Floor Statements

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, we have a number of votes we are going to try to get lined up for later this evening. It is my suggestion that the Senator ask for the yeas and nays, and then at a subsequent time, we will figure out when we are going to vote on it.

That is appropriate

Mr. President, through the Chair to the Senator from Massachusetts, I am wondering if the Senator from Massachusetts would withhold his recognition, following a very brief statement by the Senator from Nebraska who wishes to offer an amendment and then speak. It should take just a few minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Massachusetts regain the floor.

Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding the first vote will occur at 5:30 or 5:15.

And it is my further understanding there has been consent entered that Senator Schumer could modify his amendment; is that true?

That modification is at the desk and I ask it be brought forward in compliance with the unanimous consent request made by the Senator from Mississippi.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have been here with Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran trying to move this most important bill along. We learned over the weekend that developments had occurred and that we would not even ask for a filing deadline for tonight. That was the original plan. Senators who wished to offer amendments would have had to file, say, at 5 o'clock tonight. That being the case, we would have probably had maybe a dozen amendments, and we could finish those tomorrow. It may have taken a while, but we could have finished them with a good hard day's work tomorrow.

We have been told now we have another supplemental for Florida coming along, and some people on the majority side want to include that in this bill. I think that is a real mistake. I want to do everything that I can to help the people of Florida; they have been through a lot. That has not ended yet, as you know, with Hurricane Ivan approaching, which may hit Florida again.

We can finish this Homeland Security appropriations bill. I think that would be a real important thing to do before we leave for the Jewish holiday. I think if we try to include the supplemental appropriations bill as part of this, it is going to make it difficult, if not impossible, to finish because we have been told by Senator Nelson of Florida and by other Senators who are interested in what is going on in the farm country around the United States that on the next bill that comes, there is going to be an amendment on that, and there will be significant amendments that will require debate and a lot of money.

I am not a visionary, by any means, but having been on the Senate floor a lot, I believe it will be difficult, if not impossible, to finish the bill--certainly not tomorrow night. It will spill over into Wednesday. We will not finish by 11 o'clock, or whatever time the leader wants to finish to allow people to go west for the holiday.

So I ask respectfully that the majority take another look at this, and let's have a filing deadline quickly and finish this bill tomorrow. I know the majority wants to get as much work done as possible, and I respect that. We have been really good on these bills. We have been sticking to what we believe is the important work of the country, this Homeland Security bill. We entered into an agreement that we would only offer related amendments, and we stuck by that. We have so little time to do so much.

I think if we went ahead and did this emergency supplemental, it would be much easier to do that as a standalone vehicle, not tie it into this because it will wind up hurting both vehicles. That is a real mistake. I am willing to work with the body to determine what is best for the country, but I suggest it is not going to be a different country to have this Homeland Security appropriations bill not completed.

Senators Cochran and Byrd are two of the most experienced and wise people we have in the entire Senate. I think it complicates their job significantly to try to change the context of this bill from a homeland security bill to one that deals with a hurricane that occurred in Florida, and another hurricane that occurred in Florida, and maybe another one that will occur in Florida. I don't think the two matters are related. Again, I respectfully suggest that the majority take another look at this and see what we can do to separate the issues.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that in spite of the motion by the Senator from Mississippi, there be 2 minutes equally divided on this amendment.

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 Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry). and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, we have tonight a couple of amendments, maybe even three, that people could offer. I talked with Senator Dayton, and he said he wants to offer one which will take 5 minutes. It is up to the manager whether he wants to do that tonight or tomorrow. We also have two Feingold amendments that should be accepted, we understand, and a Levin amendment. It is up to the manager.

I say to my friend, since I last spoke on the Senate floor about how we should proceed on this bill, or made suggestions, I have learned that the House leadership has said they are going to spend all week looking at the next supplemental dealing with Florida.

Whether that is the case or not, I do not know. All I know is that is what they have said. I again ask the majority to take a close look at what we are doing. Let us finish Homeland Security appropriations and worry about Florida--and I realize it takes a lot of worrying because they have had calamities that are untoward in our history, but let us get rid of this Homeland Security bill. I say that in a positive sense.

We have made good progress. I think the amendments have been listed. We can get rid of these, and again I hate to use a term like that--we can dispose of these amendments. We can adopt and accept some of them. I think we could do it even maybe tomorrow evening. But if we are going to complicate this matter with the supplemental appropriations, it is going to make things real tough to finish this bill.

I am here only to serve the body and do whatever I can to move things along. I yield the floor.

First of all, I move to set aside any pending amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of amendments Nos. 3585, 3602, and 3620, the first two offered by Senator Feingold, the third by Senator Levin. It is my understanding they have been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, unless the manager has more.

I ask unanimous consent we go now to morning business.

Mr. President, I today congratulate Dr. Catherine Snelson, assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for receiving the 2003 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, PECASE.

This award is the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. Government on young scientists at the outset of their careers. In addition, Cathy has also received the Early Career Scientist and Engineer Award from the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Defense Programs.

I commend Dr. Snelson for her hard work and commitment to academic excellence in the public interest.

Dr. Snelson received her B.S. from California State University at Hayward in 1995, and her M.S. and her Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Texas at El Paso. While completing these degrees, she performed fieldwork in the western United States, Ireland, and central Europe.

Since joining the faculty of UNLV as an assistant professor in January 2002, Dr. Snelson has continued to do important research that will protect the people of Nevada. Specifically she has identified areas that would be most affected by seismic events occurring in and around the Las Vegas Valley, and she has been involved in setting up motion recording stations to monitor earthquakes throughout the valley.

Please join me in congratulating Dr. Catherine Snelson for her academic excellence, and in wishing her well in her promising career as a geoscientist.

Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me a few words before we finish, as I have stated on the floor, I believe we can finish the Homeland Security appropriations bill tomorrow. I think we can do that. Senator Daschle has stated that he believes that is the case also. There is a complicating factor, and that is the reason we didn't have a cutoff time this evening for filing amendments. There is some interest in tying this together with supplemental appropriations for the catastrophes--I say that in the plural--that have hit Florida. The last one is not yet there. We understand the importance of that.

I say as sincerely as I can to my friend, who is my counterpart on the majority side, don't connect these two bills. We are aware and concerned about the problems in Florida and we will work to help. We have two Democratic Senators from Florida. We know how important that is. But to tie these two together is only making our work more difficult. We can finish this bill tomorrow. If the leadership on the Republican side decides they want to go to another supplemental even before, let us do that separately. We are going to do everything we can to take care of the people of Florida. But this is so important.

I will not guarantee anything, but I think if the supplemental is tied to Homeland Security, we are not going to finish this tomorrow, and I think we will be lucky to finish it Wednesday morning.

That is my observation. I am doing everything I can to work on this matter. I am making that suggestion.

Mr. President, we have no objection as long as Senator Durbin is recognized for a like amount of time.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now on the Homeland Security appropriations bill?

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I send an amendment to the desk. It is amendment No. 3578. I think it is already at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside for purposes of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment calls for $100 million for the U.S. Coast Guard. Senator Lautenberg at a subsequent time will come and debate this matter. It is my understanding that the leadership wishes to have this as one of the votes that would occur on Monday evening.

Amendment No. 3618

Mr. President, as indicated by the cosponsor of this amendment, it is totally supported on this side. We appreciate the chairman of the committee moving forward on this most important amendment to increase funding for these agencies as set forth therein.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, before the distinguished leader leaves the floor, I knew the minority leader was going to speak on fetal alcohol syndrome. But I ask the distinguished Senator from South Dakota--I have in my library a book that he recommended written by someone from South Dakota on this subject, a book on this terrible problem that affects a lot of different people, especially in Indian country. I have never forgotten that book. It was something I had never heard of until I read that book. Does the Senator remember that book?

Mr. President, under the control of time of the Democrats, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, and 10 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor.

Madam President, I will take 2 minutes from our side. I have already allocated that.

Let me simply say, I appreciate my friend from Mississippi trying to be a leader of the Senate, being chairman of a committee, doing all those things he is very capable of doing.

The fact is, there is blame to go around on the highway bill. I hope we can pass a bill. I hope we can finish the conference. But let's understand why we are in the predicament we are in today.

The Senate passed a bill of $318 billion--not a Cadillac version, probably a low level Chevrolet or Ford, barely enough to keep the functions of our transit highway systems together. That bill, passed with four or five dissenting votes, did not increase the deficit 2 cents, not 1 cent. It did not increase the deficit. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the President said he will veto the bill. You figure that one out. No one else can.

As a result, the President has locked in a number. He was at 256. Now they have a number that is 289. They say it is 299, but it probably isn't. It doesn't allow the highway and transit functions to go on.

We are trying. I spent time with Senator Inhofe on Tuesday and Wednesday. Hopefully something can be arrived at. But at that number, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do.

The Senator from Oklahoma and I have an agreement. That agreement is, if I don't like the bill, he is not going to support it. If he doesn't like the bill, I am not going to support it. That is one of the arrangements we made to go to conference.

I am doing everything within my abilities. I have been chairman of the full committee on two separate occasions. I am speaking for the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords. I am doing everything within my power to come up with an arrangement so we can have a highway bill. But unless it is good for the country, I am not going to approve it. That is the arrangement Senator Inhofe and I made. If people don't like it, that is part of what goes on around here. We have to work with each other on different issues.

Let me finally say: I have the greatest respect for my friend from Mississippi. But he has not been in on all the arrangements we have made on this bill. It has been very difficult. It was hard to complete the bill at $318 billion. As we were doing the $318 billion legislation--this is a 6-year bill--the House was talking about $375 billion. I was not able to hear all of the comments of the Senator from Mississippi. I was with Senator Domenici working on the energy and water bill. But I do not apologize to anyone for what the Senate did on a $318 billion highway transit bill that was approved by this Senate overwhelmingly because it was a good bill.

I am sorry. For reasons I dare anybody to determine why, a bill that doesn't increase the deficit at all, the President says it is too much money. I will not get into some of the reasons I believe he did this other than to say I am going to continue to work to see if we can come up with a bill. I will do everything I can. But I am laying out as much as I can the position we find ourselves in today.

How much time did I consume?

The Senator from New Jersey then would have 18 minutes. The Senator from Arkansas will have 8\1/2\ minutes. I think that works out right.

Mr. President, before the Senator yields the floor, I, during the break--and I called the Senator at his home and told him that I read his book, which at the time I read it was No. 2 on the New York Times Bestseller List. And I told the Senator that I used this book as a text for several townhall meetings I held.

The Senator wrote this book. I will direct the attention of the body to page 112 of the book, ``Losing America.'' I say to the Senator, through the Chair, in this book you have one, two, three--about four pages of detail of times you personally have tried to increase the funding for homeland security. I refer to page 112, where you say:

On November 14, 2001, the White House opposed the inclusion

of $15 billion for homeland security in an economic security

package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food

safety, $4.6 billion for emergency first responders and

computer improvements at the federal level, $3.3 billion for

transportation security for airports and ports, $1.1 billion

for border security, $2 billion for security at nuclear

power, water, and other facilities and mail screening,

warning that such spending ``will only expand the size of

government.'' All Senate Republicans voted to block the

funding. . . .

Does the Senator recall that?

I refer to this same page:

On December 4, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee

unanimously sent the fiscal year 2002 defense appropriations

bill to the Senate floor for action. The bill included $13.1

billion for homeland security.

There was a parliamentary point of order raised by the Republicans that reduced the funding.

Is the Senator aware of that?

Continuing to quote:

On June 6, 2002, the Senate passed by a vote of 71 to 22 a

supplemental money bill that contained $8.3 billion for

homeland security. . . . On June 17, the president's senior

advisor recommended a veto of that bill because it contained

``excessive'' homeland security spending.

Does the Senator recall writing that?

I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I will continue to quote:

In August 2002, the president failed to make an emergency

designation for $2.5 billion for homeland security to

specifically address shortcomings identified by the Rudman/

Hart Report on terrorism vulnerabilities. . . . Bush said at

the time, ``I made my opposition clear. We were pretty plain-

spoken. . . . We'll spend none of it.''

Does the Senator recall that?

I will not list all of these, but suffice it to say, again, on January 16, as reported in your book, there was a vote on an amendment you had offered to add $5 billion. By a party-line vote that was defeated. It had $5 billion. You reduced it to $2 billion. That was defeated by a party-line vote.

On April 2 and April 3, you had amendments which provided $4.8 billion more than the President requested. All of the amendments were defeated.

On July 24, 2003, I say to Senator Byrd, you--quoting from your book--``offered an amendment to the homeland security bill that would have provided $292 million for activities such as port security grants, grants to train firefighters to respond to a terrorist attack, funds to help the Coast Guard provide security at our ports, funds for locating terrorism vulnerabilities at chemical plants'' and the amendment was defeated on a party-line vote.

Finally, on September 17, 2003, shortly before we recessed:

. . . in the House-Senate conference on the same homeland

security appropriations bill, [the Senator from West

Virginia] again tried to add homeland security money, $1.25

billion for port, aviation, Coast Guard, customs, first

responders, and chemical facility programs, and [his]

amendment failed on a party-line vote.

Continuing to quote from ``Losing America,'' the Senator from West Virginia wrote:

Nobody can convince me that this White House is serious

about homeland security.

The Senator, of course, recalls that. Does the Senator still believe that it appears the administration is not serious about homeland security when time after time they refuse to fund these programs that are essential to the State of Nevada and the rest of the country? Does the Senator agree that they haven't shown any seriousness about this?

Mr. President, I had the good fortune, when I was home this past break, to meet all the sheriffs of Nevada. They have a lot of problems with the unfunded mandate because of the homeland security----

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I met with the chief law enforcement officers of the counties of Nevada. Without any hesitation, they said they are having tremendous difficulties meeting their responsibilities because of the unfunded mandates that have been required as a result of this homeland security problem that faces all America.

As an example, I say to the two managers of the bill, one big problem we have is inoperability. They cannot communicate with each other through their radio, not only police, but they cannot speak to the fire officials. That is something that needs to be done. That is not covered in this bill.

With the additional funding that is requested by the Senator from West Virginia, we could start that program, something that is so important and needs to be done, and the sheriffs and law enforcement officers of Nevada need that very badly. Inoperability of communications is important. With regard to the gates and the screening, one reason we have these tremendously long lines all over America is we do not have enough people to do the work.

We need to hire some more people. I appreciate what the Senator from Mississippi said, that we are doing more training. We need to accelerate this significantly.

I say to my friends, the managers of this bill, we, of course, are faced with the problem--the Senator from Mississippi says, well, the committee is funding what the administration requests. That is the whole problem. They are not requesting enough. The fact that they are meeting what the administration has suggested is not appropriate. There is a lot more that needs to be done and I again refer to ``Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency,'' which shows in script, beginning on page 98, but specifically this morning I referred to pages 112 through 115, where we have tried time and again to see if we could get funding for problems that are so important to this country, programs that deal with seaports, airports, border security, nuclear facilities, first responders, and we have been turned down every time.

Last year, when we approved funding for Iraq early in the year of $69 billion, later in the year of $87 billion in supplemental funding, could we not spend $2 billion rather than in Iraq and use it at home and take care of the law enforcement officers in Nevada, take care of all the other requests we have to make our homeland more secure?

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to Byrd amendment No. 3597 and extend my appreciation to the Senator for offering this amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi knows how much I care about him and respect him. But $20 million for interoperability is so short of what is needed. The 9/11 Commission Report states, among other things:

. . . high risk urban areas such as New York City and

Washington, D.C., should establish signal corps units to

ensure communications connectivity between and among civil

authorities, local first responders, and the National Guard.

Federal funding of such units should be given high priority

by Congress.

The city of New York alone is more than $20 million. The State of Nevada is around $6 or $7 million. So $20 million is a literal drop in the bucket. I repeat, if we can, through supplemental funding, provide $69 billion, $87 billion in 1 year in supplemental funding for Iraq, couldn't we spend a few dollars for America to be safer? It appears this administration does not believe we should.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is contemplated--we think it will work out--is we will have two votes at 2 o'clock. The majority has not had an opportunity to look at the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Dodd and Ms. Stabenow. But as soon as they do, I think we will be able to vote at 2 o'clock. In the meantime, until that happens, we agree to the unanimous consent of the Senator from Montana.

Madam President, I ask that the relevant points of the Budget Act be waived and ask for the yeas and nays on that. Also, Madam President, I ask that the vote on this follow the completion of the vote on the Byrd amendment.

Through the Chair to the distinguished manager of the bill, would the manager of the bill object to 2 minutes, evenly divided, prior to the vote on the Dodd amendment?

It doesn't hurt to ask.

Madam President, we have 1 minute to go. I ask consent that the vote start now rather than at 2 o'clock.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I annouce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I could involve my friend in a brief dialog, I have come to the floor on many occasions and talked about the need for our leadership to cut off these votes. If we are going to finish this bill by next Tuesday, we cannot spend an hour on two votes. We cannot get the bill done.

I hope there will be some degree of understanding that this is unfair. Republicans do it and Democrats do it. I am not picking on one side. We should not have to wait on votes. People have the idea that when a vote is called, they will come when they get around to it and that we will hold the vote for them, and we do, which is wrong. That is my personal opinion.

If we are going to try to finish this bill by next Tuesday night as the leaders want, we are going to have to start cutting off these votes at a reasonable time; otherwise, there is no possibility while we are standing around here looking at each other while other people are in their offices completing phone calls or whatever else they do. It is unfair to the Senate, and I think it is unfair to the country.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, we have a lot of Senators who have indicated they want to offer an amendment. We have worked through the list, and we have a number of people who are going to offer amendments. Senator Harkin is going to come over at 5 o'clock or thereabouts. We are running into the thing we run into a lot around here. People say: We have amendments, but we are not ready yet.

The two leaders have said they are going to end this bill Tuesday night. There are different ways of fulfilling the wishes of the two leaders. One way would be to work hard and try to work our way through the amendments. It is my understanding, speaking to the two leaders, that we are going to be here tomorrow morning and have a couple votes. I guess what I am saying is: Staff of the Senators, if they would also listen, if there are not going to be amendments offered, let us know.

It would be in everybody's interest to come over and start offering these amendments. I am sorry we don't have it set up so people can come over immediately and not have to wait 2 or 3 minutes or even 20 minutes, but sometimes it works that way. I hope those within the sound of my voice will do whatever they can to come and offer their amendments. It is 4 o'clock. We don't have anybody here to offer amendments.

Monday is going to be a short day, as it always is, and Tuesday is going to be a long day. I believe there is a pretty good sense from the two leaders that they are going to do everything they can to finish Tuesday night because the Jewish holiday starts on Wednesday. If we go even until noon on Wednesday, that means people who have to travel to the west coast for religious observance on Wednesday cannot get there unless they leave earlier than that. You cannot automatically go to the airport and hope a plane is there. The latest plane going to California, for people who have to leave this body, is about 10:30 in the morning.

I hope that Senators will come over and we can have two or three in line here. Senator Cochran has the theory--and I am confident that he is probably right--that as soon as somebody offers the amendment and it is debated, we can vote on it. So I hope we have some people show up.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from California offering her amendment.

I want the Senator from California to recognize that Senator Byrd and I talked a little bit today about interoperability radios. At that time, I indicated I had met with all the sheriffs and law enforcement officers of the 17 counties of the State of Nevada. Every one of them lamented the fact--whether it is the fire departments in Clark County, the most populous city, Las Vegas, sheriff's department, or in Henderson, the second largest city in Nevada--departments cannot talk to each other.

I said this morning I think it costs approximately $6 million or $7 million to take care of that, but that was from memory and I was wrong. My staff heard me say that and, of course, got the correct figures.

In the city of Las Vegas alone, it will cost $40 million to take care of their problem; for the city of New York, $400 million. We have in this bill $20 million to take care of radio interoperability. It is important we increase that to $70 million plus the $20 million.

So we have $100 million. That would do a lot. A lot that needs to be done is simply planning and designing how we will do that.

My point is, these are problems that are very difficult to take care of but they have to be done because you cannot have a situation such as we had in New York City where the people were dying in those towers because they could not talk to each other.

I am happy to yield for a question.

The Senator from California is absolutely correct. It is a national attack.

In the Senate I have something called a BlackBerry. My staff in Las Vegas can contact me on this. Whether it is Carson City, Reno, my staff up here in the Capitol, my staff in the Hart Building, they can contact me on this. There is a low vibration, I pick it up, read what they have to say, and I can communicate back with them--yes, no, let's do it later or a longer message.

We have the ability to communicate in the Senate.

It is important for us to be able to communicate. As the Senator knows, we came together as Members of Congress quite a few years ago. Back then faxes did not work very well. But now we have so many different ways to communicate with each other. It seems to me if we can communicate the way we do, our first responders should be able to communicate.

The Senator has made a small step toward a big problem, an important step but it is not one to break the bank.

We sent to Iraq last year--and I also mentioned this to Senator Byrd earlier--in supplemental appropriations--meaning appropriations over and above the normal appropriations we do, last year we sent a first supplemental of $69 billion and the second was $87 billion. Couldn't we spend $70 million on my State in Nevada and California?

The Senator is absolutely right. We will have, as soon as this vote is called, a simple majority vote. That is all it will take now.

Today, we have had supermajority votes because there have been points of order because there have not been offsets. I, of course, would vote for this amendment whether it had an offset or not because it is so important. I appreciate this amendment.

When we send our people to battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, they have the ability to communicate with each other. That is modern warfare. But with modern firefighting, police work, as with other first responders, they do not have that same benefit. That is certainly something they should have.

I hope this amendment is adopted. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will recognize how important this is. It is just the evidence we need to do more. As I say to my friend from California, this is a step in the right direction. We need to do a lot more. I certainly hope this amendment is adopted. I hope it is by an overwhelming margin.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, we have gotten approval from the Judiciary Committee on the very fine amendment offered by the Senator from Tennessee.

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

Senator Harkin is in the building and he should be here momentarily.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the leadership wants the Schumer amendment to be one of the votes we are going to have Monday evening. Also, it is my understanding, having spoken to the manager of the bill and his staff, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of Management and Budget have reviewed amendment No. 3610, offered by the Senator from Virginia, and they have both said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be in a position to conduct an investigation of this creek drainfield in Richmond, VA; and this has been signed off on by FEMA, as I have indicated, and also by the OMB.

That being the case, even though on our side maybe there are people who think this is not something that is normally done, if FEMA and OMB signed off on it, which they have, we would be wasting the Senate's time by having a vote on it. That having been said, I say there is no further debate on this side.

Through the Chair to the Senator from New York, as I indicated, members of the leadership are lining up votes for Monday and, in all likelihood, the Senator's would be the first vote. We don't have a unanimous consent agreement to that effect but----

Mr. President, we have done about all we can do tonight. That is my understanding. I say to the manager of the bill that tomorrow, it is my understanding, there is an amendment to be offered by the majority. I cannot remember by what Senator, but someone told me about it.

On this side, Senator Corzine is willing to offer an amendment, Senator Lautenberg is willing to offer one, and maybe the distinguished Democratic leader will be ready to offer one. Whenever we come in, there will be opportunities to offer these amendments. It is my understanding that the Senate is not going to stay until a late hour. If those amendments are offered, we will have plenty to do Monday night, unless there is some agreement on amendments.

Yes, I am happy to yield.

I say to the Senator, there will be an opportunity to offer other amendments next week. He is on the list.

Mr. President, this is a kind of celebration. I congratulate Senator Smith for his devotion to a cause. I also want Senator Smith to know how much Landra and I--and I say this without reservation--benefited from the funeral of their son. It is something Landra and I talked about because Gordon and Sharon, from the very beginning, didn't hide the fact their son had taken his own life. I have been to funerals where there have been suicides involved and that is something you don't talk about. They did it openly. Every speaker there talked about Garrett, what a fine young man he was, and what a shame it was he took his own life. Our going to that funeral has benefited us in so many different ways, because we grew spiritually as a result of going to that funeral. There is nothing else we could have done that day that was more important.

Let me say to my friend Gordon Smith, this is a time for celebration. But I say that we have to continue to work on this issue. This is an authorization bill. We need the appropriators to feel as we do and put money into this project. As good as this is--and we could never appropriate money unless we authorize it--this will be relatively meaningless unless we can get the appropriators to put money into this program, so there can be grants and moneys to work for this dread disease.

So, Mr. President, I ask that the Senate here assembled have a moment of silence, not only for Garrett Smith, which is the purpose of our being here tonight, but for the 31,000 people who during the last 12 months in America have taken their own lives. Garrett is the person who is a focal point of this calamity that is facing our country today. But because of the work of Gordon Smith, we are going to be able to move beyond this. Hopefully, in the years to come, this will be a number that won't be increasing but decreasing.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate take a moment of silence at this time on behalf of Garrett Smith and the thousands of people who have died as a result of the taking of their own lives.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my congratulations to Officers Gary Casper, Clint Malburg, and Jim Mitchell and Sergeant Rick Servoss on their selection for the National Association of Police Organizations' Top Cops Awards.

The State of Nevada owes a great debt of gratitude to these brave police officers, and to all other law enforcement officers who keep our communities safe.

On August 19, 2003, a sudden storm caused dangerous flash flooding in the Las Vegas Valley. Sergeant Servoss and Officers Casper, Malburg and Mitchell, all members of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Search and Rescue team, were deployed to help residents escape the flood waters.

Seven people were trapped in life-threatening situations, stranded on top of their vehicles. Battling 60 mph winds and power lines, Sergeant Servoss and Officer Casper maneuvered the team's helicopter only feet above the roaring water. Suspended by a cable and winch operated by Officer Mitchell, Officer Malburg retrieved the trapped individuals. The team even saved four Las Vegas firefighters when rushing waters overtook their fire engine.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Officers Casper and Mitchell. That meeting reminded me how important it is to express our appreciation to police officers and other first responders. These people put their lives on the line every day to protect our homes and communities. They will tell you that they are just doing their--jobs but we must never forget that they are heroes.

When I attended law school, I worked as a U.S. Capitol Police officer to support my family. Today I still feel a bond with those who protect our communities. I am so grateful for the dedication and heroism of these brave men. Please join me in thanking them for their courageous efforts.

Mr. President, if I may take a moment at this late hour, I reflect back on the relations between the Soviet Union and United States. One day--I don't remember the exact day--they had a book out there, and there was someone from the Russian Embassy here, and Senators walked out there and wrote their heartfelt feelings about what had taken place in Russia. I was so moved by that. The man who was there from the Embassy was speaking very broken English, but he was so glad we were there. I was so glad to be able to write in that book, recognizing the tremendous progress that has been made between the United States and Russia.

I applaud the leader for submitting this resolution. We have come such a long way. We stand in this war on terror with former enemies who are now our friends. Again, I applaud and commend the leaders for bringing this forth. This will be sent to the Russian Government so they will know the Senate's sentiments representing the United States, and that we speak for all Americans. We send our condolences for the brutal acts of these evil men in taking the lives of children and many other innocent people.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished majority leader is propounding to the Chair that each side would have a full 30 minutes after the prayer and the pledge has been added in; is that right?

Mr. President, I appreciate that. So I do not interrupt again, I ask unanimous consent that 20 minutes be designated to the Senator from California, 10 minutes be designated--let's see. What we will do is have 19 minutes for the Senator from California, 8 minutes for Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, and 3 minutes for Senator Schumer from New York. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Would it be OK with Senator Feinstein if we could get the short speeches out of the way first? Would that be OK?

OK. We would go with Schumer, Kennedy, and Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Madam President, I think this is wise. We have two of the most senior Members of the Senate who are managing this bill. It has been said, and I will say it again, we are doing everything we can on this side to limit amendments. There are people who have amendments, and we want them to be able to offer them to this most important piece of legislation.

We just finished a leadership meeting, and those there who had a number of amendments indicated they would be willing to agree to short time agreements on them. I think it is something on which we can move forward.

I know Senator Byrd has a statement that is--I won't say long, but it is weighty. I think it would be better if we came back after the break and let him begin his statement. Personally, I want to be here to do that. I would agree to be in morning business until 12:30 p.m. with the time evenly divided, and come back at 2:15 p.m. If it is all right with Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd can have the floor at 2:15 p.m.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Senator Schumer is here. He has a very important amendment to offer. I think we could probably agree on a time for debate. We of course will ask the majority what time we want to vote. But I gather the Senator from New York would be in agreement to a time limit on his amendment.

Could the Senator give us an idea about how much time it might take? Senator Cochran usually likes to work under time agreements. Could we have a general idea?

We have a general idea about how much time it would take. If we could have a vote sometime before 5 o'clock?

I did mention that, but to give Members an idea of when there might be a vote, Senator Schumer is ready to offer his amendment.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.

Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, we have a situation where an amendment has been offered. Eventually, there will be a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Leahy and Senator Nelson. It may not be tonight. Before this bill is finished, they have a right to have their amendment heard, which it has been, and voted on.

Everyone should understand this amendment will not go away. People will vote on outsourcing. That is the way it is. So everyone understands, there will be another opportunity for Senators Nelson and Leahy to offer the amendment. If the majority wants to second-degree the amendment and filibuster their own bill, we would have to do it some other time.

We, in good faith offered, an amendment. Time was very limited. These two men spoke very short periods of time. There are many others who wanted to speak, but in the context of what the two leaders said, we should try to move this bill along. We tried to do that. At least we should have an opportunity to vote on these amendments.

It appears the majority is attempting to not allow us an opportunity to vote on this amendment. And it will happen, sooner or later.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3586 Through 3588, En Bloc

Madam President, while the distinguished manager of the bill is in the Chamber, I wonder if the Senator would agree--I talked to him personally, but so Senator Byrd knows--that Senator Byrd could offer his amendment during morning business in the morning. Would that be appropriate?

I would say through the Chair to the distinguished manager of the bill that Senator Byrd is planning to be here when morning business finishes around 10:30 tomorrow. Our next amendment in order will be that offered by Senators Dodd and Stabenow on first responders. That would be the next one that we would offer, just so the distinguished manager of the bill knows that.

We are working on a list of amendments, and we are not ready to do it at this time, but maybe tomorrow sometime we could do that. We will do our very best.

Madam President, if I may have the attention of the distinguished majority whip, as he can see, there are scores of amendments. We are going to be as cooperative as we can. We have a number of ours that are relevant amendments, and we will work with our side to see how many are serious about offering amendments. It is going to be a real heavy lift to finish this by next Tuesday, which is what the leaders want.