Floor Statements

Mr. President, the majority leader will be coming at a later time. I simply wanted to say that we renew our request on this issue which people feel so strongly about relating to marriage, that we move forward and vote on Resolution 40 that is now before the Senate. We have indicated, through our leader, Senator Daschle, and again yesterday, that we would be willing to move to that resolution posthaste. We would be willing to cooperate with the majority, have whatever debate time they wanted on the resolution itself. But we on this side are disappointed. Yesterday morning we were told the majority had another constitutional amendment they wanted to vote on relating to marriage, making it two. Then later in the day, we were told they still had a third one, which is certainly a recipe for having no vote on anything.

If there is no vote on the substance of this marriage amendment, it will lie at the feet of the majority. They have the ability to have an up-or-down vote on this resolution as soon as they want it. It is not good for the process to have an open season on amendments. What would happen is we would move to the marriage amendment and then, by simple majorities, one could attach whatever one wanted to it. The majority realizes we would never have an up-or-down vote on a marriage amendment because it would be filled with all kinds of other things.

This reminds me of the same thing that took place last week on something some Members also felt very strongly about--class action. On that, there was a sufficient number of Democrats, I am told, who would have been able to move forward with this legislation. But instead of moving forward on it, the majority again decided they didn't want to. They wouldn't allow a limited number of amendments. Therefore, we did nothing.

We have wasted 2 weeks. This will be the second week. I am told that when we finish the marriage amendment, which will be very shortly, if the procedures are as indicated--the majority leader filed cloture last night and we would move to the matter Wednesday to vote on it--the majority has indicated they want to move to the Australian free-trade agreement.

Now, I know Australia has been a good ally of this country, but, for Heaven's sake, we have so many more important things to do and we are going to take valuable Senate time away from the appropriations bills, one of which is on the floor, the one relating to homeland security.

The Presiding Officer has indicated that, with certain limitations, he would be willing to move forward on that bill. While we may not accept those limitations, we would certainly be willing to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to move forward on that legislation.

We had a briefing last week on homeland security. We are having another one tomorrow dealing with the emergency evacuation of this Capitol complex. There are things we need to do rather than have another free-trade agreement.

I hope the majority will see the light and allow us to vote on the marriage amendment tomorrow, or whenever they choose, if they want more time to debate it. I think it would be good for the people of this country if they knew how people stood on the constitutional amendment before this body.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the first half hour of morning business run against our side.

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

Will the Chair announce the morning business hour? I don't believe it has been done.

Under the Democratic time, the first 15 minutes will be for Senator Lautenberg. The next 10 minutes will be for Senator Harkin. The time for Senator Lautenberg has already started to run. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

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

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

We have 5 extra minutes. Mr. President, I yield that time to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

Mr. President, on behalf of the minority, are we now on the constitutional amendment?

Mr. President, I am happy to not object, but Senator Lautenberg was on the floor this morning and asked for an additional 5 minutes, and it was objected to.

I was just waiting for an opportunity to say what I just said.

Mr. President, I have spoken to the manager of the bill for the majority and I want to say a few brief words now and then I will yield 30 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin. Following that, Republicans will speak for whatever time they desire and the Democrats will then follow with remarks by Senator Durbin for up to 30 minutes.

I simply ask unanimous consent that following my brief remarks, Senator Feingold be recognized for up to 30 minutes; following his remarks the time revert to whatever the majority feels appropriate; following their remarks, that Senator Durbin will be recognized for up to 30 minutes; then trying to balance out this time, following the reversion back to Republicans, Senator Lautenberg will be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Reno Gazette-Journal, a newspaper that has been in existence for many years, a Gannett newspaper in Reno, NV, which is certainly not a bed of liberalism, published a very short editorial today. It says:

The plan to redefine marriage in a constitutional amendment

could not be a better election year wedge. The fact that

Lynne Cheney, champion of conservative causes, parted company

with her husband, Vice President Dick Cheney, on same-sex

marriage is illustrative of just how divisive it's become.

Typically, vice presidents support their presidents and

political wives back their husbands, regardless of personal

feelings. This time, the human aspect of the debate was too

much for a political wife to overcome.

As the mother of a lesbian, Lynne Cheney, of necessity,

would be finely attuned to all the arguments. And no one

should expect a parent to disregard an offspring for a

political agenda. Anyway, it is debatable that an amendment

would help a traditional conception of marriage. And, some

Senators indicate they are less than willing to try.

The administration is wading into deep waters, fracturing

families, and merging the church and the state. That's not

the way the system is supposed to work. It would be best for

government to leave this issue alone.

I am not an avid reader of the Washington Times. In fact, I didn't read it today. But it was brought to my attention and I did read the Washington Times:

GOP split on marriage proposals.

Senate Republican leaders, who had been seeking a clear

vote on a constitutional amendment on same-sex ``marriage,''

yesterday found themselves outmaneuvered by Democrats and

divided over which of two proposals to pursue.

President Bush and Senate Republican leaders support the

Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as the

union of a man and a woman and restricts the court's ability

to rule on the issue. But some Republicans want to vote on an

alternative, simpler version--leaving Republican leaders

scrambling. . . .

Let's understand where we are on this issue. Senator Daschle, in good faith, Friday, came to the floor and said we need to get to the business at hand. There is an important marriage amendment pending about which people on both sides of the aisle have strong feelings. Therefore, it would be better that we vote on the amendment, the one that has been on the Senate floor. We were told at that time by the majority leader that sounded like a pretty good idea, that he would have to check with his caucus.

Surprisingly, Friday we were unable to get that unanimous consent agreement entered. Monday we come back--no deal. In the morning, we were told they want to vote on two constitutional amendments regarding marriage. In the afternoon, we were told they want to vote on three constitutional amendments on marriage.

It is a simple choice. We are willing to vote on the legislation before this body, S.J. Res. 40. Why don't we do that? The reason we are not going to do it is because the majority has decided they want the issue. They do not care how the votes fall; they want the issue. That is wrong. Everyone should understand this is a march to nowhere, and the majority knows that.

I don't know what is happening around here. Class action is an issue for which there were enough Members here--Democrats and Republicans--to pass it. The majority would not even allow a vote--not a single vote-- on that issue. They want the issue.

They want to bash Democrats as being opposed to any reform of the tort system.

On medical malpractice, on asbestos, on class action they want the issue. They don't want to resolve the issue. One would think the people in the State of Ohio, in the State of Texas, in the State of Nevada, in the State of Wisconsin, in the State of Illinois, and in every other State would know how Senators feel on the amendment before this body.

They are not going to get that chance because we are going to be forced into a procedural vote. That is wrong.

We are willing to vote on S.J. Res. 40. We have said that. We keep saying that, but, no, the issue is more important than the merits of this matter, which is too bad.

Will the Senator yield?

Is the Senator aware, through the Chair I direct this question, in the State of Nevada, on two separate occasions, there was a vote by the people of the State of Nevada on whether they should include in the Nevada State Constitution a prohibition for gay marriage; is the Senator aware that took place?

I say to my friend, it has taken place. It was long and arduous. It took a period of years to accomplish.

Would the Senator agree that the State of Nevada had the right to do that; whether they agree with the conclusion or not, didn't they have the right to do that?

Through the Chair, I further question my friend, is the Senator aware in that debate over a period of years that lots and lots of money was spent in ads for and against the amendment, door-to-door activities took place, many more grassroots activities, editorials in newspapers, all in the State of Nevada? Whether you were for or against the ban on same-sex marriages, these activities took place in the State of Nevada; and now in the State of Nevada, in its constitution, there is a prohibition.

The people of the State of Nevada had a right to do that; didn't they?

Is the Senator also aware that we have been told the reason we are not going to vote on this amendment, Resolution 40 now before the Senate, is that Senator Gordon Smith has another amendment he wants to offer and he does want a vote? Has the Senator been told that is the fact?

Through the Chair, I direct this to the Senator from Illinois. From today's Congressional Daily, p.m. edition, it says: Senator Gordon Smith, Republican from Oregon, today denied that he has insisted the Senate vote on his alternative constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, telling reporters he favors Minority Leader Daschle's proposal to vote up or down on the underlying amendment sponsored by Wayne Allard, Republican from Colorado.

Is the Senator from Illinois aware that Senator Daschle has requested on more than one occasion that we have an up-or-down vote on the resolution that is now before this Senate, that we have all been studying and doing our best to understand, that we should vote up or down on this? Does the Senator agree that is what we should do?

The Senator is aware, however, is he not, as stated by the majority, this is a work in progress? They, obviously, are not sure what they want to vote on. Or is it just a political issue and they want to vote on nothing, they want to have another class action where they had victory in their grasp but they did not want to work on the substance; they wanted to maintain a political issue that Democrats were obstructing, which we were not? Is the Senator aware, it could be the same situation?

Mr. President, to try and work out some housekeeping aspects of what we are doing today, under the order that was entered last evening, we are to be here until 8 o'clock with the time evenly divided. I ask the Chair how much time remains for the minority and the majority.

The minority has 109 minutes?

I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Texas, I would appreciate his making contact with the majority leader at the nearest possible time. We have people who have requested time on our side of about 140 minutes. That doesn't work under the 109 minutes. So it would be my thinking that maybe we may need a little more time tomorrow to continue. I know we have cloture to take place tomorrow. The majority leader wanted ample time to debate. The Senator from Pennsylvania was on the floor yesterday and was concerned that there was not enough talk on our side of the aisle. I think we have taken care of that today. But if maybe he could check with his leadership to find out if we could stop at a reasonable hour tonight and then maybe have a couple of hours in the morning evenly divided prior to the vote on cloture. Right now we are going to have trouble cramming all of our time in with what we have left.

If I may ask one other question of the Chair, I was off the floor when Senator Schumer asked consent that he and Senator Feinstein be recognized before 5 o'clock. For how much time?

So that is also something we have to deal with.

Under an order previously entered, Senator Lautenberg is to be recognized for 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski--she has been waiting patiently. She had some information that she was supposed to have come 40 minutes ago so she is waiting--have 10 minutes immediately following Senator Lautenberg. We have been going back and forth, but some of the speeches have been much longer than the others.

If I could ask through the Chair, how long does the Senator from Pennsylvania wish to speak?

Maybe we can try this: Following the statement of the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Pennsylvania would be recognized for 15 minutes and then Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes. We already have an order in effect that Schumer and Feinstein are to be recognized for 15 minutes total. So they would use their time immediately after Senator Mikulski completes her statement. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

We would not go back and forth from Mikulski to Feinstein because there is already an order entered regarding Feinstein and Schumer, but they only total 15 minutes.

The next Democrat speakers in order following the statements of Senators Schumer and Feinstein would be Senator Kennedy for 15 minutes, followed by Senator Dayton for 20 minutes. I ask consent that be in order on this side of the aisle.

Did the Senator from Colorado have something he wanted to say?

If I could be heard briefly, we on this side are seeing the end of people who wish to speak tonight. The only speakers we have remaining, following Senator Dayton, are Senator Clinton for 15 minutes and Senator Jeffords for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that in the usual order we have been using today of back and forth, Senator Clinton next be recognized, Senator Jeffords be recognized following that, and if the Republicans have speakers interspersed between those we understand that.

We will continue to do that.

I was saying, if the Republican side did not have a speaker we would go ahead.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, we have two final speakers tonight, Senator Clinton and Senator Jeffords. Following that, we would have no more speakers on this side.

So when the distinguished chairman of the committee finishes his speech, Senator Clinton will be recognized and following that, Senator Jeffords.

How much time is left on both sides under the order already entered?

Fine. And how about the majority?

After the distinguished Senator from Utah speaks there will probably be no time left.

Mr. President, we have no speakers tonight.

In the morning, it is my understanding that the majority leader is going to allow--I am quite sure this is true--we would have an hour on each side on this amendment. Therefore, on the Democratic side in the morning, so there is no confusion, I want to make sure if any Senator is calling tonight, there is no more time. We have allocated all the time. If people call in the morning, there is no time left.

I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow, if the majority leader allows us the 55 minutes--I think he will--we have Senator Dodd, 15 minutes; Senator Carper, 10 minutes; Senator Lieberman, 5 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes; Senator Levin, 10 minutes; Senator Leahy, 10 minutes; and I would hope the two leaders could close the debate tomorrow morning using their leader time or whatever time is agreed upon by the Senate.

I ask consent on our side, our 55 minutes be divided as I have indicated.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Sierra Nevada Job Corps Center on its 25th Anniversary.

Since its beginning in 1979, the Sierra Nevada Job Corps Center has provided 16- to 24-year-old men and women with the tools they need to become skilled workers and successful citizens.

Under contract to the Department of Labor, the Sierra Nevada Center continuously trains 560 young adults in residential and non-residential programs. It helps them attain high school diplomas and general equivalency degrees, and provides counseling and 15 different vocational training courses.

These programs not only teach the basic reading and mathematics skills that are crucial for a successful career, they also instill the positive work ethic and good work habits that are equally important to success.

Thanks to the Sierra Nevada Job Corps, more than 20,000 men and women have become productive, employed citizens. By offering an alternative to welfare and unemployment, the center not only provides a long- lasting benefit to its students, but also to the entire State of Nevada.

This organization has been an inspiration to thousands of underprivileged Nevadans, giving them the motivation and confidence to pursue opportunities that would have otherwise been beyond their reach.

Please join me in congratulating director Kenneth C. Dugan, his staff and the thousands of graduates of the Sierra Nevada Job Corps on this program's 25th anniversary.

Mr. President, through the Presiding Officer to the acting leader, as we announced on Friday, we, the minority, would be willing to move to the resolution without a vote on a motion to proceed. We are willing to do that and set a time whenever the leader desires on Wednesday to vote on the resolution. Of course, that is with the understanding there would be no amendments to the resolution. We think that would be a fair way to approach this very important issue. There would be whatever time the leader wants. If he wanted to vote on Thursday, that would be fine. Whatever time is deemed necessary to the majority leader, we would be willing to abide by that. It would avoid a lot of the extraneous issues. It allows us to proceed without any procedural impediments and move right to the resolution.

We want to make sure there is no misunderstanding, that it is very simple. We are willing to move at any time convenient to the majority to a vote on the resolution itself, of course, with no amendments.

Mr. President, I have not spoken to anyone, but it appears from the body language I pick up and what I believe I hear my friend from Pennsylvania saying, they do not like the measure now before the body and they want to change it.

That is the problem we have when we report legislation directly to the floor without the necessary hearings. As to this matter that is now before the Senate, it is my understanding we have not had hearings before the Judiciary Committee where they should have gone on. The Senate Chamber is not the place to do what committees are there to do.

If there is some mistake or some other amendment that the Senators would rather have on the majority side, I suggest they take this back to the Judiciary Committee, have a full hearing, and decide really what they do want. It goes without saying it will not wind up being very pleasant if, in fact, we ever got to the resolution itself and this amendment were open to the amendment process. Everyone knows if that happens, this amendment would be bogged down with Christmas-tree-like ornaments called amendments.

We thought when we arrived and worked with our Members--Friday morning I personally called probably a dozen telling them what our plan was, not to have a procedural bottleneck to this legislation--that we would move immediately to that. That was not really what some wanted to do. Some wanted an up-or-down vote on the motion to proceed. We were able to show them it was better for the system that we move directly to the resolution.

We also thought we have so many things to do. Just last week we had a closed evidentiary presentation on what is going on around the world and in our country with homeland security. There are things we need to do in that regard. Last week the distinguished Presiding Officer was here where my friend, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, now stands trying to work something out so that we could move forward on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security bill. That is something we should work on. We have all the appropriations bills to do. There is so much this body needs to do and we were trying to open up as much time in the remaining time we have left in this short legislative session before the August break, before the two national conventions, to provide more time on the Senate floor.

The leader told me last week one of the things he was considering is going to the Australian Free Trade Agreement. Some Members feel very strongly about that. I know the committee has had hearings on this issue. I have spoken to Senator Hatch on more than one occasion.

My only point is that we should not be amending this resolution on the Senate floor.

It is my feeling the best way to move to this is to move immediately to the resolution itself, do not have a motion to proceed which, if cloture is attempted on the motion to proceed, I do not think we will ever get to the resolution, and that is not fair. People in the State of Nevada feel strongly about it, as in the State of Pennsylvania, the State of Colorado, and the State of Alaska, one way or the other.

We should have the opportunity to vote up or down on this resolution, not on some procedural issue. But it appears to me that is where we are headed. We are headed as we are doing on so many other issues. Class action: I was not a supporter of the class action legislation, but for the class action legislation there was a 5-foot jumpshot to make that legislation succeed. I have to say, the majority did not miss the jumpshot; they did not even bother to take the 5-foot jumpshot. They walked away from that legislation.

I think the same thing has happened on a number of other issues. It appears to me what the majority wants is the issue, not a resolution of the issue. And now, if we are going to have to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, the majority can walk out and say: See what those Democrats did. They wouldn't even let us vote on the resolution.

I will tell everyone within the sound of my voice, we will allow a vote on the resolution. We want to go immediately to the resolution that is now before the Senate. I believe it is two sentences long, so it should not take a lot of thought as to what the resolution contains. I would say, with the great minds we have on the Republican side--and I do not say that in any way to castigate anyone; I believe we have people with great legislative experience in the majority, and this issue has been around for a long time--why in the world would they bring something before the Senate they do not want?

So I hope we can avoid procedural pitfalls and move directly at a time convenient.

I also say this: Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards would like to vote on the resolution. But if we cannot set a time certain, set a time uncertain, and they may or may not make it. We do want a time certain within a respectable period of time, but I hope this is not being done, so they are being prevented from voting on it. As you know, we had an important issue here a couple weeks ago where we set a time certain, we thought we had a time certain, and, as a result of our misunderstanding, Senator Kerry wasted a whole day here and was not able to vote.

So for whatever reason the majority appears not to want us to vote on the resolution itself, I hope that can be resolved. We want to get along. We want to allow as much time as possible on other issues, so there can be adequate debate on other legislation other than this matter.

What is going to happen if we proceed down this road, I would assume, is if the majority leader decides to file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed tonight, we will vote on it Wednesday, and that will be the end of this debate. That would be too bad, because I think people should vote on the resolution itself and not be able to hide under some procedural vote.

Maybe there are those on the other side who would rather not vote on the amendment itself. I think if we had a good, straight, up-or-down vote on the resolution, I would be surprised if we did not get 8 to 12 Republican Senators voting against the resolution now before this body. That may be another part of what the leadership is doing in this instance, saying simply: We are not going to allow the embarrassment to take place where this resolution gets 40 or 42 votes, when 67 are needed.

There are many who have said--and we have heard speeches on the floor--why are we doing this? Why are we voting on something that is doomed to failure? It will not pass. The constitutional amendment will not pass the Senate. In fact, as I said, if we had an up-or-down vote, maybe 42 votes would be in favor of it. That is 25 short of enough to meet the constitutional muster.

So for whatever reason, for whatever plan the majority has, we want a vote on the resolution. However, if the majority decides to bring this resolution to the floor, and it is amendable, I do not think the motion to proceed will prevail. I cannot speak for every Senator over here, but I can speak for a few of them.

The Senator is giving up the floor?

Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know the Senator from Colorado has worked hard on this issue. I always thought we were going to vote on one constitutional amendment. It appears now-- we haven't seen the request and I acknowledge neither has the Senator from Pennsylvania but I know the staff is working on a unanimous consent request to present to us--we will be voting on two constitutional amendments. That wasn't what I think any of us contemplated.

We will be happy to review in detail any of the proposals that the majority has. We always try to be as fair as we can. I hope we can do that sooner rather than later. We will respond as quickly as we can to the good-faith efforts of the majority, and we will respond in as good faith as we can to their offer.

I appreciate the comments of my friend from Pennsylvania. He and I disagree on a number of issues, not as many as some would think. I understand how seriously he feels about this issue. His heartfelt concern is something that is shared by many people in this body, both Democrats and Republicans. It is an important issue. Therefore, I think we should move to the resolution before the Senate and have an up-or- down vote on it as quickly as possible.

Let me say to the Senator from Colorado, who has spent so much time on this issue, I recognize his deep concern. I apologize to him because he has been here since we started.

Mr. President, over 11,212 constitutional amendments have been offered in Congress since the Bill of Rights was ratified. As I said here this morning, I certainly understand the depth of feeling of the Senators who have spoken on this issue. I watched the Presiding Officer speak this morning. I watched the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Kansas. I have tried to follow the debate very closely. I know the intensity of their feelings on this matter.

I would like to change direction a little bit and get back to some of other topics that are also important. One of the issues I wanted to talk about is what is going on in Iraq. Over the weekend, I don't know how many soldiers were killed in Iraq. It was more than 10, probably 12.

In today's paper, the Washington Post, on page A11, there is a very short story: ``Insurgents Kill Three U.S. Troops in Northern Iraq.'' But if you read more closely, this very short story talks about the death of not three but seven American soldiers.

This has become so routine, the death of our military in Iraq, that we bury it someplace in the back of the newspapers.

This is a large newspaper, the Washington Post. I would not be surprised if most papers in the country don't even have a story on it-- seven soldiers killed. Between the publication of this yesterday morning and today, seven soldiers were killed, all with families.

Today, in America, there are people who are still crying and will cry for weeks and will never forget the deaths of their loved ones--sons, husbands, neighbors.

Mr. President, in addition to the depth of the feeling we have on this constitutional amendment now before the body, let's understand that we have a war going on in Iraq, and our men and women are being killed on a daily basis in significant numbers. I hope we will understand that when we have seven soldiers killed in Iraq, it should be more than a headline on page A-11 of the newspaper.

Will my friend yield for a question?

Will my friend yield now for a question?

Mr. President, there is no one who disagrees this matter should not be debated, but the Senator from Texas has indicated there should be a full and complete debate. We have agreed to debate it for however long he wants. Our suggestion is 2 days. Does the Senator think the debate should be more than 2 days? If not, for how many days does he think it should be?

Again, through the Chair to my distinguished colleague from Texas, he also understands one of the ways we get bogged down on issues--on some occasions, not always--is by unlimited amendments. The Senator from Texas will recall in the matter dealing with class action, there was no desire on our behalf, that is, the minority, to

have unlimited amendments. We indicated we would have a limited number of amendments.

On this constitutional amendment, the Senator understands if the majority offers an amendment, we have people on our side who are champing at the bit to offer amendments. Does the Senator understand that?

Mr. President, again I say through the Chair to my distinguished colleague, he also understands, under the rules in the Senate, it would be very easy to delay this process for at least a couple weeks. As the Senator knows, we have all kinds of legislation to do, some of which was laid out by the distinguished Democratic leader.

We believe--I am speaking for myself--it would be in the interest of the Senate if we could dispose of this amendment that was brought to the Senate floor at an early date and, the time we would want to debate it, of course, would be up to the majority leader. We are willing to debate it for whatever time the Senator believes appropriate. Two days is certainly appropriate.

I would also say to my distinguished colleague, we had people speak on the amendment today on this side. I spoke this morning before the Senator from Texas arrived. I know Senator Feinstein has spoken, and there are others who certainly will speak at some time. The fact there has been more Republicans than Democrats speaking on the amendment today does not take away from the serious view we have of this most important legislation.

Mr. President, the problem with what has transpired over the weekend is Senator Daschle and I spent Friday until somewhat late in the afternoon calling Democrat Senators to see if they would be willing to go forward on gay marriage without offering any amendments. There really was a kickback from a number of the Senators saying they had amendments to offer. We were able to contact Senators and convince them it was the best thing for the Senate to go directly to a vote on the amendment. This was reported in the Senate.

We simply are unable to agree to the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee, the distinguished majority leader, because if you offer an amendment, we offer an amendment, it would just go on forever.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to proceed to S.J. Resolution 40 be agreed to, that no amendments or motions be in order to the joint resolution, and that the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution at 12 noon on Wednesday, July 14.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, here is the quandary in which we find ourselves. If amendments are offered to a constitutional amendment on the floor, it only takes a simple majority of the Senate to amend the resolution that is on the floor.

So let's assume that someone offers an amendment dealing with flag burning, even though it takes 67 votes to pass a constitutional amendment dealing with flag burning, by a simple majority that could be attached to S.J. Res. 40. Or let's assume that in addition to that, someone offers an amendment on victims' rights. Again, it would take 67 votes to pass a constitutional amendment. But in this instance, it would take 51.

So we would have this gay marriage amendment strapped with not only the gay marriage amendment--in whatever fashion we find that with the amendments suggested by the distinguished majority leader--but it would also have a flag burning amendment attached to it. It would have a victims' rights amendment attached to it. And Senator Hollings, as we all know, wants to offer an amendment dealing with campaign finance reform. So it just will not work.

I know how hard the distinguished majority leader is trying to work something out, but I think he is going down the wrong road. What we should do is get rid of this amendment. And I do not say that in any derogatory fashion. I say ``get rid of'' so we can go to other matters; we can go to something that we need to work on Wednesday afternoon.

In a colloquy I had with the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, former attorney general of the great State of Texas, he said: We need sufficient time to discuss this amendment. I said: Two days? That is what we have agreed to. If you want 3 days, we will do that.

So we are trying to be reasonable. I know how strongly people feel about this issue, but we cannot accept a modification. Therefore, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I understand that.

Mr. President, if I could be heard very briefly. I know the time is late.

Mr. President, we on this side are disappointed with the objection that the distinguished majority leader made to our request. But I would like to add that upon the disposition of this matter, the marriage amendment, we are prepared to proceed to the consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, not under the restrictions that were suggested by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, but we are willing to work with the majority on coming up with some way to proceed to that most important legislation. We would hope the majority would consider going to that, if not next, soon thereafter.

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

Mr. President, yesterday the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, just prior to the cloture vote on the class action bill, made a statement that I want to talk about briefly today.

He said Members can bring up nongermane or nonrelevant amendments after cloture is invoked. I am reading from page S7818 of the Congressional Record where he said:

Keep in mind that if we invoke cloture, that doesn't mean

those who want to bring up extraneous, nongermane amendments

or nonrelevant amendments can't do it. They can bring them up

after cloture, but they are going to have to get a

supermajority vote to win. That doesn't foreclose them.

That simply is not valid.

If cloture is invoked, you can bring up a nongermane amendment, but if anyone raises a point of order that your amendment is not germane, that amendment falls automatically. There is no such supermajority motion available like there is under the Budget Act. The amendment fails without a vote--fails or falls without a vote, however you want to term it. The only way you can get a vote is if you choose to appeal the Chair's ruling that your amendment is not germane. If you are successful, you will set a precedent that will permanently throw out the germaneness rule under cloture, and such an appeal of the Chair's ruling is a majority vote, not a supermajority vote.

So the fact remains: Nongermane and nonrelevant amendments are not in order once cloture is invoked, and there is no such supermajority motion available to make them in order.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I want to add to the statement I completed. In the situation Senator Hatch talked about and I commented on, you could the day before file a special motion and ask that the rules be set aside and that would take a two-thirds vote. So I guess that could be the supermajority he was talking about. It would be extremely difficult to do. You would have to file a notice the day before. I don't think that would likely happen. But I wanted to make sure the record was clear that I did not miss anything.

Is this the matter----

Asking through the Chair a question to the majority leader, is this the matter we are going to be working on next week?

I have worked a lot this afternoon and this morning clearing with our Members the fact that it would not be necessary that we deal with cloture on the motion to proceed. We have cleared that. We would also be in a position to have no amendments on the constitutional amendment that we are going to debate next week. Whatever the majority believes to be a reasonable time to debate that, we will be in agreement with that and have a vote on the resolution. We are cleared on our side to do that.

We would hope, if the majority leader can get a clearance on that, we can move forward and have a definite time sometime next week for a vote on the resolution itself. We are ready to move forward on it.

Yesterday, we believed it was necessary that we have the leader file this cloture motion on the motion to proceed, but we will not need that now. We are ready to rock and roll on the debate of this issue.

I simply state again, procedurally we are not going to be in the way. We are ready to move forward.

If I could ask one other question before the majority leader begins to speak, are we going to have any votes on Monday? I have gotten a number of requests through Senator Daschle.

We are coming in to debate the issue?

Certainly.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a unanimous consent request?

First of all, I ask consent morning business be extended 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. President, I ask on the Democratic side, when our time occurs in half an hour, that Senator Harkin be given 15 minutes, Senator Lautenberg 10 minutes, and Senator Cantwell 10 minutes.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator from California saying that we should be engaged on the Senate floor today on issues relating to homeland security; that is, the security of the State of California, the State of Nevada, and the other 48 States, and that we should not be wasting our time on class action? Next we are going to go to a gay marriage amendment. Would the Senator acknowledge no matter how strongly people feel about this gay marriage amendment, it has no--zero--I am from Nevada; I do not gamble personally, but I know a little bit about it, having been chairman of the Gaming Commission--it has zero chance of passing. None. It won't pass. And we are going to spend valuable Senate floor time on an amendment that stands absolutely no chance of passing when we have at the desk the homeland security appropriations bill, and I have been told today we are not going to go to that until September.

Now, is the Senator saying we should not be doing class action, we should not be doing gay marriage, we should be doing things that make my family and your family and the rest of America safe from these evil terrorists?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Ships coming into the United States today have on them transponders. The purpose of that is so those people ashore can find out where the ship is and have a better idea of where they are. As we speak, there are about 43,000 very large ships on our oceans--43,000. For them to come to the United States, one of the requirements is they have a transponder on them, like an airplane has, like the situation we had a few weeks ago where the plane was coming into National and the transponder was not working.

I say to my friend from New York, even though those ships have transponders----

I am sorry?

We have only known each other 22 years.

So I say to my friend, there is a transponder on every ship coming into the United States, but we do not have the equipment on shore to have the transponders picked up on shore. Why? Because we have not spent the money to do it.

The distinguished Senator from South Carolina has fought to have money placed in these bills so we can have the transponders on shore so we can do what they do with airplanes, with ships.

Is the Senator aware we don't even do that?

Will the Senator yield?

I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from New York, there is no question the citizens from your State, more than any State in the Union, are troubled every day because every day there is a story that something bad is going to happen, and New York, as the Senator indicated, is always mentioned.

I heard the Senator from New York state today that we, the Senate, are wasting our time. Class action is important, but is it as important to my family as having better security for my family? I have family members in the Washington, DC area, in Nevada, and one of my sons moved to Utah. I would rather we were working on this bill, Homeland Security, to make my family members more secure.

To top this off, when we leave class action--and the majority has decided they simply cannot allow a vote on immigration, or certainly they cannot allow a vote on drug reimportation--we are going to move off this legislation and are going to the gay marriage amendment. I know people have strong emotions about that one way or the other. However, I am willing to say the people for New York and the people of Nevada, if we weigh on one side the gay marriage amendment and on the other side the Homeland Security appropriations bill, this scale would tip 95 to 5. Does the Senator agree we have our priorities mixed?

And let me ask one other question. I went to my luncheon today and one of my friends in the press said, do you realize what the Republicans are doing? They are going to say you are obstructing everything.

Does the Senator from New York understand that is their game? They will say we are the ones obstructing these bills, when, in fact, they do not want to address these issues because they do not want to take a vote on overtime, they do not want to vote on extending unemployment benefits, they do not want to have a debate on immigration and drug reimportation.

Would the Senator agree when a government is controlled by one party--President, the House, the Senate and, I am sad to say, the Supreme Court--it is a little hard to blame the other party for obstructing? Does the Senator agree?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska--and we all care deeply about him; he is our President pro tempore--said he wanted to bring up the bill--that was objected to--the Homeland Security bill, but under specific conditions, limiting debate and amendments. Does the Senator from South Dakota believe every bill that comes up we want to create a new Senate? We never want to do things the way the Senate has acted for 200-plus years. We want to do things the way the House does it. We want to have a rule on every piece of legislation.

This is my second question. Doesn't the Senator believe we could take this bill up and do it in the ordinary course of business, as we used to do things? We could finish this bill in a couple of days?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more question?

We have completed on this floor--and we did it in expedited fashion--the Defense Appropriations bill. The Senator from South Dakota consented to going to conference. We agreed to do it the day after the bill passed. The conferees were appointed. I have here the Senate calendar. The conferees were appointed June 24.

Is the Senator from South Dakota, our minority leader, aware of the fact that since this important bill passed the Senate, the House of Representatives--and now it is July 8--has simply never even appointed conferees? So all this about having to do it by 5 o'clock so we can go to conference is yelling out words that mean nothing. The House hasn't appointed conferees on the Defense Appropriations bill since June 24.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I think we also have to project ourselves into next week. I have read in the press that the majority, when we get off of the bill we have been dealing with all week, class action, is going to go to a constitutional amendment dealing with gay marriage. Now is there anybody who believes that amendment, which is doomed to failure no matter how you feel about it--how do the people in South Dakota feel about going to an amendment dealing with gay marriage instead of doing an appropriations bill dealing with homeland security?

As my friend from Oregon knows, my father committed suicide. My situation was totally different than that experienced by my friend from Oregon. With my dad there was nothing that had happened that suggested a problem.

I went to watch Muhammad Ali work out, spent the morning with Muhammad Ali. I had a wonderful time. I took somebody who was working with me. Two of us were alone with Muhammad Ali for a long time. I returned to my office and walked in the door. Joan was the receptionist. I can still see her. This was many years ago. She said: Your mother is on the phone. I picked up the phone and she said: Your pop shot himself.

My dad had killed himself at home in Searchlight. For a long time, I was embarrassed; I did not know how to handle that. I, of course, acknowledged my dad was dead but like most people who deal with suicide, it takes a while to accept that.

My acceptance came many years later when I was part of the Aging Committee in the Senate. Bill Cohen was the chairman. We had a hearing on senior depression. Mike Wallace, a reporter on ``60 Minutes,'' testified before the committee. He said: A lot of times I wanted to die. I did the most dangerous things I could do, hoping that maybe something would happen that I would not return. He said: But you know, I now take a little bit of medication; I had the opportunity to talk to someone and I no longer feel that way.

So I shared, for the first time ever publicly, what happened to my dad. My dad was 56 or 57 years old, much younger than most members in the Senate. I said at that time to Chairman Cohen that I thought we should have a hearing on senior suicide. I shared, for the first time, the story of my dad's death.

I didn't know Garrett. Gordon didn't know my dad. My dad was a person who, as we look back, had been depressed his whole life. I cannot give a long dialog about my dear dad other than to say he was a very strong, physical person, bigger than I am, bigger than his four sons. He never lifted a weight, but with his shirt off at the age he was, people would think he had lifted weights. He had big arms, a big chest. He was very strong.

He didn't like to be around people, only his family. About a week before he killed himself, we came out to visit him in Searchlight. My dad did not have much in the way of material possessions, but he had one thing for which he was very proud. It was a specimen.

My dad worked hard all of his life, never made any money doing anything, but he worked like a dog. One time he had a lease on a mine and he found some very rich ore at the Blossom. The vein was very small. It was in a talc-like formation, and it assayed at $18,000 a ton. He got a few sacks of this. It was in such small quantities you could not even fill up a truck with it.

He saved a specimen. All he had left was a specimen; that was valuable to him, at least. Approximately a week before he died, he gave it to me. It was unlike my dad. But, of course, as I look back, he had been planning what he was going to do for some time. His health was not good and he had miner's consumption, and I am sure other problems. He smoked like a chimney all of his life. He coughed every night when I was a little boy. I thought all kids' dads coughed like my dad.

But had this legislation, introduced by my friend, been in effect, my dad may not have had all the problems he had as he proceeded through life. Suicide is an American tragedy. We know that at least 31,000 Americans every year kill themselves. We know that because those are the deaths that we can say: This was a suicide. But there are, I believe, thousands of others--automobile accidents, hiking accidents-- that are really suicides.

So we have done a few things since my work with Senator Cohen. We are now studying, for the first time--it is hard to comprehend this--but for first time in the history of this country, we are trying to figure out why people kill themselves. We do not know for sure. One of the phenomenons is that most of the suicides are in the western part of the United States. We do not know why. You would think just the opposite, with the Sun shining and the wide open spaces. But we are studying that. The Surgeon General of the United States has stated it is a national problem.

I want my friend from Oregon to understand how important it is that he is stepping forward on this issue. Landra and I attended Garrett's funeral. We were so impressed because no one--no one--tried to mask what happened to Garrett Smith. Every speaker talked about this fine young man. Some of the speakers had known him his whole life. But there was not a single speaker who tried to make an excuse or cover up the fact that this young man had taken his own life.

You see, we have come a long way. After my dad died, killed himself, I bought a book on suicide. It was not long ago that you could not bury someone who committed suicide in a cemetery. Most religions would not accept and allow the normal religious ceremonies to take place if somebody had killed themselves. We have gone beyond that in most every instance, and that is good.

I want the Senator from Oregon to know how I appreciate his moving forward on this national problem. Nevada leads the Nation in suicide. I believe that anything we can do to focus attention on this problem is going to be of benefit to so many people.

Since this situation with my dad in the committee, we now have a national organization. They have a full-time lobbyist now. SCAN is the name of the organization. Their whole existence is based on dealing with the suicide problem that faces this country.

I appreciate very much the Senator from Oregon, I say for the third time, moving forward on this issue. It is a happy day and a sad day because, as life is, I do not focus on that day when my dad--I went out and saw my dad on the bed where he had killed himself. I do not focus on that, but I did today, and it is good for me that I did focus on it.

It is good for us that we focus on this. I used to think suicides happened to other people, but they happen to us. There are so many people who I come in contact with who have had a father, a mother--I had a wonderful TV reporter in Las Vegas--and you know it is all business with these journalists--who said to me once: Could I talk to you sometime alone? I said: Sure. She told me about the fact that her brother committed suicide, her father committed suicide. This story did not end there. She called me later, after we had our private conversation; her own sister then killed herself.

Suicide is an illness of which we have to get ahold. It is something that does not happen to others; it happens to us.

I am so glad I was able to hear the heartfelt remarks of the Senator from Oregon today.

Mr. President, the leadership on the majority side asked if we could move the vote to an earlier time tonight, rather than have the cloture vote in the morning. I am sorry to report that the Senator from Delaware, Senator Carper, has indicated he will not agree with that. All other Members on our side have agreed to the vote tonight. It is now set for the morning.

I apologize to all my colleagues that we cannot do this tonight. There are a lot of things Members have to do tonight, and especially tomorrow. It would save everyone a lot of time.

I want the record to reflect that I think it is unwise that that is the case. I told my friend from Delaware I would indicate he is the problem with our having the vote earlier.

I apologize, because I have had a number of calls from Senators on this side of the aisle. We thought we were going to be able to work that out, but we have been unable to do that.

Will the Senator yield?

On our side, as the Senator knows, we have pushed very hard for this bill authored by you and the late Senator Paul Wellstone. It was an odd couple, Wellstone-Domenici, but it was one bound with friendship. The two Senators found a place where they agreed and they went to all ends to make sure that legislation passed.

As the Senator told me when I was talking a few minutes ago, we need to do this for a lot of reasons, but one is to respect the memory of Paul Wellstone.

On our side, we would be willing to take up that bill and spend 1 hour. We will do it at midnight, 6 o'clock in the morning. One hour is all we want. We will only take 30 minutes of that hour. I want everyone to understand, on our side, we want 30 minutes. If that is too much time, we will cut it down.

Does the Senator understand we will do everything? Everyone knows we have worked closely together for so many years on appropriations. What the Senator has done on this mental health parity will go down in the history books. We need to make sure it passes, and the history books have something definitive, not a matter only initiated.

Mr. President, one of our very able Senate staff brought to me something I need to share with everyone here today. This is a report from the New York Times, dated today. Among other things, it says:

Congressional investigators--

This was a House committee, which I am sure does competent work--

said Wednesday that 15,000 children with psychiatric

disorders were improperly incarcerated last year because no

mental health services were available.

This was a report. This came out yesterday. The study:

. . . found that children as young as 7 were incarcerated

because of a lack of access to mental health care. More than

340 detention centers, two-thirds of those that responded to

the survey, said youths with mental disorders were being

locked up because there was no place else for them to go

while awaiting treatment. Seventy-one centers in 33 states

said they were holding mentally ill youngsters with no

charges.

The 15,000 youths awaiting mental health services accounted

for 8 percent of all youngsters in the responding detention

centers.

Dr. Ken Martinez of the New Mexico Department of Children,

Youth and Families said the data showed ``the criminalization

of mental illness'' as ``juvenile detention centers have

become de facto psychiatric hospitals for mentally ill

youth.''

Mental health advocates, prison officials, and juvenile

court judges all testified and recommended three types of

solutions. . . .

The main one is ``more extensive insurance coverage.''

Just a couple more things from this same report.

In Tennessee, a juvenile detention center administrator said:

Those with depression are locked up alone to contemplate

suicide. I guess you get the picture.

That is a direct quote.

Carol Carothers, who directs the Maine chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, says:

Surely we would not dream of placing a child with another

serious illness, like cancer for example, in a juvenile

detention center to await a hospital bed or community based

treatment. It is outrageous that we do this to children with

mental illness.

So I say to my distinguished friend from New Mexico, thank you for coming down today and enlarging this debate. It needs to be enlarged. We so believe that we need to pass Senator Smith's legislation that I proudly cosponsor. But we also have to move to the next step because the next step is just as important, if not more so, because it includes so many more people.

The Senator from New Mexico is known for a lot of things, but his resume will never have anything on it more important. I repeat, we need to get it passed.

Will the Senator yield?

We have had a signoff--people heard me a little earlier today say we had an objection to having a vote on the cloture motion that the majority leader has filed. We can now do that. I understand the majority wants that to take place. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the matter now scheduled for tomorrow occur tonight at 6:30.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.