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing about the creation of an appropriations subcommittee on intelligence. Governor Kean said:

I think [an intelligence appropriations subcommittee] would

be very much in my mind, be within the spirit of our

recommendations.

I have spoken to Congressman Hamilton and indicated to him what we were going to do. He feels the same as Governor Kean about this.

Now, an appropriations subcommittee on intelligence is exactly the kind of conforming change that is required now that we have passed the Collins-Lieberman bill, where centralization and coordination of the intelligence community is achieved through the establishment of a national intelligence director.

Some Members suggest a joint authorizing and appropriating committee, but there are very strong feelings that creates too much power and too much secrecy for a handful of members, so it actually results in fewer checks and balances and much weaker oversight.

There was a broad consensus to consolidate the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Without any question, we should not have to have the director or his assistants appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of the Congress. We ought to have a single homeland security authorizing committee. This would match the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee we created last year.

With this we achieve the much-needed consolidation by replacing homeland security oversight in the Governmental Affairs Committee and renaming the committee Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

What we have now before the Senate is significant and sweeping reform. This resolution with the amendment we placed therein, though it might not be perfect, and Senator McConnell and I would never say it was, is extremely powerful and makes the required structural changes at the same time it sends a clear message to the American people that the Senate understands the problems, and we are ready to make changes that will help keep our country safe.

Let's end what the Commission calls a ``dysfunctional'' oversight process. It is the right thing to do. This is the right time to do it.

We welcome anyone who wants to offer amendments. We do recognize, however, as the two leaders mentioned earlier, that it is almost 7 o'clock tonight, and we are supposed to leave Friday. We need to finish this legislation. People cannot wait us out. If

Members do not come tonight and tomorrow to offer amendments, we are going to go to third reading. We are not going to wait around while people do other things. This is not January or March or April or May or September. It is just a few days until the leaders have said we are going to go home. At the very best, it will be difficult to get out of here late Friday or even Saturday.

The two leaders are absolutely right in saying we want everyone to have an opportunity to review this resolution. The amendment was filed last night, and everyone has had more than 24 hours to read it, to study it, to prepare their amendments. It is not a 400-page amendment. It is a few pages in length, very simple and direct, and is something we are doing to change this body. It is a significant change, and we recognize that, but a most important change.

Members offering extraneous matters on this--and that is always possible--should understand they are doing it in the face of what the 9/11 Commission said: we have to do this. I hope Members would not come and offer amendments relating to extraneous matters.

If there is something wrong with the amendment Senator McConnell and I sent to the desk, let us know. We have worked with a lot of folks. But we cannot go back to the way things were before. We cannot have a committee called the Department of Homeland Security and not have anything that deals with homeland security. We have to have a committee on homeland security that has the ability to oversee what is going on and have more homeland security for our country.

The time is here. It seems logical that there will not be any votes tonight, but that is up to the leaders to announce. I repeat: This cannot go on forever. There has to come a time when people offer amendments. I hope that would happen before too long. We are here for business, Senator McConnell and I.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, around here, we do not often see cloture motions signed by all four leaders. This cloture motion does have four leaders. We are serious about completing this bill at the earliest possible date. It would be a travesty if, having just completed a very significant piece of legislation led by Senators Collins and Lieberman, we not do our share of the legislative reform that needs to be done.

The cloture motion was filed with reluctance. No one wanted to do it. But with the 8th of October staring us in the face literally, we have no choice but to do this. I hope people tomorrow will recognize there will be an effort made to offer these amendments. At 1 o'clock tomorrow, all first-degree amendments must be filed. That is the rule.

I hope people will come and discuss with us what problems they see with this amendment. We will be happy to work with them, but I think people should be ready to offer their amendments.

We have taken what we thought needed to be done from the 10 committees to give this committee, the homeland security committee, some strength. We hope people recognize that.

I understand how people are concerned about maintaining the jurisdiction of what they have, but this is a time when people have to give up a little bit for the good of the country and for the good of the Senate.

I totally support the cloture petition that was filed by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky on behalf of the two leaders because that is basically what happened.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I think everyone within the sound of our voices should understand the majority leader and minority leader were on the Senate floor and they both said we are going to stay here until we finish this, the Homeland Security conference report and the FSC tax bill. Those matters are going to be finished. If we can finish on Friday, we will be out of here. If we are finished on Saturday, we will be out of here. But the two leaders have said we are going to work to finish this legislation.

We are dealing with Senators who know all the rules just as we do, but I will indicate that this is a little different time. We are trying to bring Congress to a close, at least this part of it. Everyone should understand the determination of the two leaders to move this matter forward and the other things that are going to come before the Senate.

Mr. President, Alan Reinstein was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 16, 2003 and underwent radical surgery to remove his affected lung, diaphragm, and other parts of his body. Today, Alan continues his courageous battle with this terrible illness.

I received a phone call last week from by brother Don, indicating that a long-time family friend, Harold Hansen, had died from mesothelioma.

I am submitting a resolution today to designate the first day of April of next year as National Asbestos Awareness Day.

Harold Hansen was a family friend, such a wonderful man. In fact, my brother called me a short time ago and said: Harold is sick. He has mesothelioma.

I said: Did he ever work around asbestos. And he said not that he remembers.

I knew a lawyer who might be able to help him and referred him to the lawyer. Now Harold is dead.

This is a terribly difficult problem in America. I talked about Alan; his wife Linda could not just sit back and watch her husband suffer. Knowing others were also suffering, she helped create the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization to unite asbestos victims. One goal of the organization is to educate the public and the medical community about asbestos-caused diseases. The occurrence of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer is growing.

Over the next decade, it is estimated that 100,000 victims in the United States alone will die of asbestos-related disease. About 30 a day will die from this condition.

I received many letters from Nevadans with asbestos-related diseases in their families.

Eleanor Shook from Searchlight, NV, where I was born and reared, lost her husband Chuck to this dread condition 2 years ago. They found that Chuck was sick, and 2 months later he died--no cure, no treatment, no reprieve. He had been repeatedly exposed to asbestos during all the years he was working to raise his family.

I also got a letter from Jack Holmes, a former teacher from Las Vegas, who wrote:

I am dying. I have malignant mesothelioma . . . I can expect extreme pain and suffering before I die.

I also heard from Robert Wright of Henderson, who was exposed to asbestos in the Navy and now suffers from asbestosis.

These are just a few of the hundreds of Nevadans who are suffering today from asbestos-related diseases. Every one of these stories is a tragedy because they all could have been prevented. Asbestos-related diseases are uncurable, and they are deadly. They can be prevented with greater awareness and education.

Most Americans think asbestos was banned a long time ago. But companies use asbestos every day in their water pipes, as insulation, and in building materials and other substances. Asbestos kills, and kills invisibly. Asbestos cannot be smelled, tasted, or seen, and moves through the air in tiny particles and embeds itself in the lining of the lungs once it is inhaled. It stays there for up to 50 years, damaging tissue and eventually causing disease. Inhalation of asbestos is permanent and irreversible. Simply walking by a recently demolished building that contains asbestos can be enough to breathe in a deadly amount.

I was in New York and a New York police officer was with me. He was part of an undercover unit that had New York City policemen dressed in construction clothes. They were running a construction business. That was part of what they were undercover doing. One of the reasons they did it is because there are people in this country so evil, so malignant that they are willing to take asbestos that these people said they had--it really wasn't asbestos--and they would take it and dispose of it. They would dispose of it in school grounds, and they had no concern where they disposed of what they thought was asbestos. Of course, they were arrested. But asbestos is a terrible problem. It is such a difficult problem in New York City alone where they remove asbestos. They are setting up these undercover operations to catch some of the people who are trying to make money on the disposal of asbestos.

Exposure to asbestos has had numerous consequences for victims and their families. Better awareness and education can help to eliminate future exposure. Early detection can give patients increased treatment options and often improves their prognosis. For these reasons, I am introducing a resolution to designate the first day of April as Asbestos Awareness Day. Asbestos awareness will lead to prevention, early diagnosis, new treatments, and a cure.

Just as the victims of families of asbestos-related disease joined together in founding the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the Senate must unite in and pay tribute to victims by observing April 1 as Asbestos Awareness Day. I hope all Senators will join me in this effort.

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, I ordinarily don't speak for other Senators, but I think I can speak for Senator McConnell. We appreciate very much the majority leader and Senator Daschle's deliberateness in moving forward on reform, not only of the intelligence community but also congressional reform. It would be easy to put that aside, but I think it is important that we move forward as the 9/11 Commission recommended. They have said quite clearly, you can't do one without the other.

What we have done, working with the other 20 members of the task force, is come up with what political scientists say are some significant changes in the history of this body. I don't know if that is true or not, but there are some significant changes which would create a new Homeland Security authorizing committee that would not necessitate the Secretary, as he has this year, appearing 164 times before different committees and subcommittees. Eighty-eight different subcommittees and committees have jurisdiction over him. That is not good. The new Homeland Security committee will take jurisdiction from 10 different committees.

We also are creating, from the pattern given to us by the 9/11 Commission, a very strong Intelligence Committee. And in the appropriations process, we have a subcommittee there. I spoke last night to Lee Hamilton, one of the cochairs. We have kept them advised as to everything we have done, and they are on board. They think what we are doing is totally in keeping with their recommendations. We haven't followed everything they wanted, but we have kept them advised along the way. We have a very good product.

Again, Senator McConnell and I extend both to the majority leader and Senator Daschle our thanks for keeping your eyes on the prize and having us go forward, as difficult as it has been.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

What was the request, Madam President?

Mr. President, the time is running against the bill?

Mr. President, John Kerry's record on defense reflects more than approximately 10,000 votes he has cast in the Senate. His defense record goes back to the steaming jungles of Vietnam where he, as a young sailor commanding a fast boat, went into harm's way on many different occasions. We know about the number of those occasions because his defense record indicates that the Government of the United States awarded him two medals for heroism--one a Bronze Star, one a Silver Star. He was wounded on three separate occasions and received three Purple Hearts. They were awarded not by some gentleman's club but by the U.S. military.

On the programs about which we have heard a dissertation today, as we look through those--except for the MX missile, which was canceled by the President of the United States, not by Congress, as I recall--all of these programs came into being. So to think that any one Senator, with the hundreds and hundreds of votes on defense matters, stopped the Cold War from being won is really a little silly, for lack of a better description.

Senator John Kerry supported more than $4.4 trillion in defense spending, including for 16 of the last 19 Defense authorization bills. In fact, he voted for the largest increase in defense spending since the early 1980s.

John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. armed services and has consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and training possible. In 2002, as an example, Senator Kerry voted for the largest increase in the history of the defense budget. This increase provided more than $355 billion in the Defense Department for 2003, an increase of $21 billion over the previous year. This measure includes $71.5 billion for procurement programs, such as $4 billion for Air Force's F-22 fighter jets which are now going to be stationed at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas; $3.5 billion for Joint Strike Fighter which will also be stationed in Las Vegas at Nellis Air Force Base, and $279.3 million for the E-8C Joint Stars aircraft.

Senator Kerry's vote also funded a 4.1-percent pay increase for military personnel; $160 million for the B-1 bomber defense system upgrade; $1.5 billion for a new attack submarine; more than $630 million for Army and Navy variants of the Black Hawk helicopter; $3.2 billion for additional C-17 transports; $900 million for R&D of the Comanche helicopter; and more than $800 million for the Trident submarine conversion.

For someone who has served in the Senate for 20 years--this is just one Senator's opinion--it speaks well of him that he is not a rubberstamp for requests submitted to us by the Defense Department. That is what we are. We are a separate, equal branch of Government, the U.S. Congress, and our part of it is the Senate. We have an obligation to review very closely what is given to us by the Pentagon and given here. They always ask for more than they deserve, knowing that we are going to turn down some requests. We have budgets to meet also. It speaks well of Senator Kerry if he did not rubberstamp everything they asked for.

As to the Bradley fighting vehicle, which was mentioned in the previous speech, Senator Kerry supported $8.5 billion for the Bradley program. That is not bad. Senator Kerry, for the M-1 Abrams tank, has supported at least $21.5 billion in defense authorization for that tank.

He has supported all five new aircraft carriers since he joined the Senate. Since 1985, John Kerry has voted to start work on each of the five new aircraft carriers: the USS Stennis, USS Truman in 1988, the USS Reagan in 1993, the USS Bush in 1998, and the newest yet unnamed carrier in 2001. So these aircraft carriers, the Stennis, Reagan, Bush, and formerly the CVNX, he voted for all of those.

The F-15 fighter jets, Senator Kerry supported almost $20 billion in Defense authorizations for the F-15. For the F-16, Senator Kerry supported at least $25 billion in Defense authorization.

There is going to be a debate tonight and maybe that is why the speech was given, but in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Cheney said:

If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need

as many F-16s. . . . The F-16D we basically continue to buy

and close it out because we're not going to have as big a

force structure and we won't need as many F-16s.

According to the Boston Globe, Bush's 1991 Defense budget ``kill[ed] 81 programs for potential savings of $11.9 billion . . . Major weapons killed include[d] . . . the Air Force's F-16 airplane.'' This was Secretary Cheney. This was House Member Cheney. This was Vice President Cheney.

It is also important to note that Senator Kerry has supported at least $10.3 billion in Defense authorizations for the B-1 bomber.

The Kerry record on the B-2 bomber. He supported $17 billion in Defense authorization for the B-2. Mr. Cheney proposed cuts to the B-2 program. I am sure there were times when he supported it, as did Senator Kerry. There were times when Senator Kerry thought there was too much being spent, as did Secretary Cheney.

According to the Boston Globe in 1990:

Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback . . .

of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth

bomber program, from 132 programs to 75 . . .

If we want to go back and revisit history a long time ago, we do not have to go back very far to find out, just a couple of years ago, an introduction of John Kerry by Senator Zell Miller at the Georgia Democratic Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner, and I quote my friend Zell Miller:

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of the

nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and

greatest leaders--and a good friend. He was once a lieutenant

governor--but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like

someone I know (Miller). It just took two years before the

people of Massachusetts moved him to the United States Senate

in 1984.

Further quoting him:

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought

against government waste and worked hard to bring some

accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in

1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit

Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it

was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

Senator Miller went on to say:

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public

education--

Let me repeat this quote:

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public

education, boost the economy and protect the environment.

Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-

technology legislators and made him a member of its

``Digital Dozen.''

Further quoting:

John was reelected in 1990 and again in 1996--when he

defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most

closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat

officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star

and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in

Vietnam. He later cofounded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

As many of you know, I have great affection, some might say

an obsession, for my

two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John

is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German

shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him

to know Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

This is a direct quote from Senator Zell Miller and, among other things, I repeat, ``John has worked to strengthen our military.''

The record for Senator Kerry supporting the military is, as Senator Miller said, a stellar performance. He has worked to strengthen our military.

I also say that for someone who opposed the MX missile system, I do not think that makes him a bad guy. We in Nevada did not like the system. It was eventually stopped. If somebody does not support the missile defense system--I think there is probably somebody sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair today, which can only be presided by those on the majority, who does not support the missile defense system. So the fact that people pick and choose what they support for the military does not make them bad.

Senator Kerry's record is very good, and I have gone over some of the things he supported. I am not going to belabor the point, other than to say that Senator Kerry supported the F-18, and he supported the $60 billion defense for that instrument of war. The Cheney F-18 record, he asked for cutbacks on that.

Senator Kerry is a person who truly believes in the military. He was a volunteer as a young man and went and fought, showing heroism in that process, and he is still showing heroism in his defense of this country, under tremendous odds, with terribly negative attacks. For someone who has served with Senator Kerry for two decades in the Senate, I am proud of him. I am proud he is the nominee for my party. He is a man of integrity. He has tremendous competence.

I was on the Select Committee on MIA/POW. He chaired that. The cochair was Bob Smith from New Hampshire. He did a remarkably good job in a most difficult situation.

I wish today had not turned into a situation of trying to talk about Presidential politics, but that is the way it has turned out.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I say through the Chair to the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from North Dakota has served more than 2 decades in the Congress of the United States?

So you have been called to vote on every Defense bill and hundreds and hundreds of amendments offered on those Defense bills over the years.

As strong as the Senator from North Dakota is on matters relating to the U.S. military, I don't know this, but I will bet there were occasions that you voted to cut certain programs; is that right?

The point I make, and I would like the Senator to respond to this, a person from time to time, in service in the Congress of the United States, votes for amendments to cut spending in different areas for a lot of different reasons. They still can be some of the strongest hawks we have around here; isn't that true?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding cloture, the Specter amendment No. 3866 be in order.

Mr. President, I am disappointed. However, I understand fully. If the Senator from Maine had the ability to make this in order, the same as last night, it would have been done. This is a complicated bill. But I felt I had to attempt to move forward on this so there will be no misunderstanding as to what took place last night on this matter.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, last week we all did tremendously important work, including the work that was done by Senators Collins and Lieberman on homeland security. We extended the highway bill until next May. The welfare bill, TANF, was extended. We passed a continuing resolution. These are things that did not take a lot of time, but a lot of work was entered into with many different groups and people to get to where we could complete those three items.

Mr. President, I would say through you to the distinguished majority leader, this week is going to be tough. We are going to have to have the cooperation of all Members because we not only have just a few days left, but those days are days that are involved with the Vice Presidential debate tomorrow and the Presidential debate on Friday. So we really have a lot of work to do. We are going to have to have the cooperation of all Members.

I think we have had good bipartisan support to move down the road on the homeland security bill. But I think people are going to have to take a look at the amendments they have filed. If an amendment in a subject area has been decided by an overwhelming vote, I think Senators should reconsider whether or not to propose those amendments. Some Senators are going to have filed amendments that are germane and they are going to have to decide whether or not they want to take the Senate's time. It would appear to me a number of these are not going to pass.

So we have a lot of work to do, a very short period of time to do it, and I think that with the spirit of getting toward the end of the session, which usually becomes a time for Members to cause problems, we haven't had that in the past several weeks and that has worked out very well. So I hope we can move forward as we have the past 3 weeks. It has been very rewarding to the Senate and to the country.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.

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

How much time does the minority have remaining in morning business?

Mr. President, I flew to Las Vegas Friday, and on the way out there I read the anniversary edition of Sports Illustrated. It had in it what has transpired in the world of athletics during the last 50 years. The thing that struck my eye was Sports Illustrated said the most definitive role model during these past 50 years is not the name that one would think, but it is Lance Armstrong, the cyclist. Out of all the athletes, they said Lance Armstrong was the most positive role model of all the athletes in some 50 years. The reason that was important to me is I was going to Las Vegas Friday for an event with Lance Armstrong.

This man has done some tremendous things, and not only athletically. Just a few years ago, he was dying of cancer. Many of his sponsors, when he was sick--in fact, most of them--no longer would support him. They pulled their support and left him for dead because of his advanced cancer.

We all know that Lance Armstrong is in a class by himself as a cyclist, but he represents a growing population of cancer survivors.

In June, the Centers for Disease Control found that the number of cancer survivors in the United States had tripled over the past 30 years, a 300-percent increase. Unfortunately, people in my State have lower rates of cancer survivorship than our neighboring States.

Nevada is home to world-class physicians, but we have lacked a research institution that can provide cutting edge treatments for patients who have been helped by traditional therapies. As a result, many Nevadans have been forced to travel out of State for cancer care or to simply forego nontraditional treatments.

Just over 2 years ago, a young couple, Jim and Heather Murren, came to Las Vegas. Jim Murren came to work for MGM as one of its top executives, and he was accompanied by his wife, or vice versa, however one wants to state it. Heather Murren was a financial specialist in New York who worked for a large firm on Wall Street and was an important person in her own right. She came to Las Vegas, and discovered there was a need for a world-class cancer research institute in Las Vegas.

It was a vision she had. The Nevada Cancer Institute has taken shape at a breathtaking pace. The institute, which is set to open its doors next year, has already assembled a team of world-class scientists. They have recruited Dr. Nicholas Vogelzang, who had been the director of the University of Chicago's cancer research center, to direct the new Nevada Cancer Institute.

The Nevada Cancer Institute is offering hope to Nevadans and hope that more Nevadans will beat this dread disease and become like Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor.

I mention this today because Friday evening, Nevadans celebrated the hope of greater cancer survivorship when Lance and the Tour of Hope cyclists rode down the Las Vegas strip. It is not often the Las Vegas strip is closed, but it was closed Friday for a short period of time.

The Tour of Hope is a week-long journey across America by a team of 20 cyclists who have been touched by cancer. Some are survivors. Others are research scientists, advocates and healers.

At the rally in Las Vegas on Friday, the Tour of Hope team members shared their inspiring stories. Lance Armstrong spoke about his experience and his passion for cancer research. He has done tremendous works on behalf of cancer patients. He founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which helps individuals living with, through, and beyond cancer. His historic six consecutive Tour de France victories inspired millions of Americans touched by cancer and the Tour of Hope is carrying his message across the country. Every American can help by signing the Cancer Promise, which is a pledge to support the search for a cure by learning about cancer prevention and research.

This weekend I had the opportunity to collect these promises from my fellow Nevadans and send them across the country with the Tour of Hope cyclists. In addition to signing these promises, many people showed their support by wearing these simple, little yellow plastic wristbands Lance had 5 million of these made. They were gone within a couple of weeks. Now over 12 million have been sold and millions more are being manufactured: ``Live strong,'' it says. These are to be worn all of the time.

Someone who closely watched the debate Thursday night between the President and Senator Kerry noted Senator Kerry had one of these on during the debate. These bands give hope--hope that lives can be saved and this dread disease can be beaten.

I am proud of the progress Nevada is making in this fight against cancer, but it is still unfortunate that too many Nevadans don't have access to quality health care. More than one in five working adults in Nevada have no access to health insurance, perhaps the highest rate in the country. Nationally, we know almost 45 million Americans don't have health insurance, an increase of more than 5 million in just the last 4 years alone.

One reason so many Americans are losing their insurance is because health care costs are spiraling. Employers that do not provide insurance for their employees don't do it because they are cheap or they are mean; they do it because they can't afford it. They know if they have employees with health insurance, they are happier employees.

Health insurance premiums have risen by double digits in the last 4 years. Premiums for a family now have reached about $10,000. Rising premiums have hit businesses and families, also. An average working family now pays nearly $2,700 out of their own pockets for premiums, in addition to paying deductibles and copayments.

It is not just premiums that are going up. The American Association of Retired Persons recently reported that, during the first part of this year, prescription drug prices rose more than 3.5 times the rate of inflation. The typical senior citizen will pay $191 more for prescription drugs this year than last year, and seniors are about to get hit with the largest Medicare premium increase in the history of the program. Monthly Medicare premiums will increase by $11.60 next year.

Today I am hopeful about the gains we are making in the fight against cancer, but I also know we must do more to get health care costs under control. Unfortunately, the President's Medicare bill that passed last year was a huge giveaway to big insurance companies and drug companies. I happen to think the drug companies and the big insurance companies can take care of themselves. We need to look out for working families who have lost their health insurance, families who are struggling with rising premiums and copayments, and senior citizens who are being pounded by the rising costs for prescription drugs.

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 ask consent that the time run during the quorum call off the time I have left first and then start running off the time of the majority.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers will allow the setting aside of the pending amendments and allow me to call up three amendments that are at the desk that Senator Leahy has asked me to offer on his behalf.

Well, that is fine. But I thought we were going to allow amendments to be offered. If we are going to pick and choose what amendments are going to be offered, I will object to all of them, because Senator Leahy has the right to offer his amendments if anybody else does. I will be happy to withhold for a short time. I withdraw my request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, during the time in the quorum, we have been able to speak with the managers of the bill. I now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up en bloc amendments Nos. 3913, 3915, and 3916 on behalf of Senator Leahy.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so I can offer an amendment for Senator Durbin.

I call up amendment No. 3923.

I ask that it now be set aside.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand the legal prowess of the Senator from Pennsylvania when there is a legal issue. I know the good intentions he has in regard to this most important subject matter and to what the amendment relates. But on behalf of the authorizers, I think this matter should be discussed at the Judiciary Committee level in some detail, and it has not. I object.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize President Jimmy Carter on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

The people of Nevada elected me to the U.S. House in 1982, so I arrived in Congress after President Carter had already left the White House. I did not have a chance to work with him.

But I have had, and I continue to have the pleasure of observing his great leadership on many important projects and issues.

What I admire most about President Carter is that he has never forgotten where he came from. Jimmy Carter was brought up on his family's peanut farm outside the small town of Plains, GA. His family home lacked electricity and indoor plumbing.

He is a product of the American dream, ascending from the red clay fields of Georgia to the most powerful office in the world.

I have heard a story that when he told his mother he was going to run for President, she replied, ``President of what?''

After graduating as valedictorian of his high school class, a young Jimmy Carter enrolled in the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated in 1946 in the top tenth of his class, and signed on as an officer under the tough but inspirational Captain Hyman Rickover in the Navy's first experimental nuclear submarine.

Due to his service, a submarine was named for him: The USS Jimmy Carter. This is one of the very few US Navy vessels to be named for a person still alive at the time of the commissioning.

President Carter's presidency was distinguished by his strong commitment to human rights in the world, and his commitment to justice and protection of the environment at home.

As the governor of Georgia, he had reorganized the State government to make it more responsive to the needs of the people. He did the same thing as president, separating the Department of Health, Education and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. He also recognized the importance of establishing a strong national energy policy by creating a new cabinet-level department, the United States Department of Energy.

The Carter administration's foreign policy is best remembered for the peace treaty he brokered between the states of Israel and Egypt with the Camp David Accord. The unfortunate assassination of President Sadat only underscored the deep-seated animosity in that part of the world, which made this agreement so remarkable.

He also brokered the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At the same time, he aggressively developed weapons systems like cruise missiles and stealth bombers, which are still a vital part of our military arsenal.

Since leaving the White House, Jimmy Carter has redefined the role of an ex-President, using his status and standing to mediate for peace and fight disease worldwide.

He has been involved in a number of public policy, human rights, and charitable causes. His work in international public policy and conflict resolution is largely through the Carter Center, which also focuses on worldwide health care and includes a campaign to eliminate guinea worm disease.

Outside of the Carter Center, President Carter conducts diplomatic missions as an elder statesman. In 2002 the Nobel committee recognized his efforts at Camp David and the accomplishments of his post- presidency by awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize.

In addition to promoting peace and human rights through the world, President Carter has been involved with the non-profit group Habitat for Humanity since 1984.

Habitat is an ecumenical Christian housing ministry dedicated to eliminating substandard housing. Habitat volunteers have built more than 100,000 houses worldwide, providing decent and affordable homes for grateful families, including some in my home State of Nevada.

Unlike some public figures who support good causes merely by lending their name, President Carter gives his sweat to Habitat for Humanity. He hammers nails and cuts boards. Each year he leads a work project, and he and his wife Rosalyn donate a week of their time to this wonderful cause.

The late educator Booker T. Washington once said, ``There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other is pulling up.''

President Carter's life has been a testament to the latter. The value of his life's work cannot be measured or quantified by the years he served as President, but by the scope of all his deeds, political as well as humanitarian.

I have visited the President at his home in Plains. I have attended his Sunday School class. I am honored to have served as his Nevada finance chairman when he ran for President. President Carter is my friend, for which I am grateful.

President Carter leads by example. Living modestly and decently, he continues to stand up for the weak, the less fortunate, and those whose God-given rights have been denied.

It is my honor to wish the Naval lieutenant, Nobel Prize recipient, and 39th President of our United States, James Earl Carter, a happy 80th birthday.

I have submitted a resolution to commemorate this occasion, and Congressman Lewis has introduced the accompanying resolution in the House. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.