Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of the two managers, I am reporting today that we will have two amendments by the Senator from Illinois that will be offered, two amendments by the Senator from New Jersey will be offered, an amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island will be offered, and I will offer an amendment. That is the schedule for today's session.

Of course, as the majority indicated, there will not be any votes. If the managers require votes, and these are not accepted, these votes will be stacked for Monday night in addition to amendments offered Monday that were announced at an earlier time.

Senator Durbin was only asking for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am wondering if my friend from Rhode Island would yield? He would get the floor as soon as Senator Dayton takes a minute to introduce a bill as in morning business. Will the Senator allow us to do that? We promised him some time yesterday.

But you already have your amendment pending here. Has it been reported?

I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Minnesota be recognized and be able to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes, and the Senator from Rhode Island then regain the floor to discuss his amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that we now call up amendment No. 3297, as modified, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, it seems that every year at this time I come to the floor to offer an amendment on behalf of America's disabled veterans. It is something that I have become accustomed to and something that the veterans expect of me.

The amendment I offer today, and have for many years, deals with concurrent receipt, a subject first brought to my attention many years ago by a disabled veteran. This is also called the veterans tax.

A disabled veteran told me in Nevada many years ago that he wasn't allowed to receive both his retirement pay and disability compensation at the same time. I thought he misunderstood what the law was all about. His retirement pay was being offset dollar for dollar by the amount of disability compensation he received. He said it was a restriction found in U.S. law. I assumed he was wrong because it seemed so unfair.

He was right. It was a law that had been in effect for more than 100 years. The law was on the books and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans were having their retirement pay wiped out. No other disabled Federal retiree was being subjected to this tax; only those who retired from the U.S. military.

So with the help of my colleagues, especially Senators Warner and Levin, and at a later time Senator McCain, we have been chipping away at this unfair restriction for a number of years. With their help, we have made some progress, I think considerable progress.

At first, it was a tiny bit, and it became bigger and bigger, until last year we took a major step forward. We had been looking for full concurrent receipt, but last year we ended up with a compromise agreement that ends the restriction on current receipt for combat- disabled retirees and those retirees who have a service-connected disability rated at least 50 percent.

Had we had this law changed 20, 30, or 40 years ago, many more people would have been able to apply for it. Sadly, each day of every year more than 1,000 World War II veterans die. Even though we have almost 30,000 people still eligible for these benefits, many who should have received them are now gone. So our step last year was an important step forward, but it was far from perfect.

Many tens of thousands of disabled veterans are still not covered under last year's agreement, and even those who are covered have to wait a full 10 years before their offset in retirement pay is completely eliminated. That is a long time to wait, particularly for the severely disabled and especially for veterans of the Korean conflict and

World War II because the average age of those individuals is 83 for a World War II veteran and over 70 for a Korean war veteran.

My amendment that I offer today does a simple thing. It eliminates the 10-year phase-in period for the most severely disabled; that is, those who are rated 100-percent disabled. As I indicated, there are about 30,000 of those 100-percent disabled veterans. Their average age is 59 years old, which takes into consideration the conflicts in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf war, and many other battles we have fought over the years.

Most of these thousands of veterans are disabled from their military service, and they cannot work anymore. Rarely do we find someone 100- percent disabled who can work, but there are some. Typically, these cases include conditions that run the whole spectrum. Some are medical concerns. Some are as a result of actual injuries received. Remember, these are service-connected disabilities. There are some with chronic illnesses who have been diagnosed during active duty and the disease progression prevented a second career.

Madam President, 100 percent is the highest disability rating given by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is always associated with decreased life expectancy. So a 10-year phase-in for these veterans to receive full disability and retirement payment will not be realized by many of them. Many will simply not live long enough to reap the benefits of full concurrent receipt.

Let me give an example about the harsh financial impact caused by this long phase-in period. One disabled veteran from Nevada who served 24 years in the Air Force wrote to me recently. She is 100-percent disabled. Under last year's 10-year implementation scheme, she still forfeits $1,571 of earned retired pay every month. Since retiring from the Air Force in 1991, she has forfeited $275,000 of retired pay. If we keep the 10-year phase-in period as is, she will forfeit an additional $80,000. For a person unable to work because of a service-connected disability, every dollar counts and this offset becomes punitive.

This amendment that is now before the Senate pays the most severely disabled now at a fraction of the cost of last year's concurrent receipt bill. We do not create a new benefit. We simply want to pay those most severely disabled now, instead of waiting until they are dead and, therefore, not able to receive it.

This is a compromise. I want every disabled American veteran not to have to give up any part of their pay. This is a compromise. We are not expanding the law in the sense that we are going to include people rated differently than 50 percent, but we are going to allow these people, the 100-percent disabled, to get their money now. I think they deserve this. I think it is so unfair we do not do it.

This is a matter that will be voted on. If the committee decides not to accept it, we will vote on this issue. I feel confident that it will be very difficult for people to return home and look a 100-percent disabled veteran in the face and say: We couldn't afford to pay you now. Wait a while.

I cannot ask for the yeas and nays, but I will at the appropriate time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask that my amendment be set aside and we return to amendment No. 3196.

Madam President, there is no further debate on this amendment. I, therefore, ask that we vitiate the yeas and nays. The amendment has been reported. This is the Durbin amendment that has been debated this morning.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, that is true. We already have people lined up for Monday for amendments. We have Senators Dayton, Byrd, Bingaman, Levin, and we have a number of people on Tuesday. We are about to finish this piece of legislation.

We have a couple of votes--maybe as many as three votes--on Monday, if necessary, but we will have to see what happens on Tuesday. There could even be more than that on Tuesday. I have heard the possibility that we could have maybe six or seven amendments on Tuesday. If we are fortunate, we will be able to finish the bill sometime late that night.

Mr. President, it is amendment No. 3297.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Senator was off the floor when I gave my statement. Senator Sessions was covering the floor. But I was quite effusive in my praise of the chairman and the ranking member. These years we have worked on this issue have been tough years. There have been monetary concerns on what we have to do for the military.

Had it not been for the breaking of new ground by the chairman and ranking member--this law has been in effect for more than 100 years-- even though I was the person who was advocating this, but for the understanding of the two people we hold out as being our experts in the area of taking care of our military, it would not have been done.

I am so grateful for the help of Senator Levin and Senator Warner. The veterans around the country know that. They know I was the guy out yelling and screaming. But they know the two individuals who made sure we got something done every year--the first year I introduced this, it was not a shutout. The first year we got a little bit. The second year we got more. We have continued to the point where we now are at 50 percent. Those people who are 100-percent disabled will start receiving their money the minute the President signs this most important bill.

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Virginia, because certainly he is that. But, also, I want to pat him on the back because he certainly deserves it.

If I could ask, through the Chair, to the distinguished majority leader, it is obvious we have a number of amendments to dispose of. As we talked publicly last night with the two managers, we have four missile defense amendments over here. There will be at least two second degrees, maybe more, that will be offered on those amendments. As we have said, as soon as we see them, I am sure we can set out a reasonable period of time to debate them and vote on them, and we should get rid of these with--I do not mean that in a negative sense but move on past these in a fairly short period of time.

We also have indicated that Senator Biden wishes to offer the amendment that has been no secret around here to take some of the higher bracket tax cuts and use those moneys for what is going on in Iraq.

Anyway, all of this stuff is fairly known now, what we have to do. I believe we can move through these at a fairly decent rate.

Senator Levin mentioned last night that people have been waiting for several days to offer amendments, and we have to make sure they have that opportunity. The main reason for rising now is to say I hope that--I should not say I hope; I guess it should be in the form of a question--on Monday that we are going to have some votes on some substantive defense-related amendments, and I do not know what time the distinguished majority leader wants to do that. If it is going to be at the regular time, 5:30, we should know that. If it is going to be earlier, we should alert our folks to that now. Because of certain things that also are quite known around here, we will not have votes tomorrow, unless the majority leader decides to have a cloture vote. Other than that, there will not be any other votes, I am very confident of that.

Does the majority leader have an idea whether he is going to move things up on Monday?

Mr. President, I want to make sure everyone understands that tomorrow will be a tremendously good day to offer amendments. There would be time to debate whatever they want to lay down, and even though there would not be votes scheduled on them tomorrow that would sure be a good way to get things done. Some Members have already expressed to me that they would be willing to lay down their amendments tomorrow. So tomorrow, in addition to Monday, should be a productive day on this legislation.

Will the Senator from Missouri yield for a question?

I am wondering if the two proponents of this legislation, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Missouri, would give us a general idea of how long they will speak on this?

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, we on this side certainly understand the travails of the managers of this bill. Several days ago, we had written on our sheet ``voice vote.'' We thought the amendment of the Senator from Washington had been accepted. There were miscommuni- cations and, of course, that happens. It is certainly no fault of the Senator from Washington. She was ready several days ago, and we told her not to push it because we thought it would be accepted.

Will the Senator from California yield for a question?

I have spoken to the two managers. Senator Levin wants to speak in support of your amendment for 5 minutes. They want 25 minutes to respond to your statement.

We would like to set a vote for around 12:30.

Which is 40 minutes from now.

Yes.

Yes. Senator Boxer will speak for 5 minutes. He will speak for 5 minutes. That will give you 40 minutes and will be about evenly balanced.

I ask unanimous consent that on the pending Boxer amendment, there be 10 minutes left on the proponents' side, 5 minutes for Senator Boxer, and 5 minutes for Senator Levin, and the remaining time be under the control of Senator Warner, and that there be a vote at 12:30 with no second-degree amendments prior to the vote.

Yes, and that Senator Boxer could have 1 minute prior to the vote.

Yes, at 12:30.

Mr. President, I know we are under a time agreement. I ask unanimous consent for a couple of minutes to report on what is happening with the bill so far. I was asked this morning to give a report on this. I would like to do that.

I would like a couple of minutes to give the Senate a report on what we have done on the bill so far, the number of amendments and such.

Mr. President, we have been on this bill 12 days counting today, but 4 of those days are our famous--or infamous, however you look at it--Mondays and Fridays. So actually we spent 8 days on this bill. When we dispose of this amendment, the Boxer amendment, we will have disposed of 79 amendments. During this period of time, counting the Boxer amendment, we will have had 12 rollcall votes.

For a Defense authorization bill, we have not spent an inordinate amount of time on it. We have not spent very much time at all. There have been very few quorum calls. The quorum calls we had this week have been most productive. We have been able to work out the problem dealing with the South Carolina situation, as the Presiding Officer knows. We were able to work out various other problems with the quorum calls we had. Even having had quorum calls, they were very short. So I think we have accomplished quite a bit in a very short period of time on this bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

Could I be recognized? Would anybody be insulted if I asked for a quorum call?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, of course, there would be no amendments in order to either of the amendments, the one of Senator Reed or your second degree.

I understand that. I have no objection to that. We have no objection to that.

Mr. President, however, if the Warner amendment does not pass, then we would vote on the underlying Reed amendment.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that following the votes or vote, whatever the case may be, there will be probably a number of judges we might be called to vote on. My point is at around 3 or thereabouts, there could be a series of as many as four or five votes.

It is not a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Six minutes?

Mr. President, first, I share a name with the sponsor of this amendment. I have, once in a while, given him some advice. When it comes to military matters, there is no one who I have greater confidence in than the Senator from Rhode Island. He is the only Member of the Senate who is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is someone who has taught at that fine school. He is someone who has maintained his military contacts. And he is a student of what has been going on in the military since his retirement from the military. So I feel very confident and comfortable that the Senator-- being a member of this most important committee, the Armed Services Committee, and having offered this amendment--is trying to do what he believes is the right thing for this country.

I express my appreciation to him for his studious efforts in offering this amendment and for often answering my questions about the military. He is such a valuable person to have in the Senate.

As I told the majority leader a few weeks ago, when I get up in the morning, the first thing I read is the sports page. I do that because there is always some good news in it. The rest of the newspaper you have to search hard for the good news. But after I finish the sports page, I reluctantly go to the first section of the paper.

This morning I went to the Washington Post. On the front page is a story. We have all seen the headlines about the 9/11 Commission, that according to available evidence, Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Another front-page story dealt with Abu Ghraib prison and some of the abuses that took place there.

On page 3 there is a feature story about a soldier that has been laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery. Page 4, there is some discussion about what we did yesterday dealing with the Leahy amendment.

The reason I mention these items very briefly is, you have to go all the way to page A19--I was stunned when I read this--the fourth paragraph, to read:

Three U.S. soldiers were also killed Wednesday. . . .

It is like a throwaway.

Three U.S. soldiers were also killed Wednesday. . . .

Three more deaths didn't warrant anything better than a throwaway line in the fourth paragraph on the 19th page of this newspaper.

We know these soldiers who have been killed--more than 800--are fathers, sons, neighbors, loved ones, all different categories. The families of these men and some women who have lost their lives since the war are paying a terrible price. I am stunned that we have come to the point in this war where we now say:

Three U.S. soldiers were also killed Wednesday. . . .

I don't know how to describe how I felt when I read that. These three soldiers deserved more than that.

I hope we are not at a point where the death of American soldiers in combat is considered so routine that it is barely mentioned, and instead of meritorious placement in a newspaper, it is buried. We need to do better than that.

Hopefully, one of the things this bill will do is focus attention on the sacrifices being made by the men and women in Iraq. I hope the families of these three men get more attention than page A19 in the future.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I, first, ask the distinguished acting manager to modify his request to have the votes following the Warner second-degree amendment vote to be 10-minute votes.

Yes.

Further, Mr. President, under the order, as I understand it, prior to voting on the judges, the Senator from Rhode Island has a right to offer an amendment to his amendment, if the Warner amendment is adopted. The order was he would have the right to offer an amendment; is that right?

So it is my understanding the Senator from Rhode Island will not offer that amendment now. I ask unanimous consent also, Mr. President--and I think this is in keeping with what Senator Warner wanted--that following the disposition of these judges, we return to the Defense bill and that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to offer another amendment that has already been indicated--I do not know the number of it. It is his second missile defense amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner amendment.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I ask for the yeas and nays?

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Warner and Senator Reed have worked out an arrangement whereby the missile defense amendment will not be offered, but the end strength amendment will be offered at this time.

The chairman has arrived. What I have said is that the chairman and Senator Reed have agreed that his missile defense amendment will be offered at a subsequent time and that now the end strength amendment that has been around for several days would be debated at this time and voted upon.

Following that, the amendment of Senator Sessions will be offered, and following that the amendment of Senator Biden will be offered.

We certainly should be able to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No. 3352.

A total of 40 minutes?

No. 3371.

Twenty minutes equally divided?

We will take the 15 and probably would not use it.

No. 3379.

I ask unanimous consent, as the chairman has indicated, that on amendment No. 3352 there be 40 minutes equally divided, with no second-degree amendments in order except for the one that Senator Warner has indicated that he will offer, and Senator Reed knows about that; No. 3371, there be no second-degree amendments in order; and No. 3379, there be no second-degree amendments in order, with the time as stated previously. There would be no second-degree amendments then prior to the vote.

As indicated, 40 minutes, 30 minutes, and 2 hours.

Mr. President, with the series of votes that we have, first on Reed and then on Biden--we have received word there may be a couple of other Senators who may want to speak on this amendment. I ask unanimous

consent of the Chair, in the form of a unanimous consent request, that prior to the Reed amendment being voted on, as amended by Warner, there be 10 minutes set aside to talk about that prior to this vote.

The time may not be necessary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Reed amendment, Senator Reed control 10 minutes, Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

That would be appropriate because those were the two Senators we were worried about.

Under the order, the Sessions amendment is now in order.

Mr. President, after the amendment is reported, I wonder if I could speak first. I am going to use 15 minutes on another subject. It will take a few minutes. I would like to go do something else.

Is that OK with Senator Sessions?

I think that is totally appropriate.

I am going to use 15 minutes. It has nothing to do with your amendment. We have 15 minutes, but we weren't going to oppose your amendment anyway. I would like to take my few minutes now.

I don't know how much time I will use. I don't think I will use near that amount.

That was part of the original order. Would the Chair ask that the Sessions amendment be called up now.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my two friends. I have been here all day, and I have to leave the floor for a few minutes.

``You have seen that before.'' That is what deja vu means, so I am told. We have seen it before. We in Nevada have the second highest gas prices in the whole country. They have soared to record levels. The oil companies say these price increases are a matter of supply and demand. I have heard that before. I remember now that is the same excuse we heard 4 years ago during the western electricity crisis when Nevada consumers were being ripped off by one of the most ravenous corporate swindlers in history--Enron.

While Enron reaped windfall profits, it told consumers the record high prices were the result of supply and demand. But it turned out Enron was rigging the market to rob consumers. Over the last few weeks, bit by bit, audiotape recordings of Enron traders have come to light in various ways, chiefly through CBS News.

I am reminded of Senator Jesse Helms. I was a new Senator, and Jesse Helms sat back here. He stood and said: I don't want to be here. It was the pornography issue. He said: I hate to talk about this kind of stuff, but I have to. And the stuff he proceeded to talk about was pretty gross, to be honest with you.

Well, I hate to point to this chart, this audiotape today that CBS played last night on the news, but I am going to because it fully outlines what Enron did to the people of the State of Nevada and people in other parts of the Western United States.

Here is a direct quote from one of the Enron traders, one of the people who caused these prices to go up. He worked for Enron:

I want to see what pain and heartache this is going to

cause Nevada Power Company.

This Enron trader goes on to say:

I want to . . .

Everyone can see as well as I can the next word. I am not going to repeat it. It starts with ``f'' and ends with a ``k.''

I want to . . . with Nevada for a while.

Second trader says:

What do you mean?

And the first trader says:

I just, I'm still in the mood to screw with people, OK?

Enron traders had all kinds of ways to cheat customers. They shipped power from California to Oregon, masked the original source of the power, and then sold it back to California at inflated rates. This little scheme, this one right here, made Enron a profit of $222,678 in 3 hours. Enron traders also boast on the tapes that Enron CEO Ken Lay will wield a lot of influence in the Bush administration. They were right about that.

A few weeks ago the Washington Post reported on the influence of the people who raised large amounts of money for the President's campaign. One of those big fundraisers was Ken Lay--the President gave him a nickname of Kenny Boy--who served on the administration's Energy Department transition team, if you can believe that, and recommended two of the members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC.

After Enron gouged western consumers, utilities in Nevada and other States turned to FERC for help. Remember, two of them came from Kenny Boy. But FERC ruled in favor of Enron and against providing relief to Nevada utilities and taxpayers.

Adding injury to insult, last fall the bankruptcy court ruled that Nevada taxpayers owe Enron an additional $330 million for power Enron never even delivered. Our utilities have asked FERC to hear the case. Senator Ensign and I have submitted a brief in support of their complaint. Now I am also joining with western Senators and requesting that FERC vacate the exorbitant contracts that were signed during the manipulated energy crisis.

The parallel between the western electricity crisis and today's gasoline market is troubling, to say the least. The big oil companies are making record profits of up to 75 cents a gallon for a fill-up of a car in Nevada. For 10 gallons, that is a profit of $7.50. The big oil companies are making these record profits, which come out of the pockets of working families in Nevada.

I am afraid I am not the only one feeling, as we stated earlier, that I have seen this before, deja vu. Nevada consumers know they are getting gouged again and it is not a good feeling.

I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Alabama.

This is for Senator Biden's amendment.

Under the order, there will now be 10 minutes for Senator Reed. We are going to yield back that time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, if I could address remarks to the Chair? We have a number of Senators who have been waiting. The two managers have cleared 18 amendments, or something like that. It would take just a matter of a minute or two to do that, but they are not yet ready.

I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, be recognized for 5 minutes to speak?

It doesn't have to be laid aside.

I will indicate, as both managers know, tomorrow Senator Lautenberg is going to offer two amendments, Senator Durbin is going to offer two amendments, Senator Reed is going to offer his amendment, if he so chooses, on missile defense, and I am going to offer my amendment on current receipts.

Absolutely.

On Monday, we have Senator Levin, Senator Dayton, Senator Byrd, and Senator Bingaman, and there may be others as the day progresses.

We will do our very best--Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. But we are doing quite well.

Absolutely.

There will be no more votes. The Chair already announced that. Can the Senator from New York be recognized for 5 minutes?

If the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3432, which has already been agreed to.

Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to both thank and commend our U.S. Capitol Police for their outstanding actions during the evacuation of the Capitol complex last week.

As we now know, the decision to evacuate was made on a moment's notice when a private airplane flew into restricted airspace and could not be contacted. Our Capitol Police put the lives of the people who work in Congress ahead of their own. The Capitol and surrounding buildings were vacated within minutes.

In addition to thousands of employees and Members of Congress, hundreds of dignitaries from around the world had come to the Capitol last Wednesday to pay their respects to President Ronald Reagan. The Capitol Police executed the evacuation with efficiency and professionalism.

Fortunately, the threat proved to be a false alarm, and it was again the Capitol Police who screened and helped each individual as they reentered the buildings.

Only a few weeks ago I had the honor of speaking at the re-dedication ceremony of the Capitol Police headquarters. This would be an honor for any Senator, but it is especially so for me, because I served as a U.S. Capitol Policeman years ago.

The Capitol Police force has changed quite a bit over the years. It was founded in 1828 with three nonuniformed watchmen. Before that, only one guard protected the Capitol.

Today, more than 1,300 professionally trained men and women serve as Capitol Police officers. Their challenges have obviously become more formidable, but their main focus still lies in protecting life throughout the complex of congressional buildings, parks, and streets.

I would like to take a moment to recognize 3 Capitol Police officers who have been killed in the line of duty: Sgt. Christopher Eney was killed on August 24, 1984, during a training exercise; Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut was killed on July 24, 1998, while guarding his post at the Capitol; and John Gibson was killed on July 24, 1998, while protecting the lives of visitors, staff, and the Office of the House Majority Whip.

The police headquarters building is now named in honor of these 3 fallen heroes. A few weeks ago, at the rededication ceremony, I had the opportunity to meet some of the children of these men, now grown. Speaking with them reminded me of the sacrifice that these officers and their families had made.

Likewise, the events of last week reminded me that our U.S. Capitol Police officers put their lives on the line every day, to protect all of us. For that we can never thank them enough.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steve Beasley, a fellow with the Finance Committee, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the Defense bill.

Mr. President, today the Senate has confirmed the nomination of Alan Greenspan to continue for yet another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. While I did not force the Senate to take a rollcall vote on the matter, I do want to make it clear for the record that had such a vote been taken, I would have opposed Mr. Greenspan's confirmation.

I hold Chairman Greenspan in high regard as a dedicated public servant; however, I am concerned that the economic objectives that Mr. Greenspan aims to advance all too often come at the expense of Americans who are too young, too old, or too poor to belong to the investor class. During earlier years of his tenure, I worried that his slow-growth, high-interest manipulation of monetary policy hurt American workers. This year, my concerns about his decisions as Chairman grew to alarm. I was stunned to read that Mr. Greenspan supported the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest people and corporations among us, while at the same time predicting that growing Federal budget deficits and the retirement of baby boomers would require cuts in Social Security and Medicare. It was particularly shocking given his enthusiastic support for deficit reduction during the Clinton administration.

Our economy is becoming deeply and disturbingly stratefied, and it is eating away at our country. Our fiscal policy and the monetary policy that Chairman Greenspan has steered have created a gulf separating the haves and have-nots in America, a gulf so wide that it seems like even a lifetime of dedicated and hard work can no longer guarantee Americans a ticket into the middle class. I worry that if we do not try to correct our economic policy and return it to a fairer and more just course, we will not be holding true to our promise of affording opportunity to everyone.

I am pleased to see that at last the economy is beginning to show signs of growth and job creation. However, it is essential that we pay attention to whether that prosperity is shared by more than just a small handful of people occupying the top rungs of our economic ladder. We need to make sure that our economic prosperity doesn't come at the expense of elderly people depending on Social Security or young people trying to get a start in the job market. I believe that we need someone at the helm of the Federal Reserve who gives these matters the regard that they deserve.

Mr. President, the Democrat time this morning will be dispersed as follows: 8 minutes to Senator Lincoln, 8 minutes to Senator Corzine, and 8 minutes to Senator Harkin. We will reserve the rest.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate very much the Senator bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate and the country.

I have strong views that if someone has been convicted of a crime and has fulfilled the terms of the sentence by that court and completed their probationary period or period of parole, that person should be able to vote. If a sentence is too short, give them longer sentences. But if someone, in effect, has been punished and completed their terms of punishment--retribution, call it whatever you want--that person should be able to vote.

It should be a national law that when someone completes the terms of their imprisonment, parole, probation, they should be able to vote. It is unfair to people who are trying to get back on their feet to not be able to be part of the American system. That is what we want them to do. We send them to prison to be rehabilitated. Part of their rehabilitation is the ability to vote.

Would the Senator acknowledge there is some merit to my statement?

Mr. President, 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I have no objection to that. We have a little more time on our side. But I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd have 2 minutes to close following Senator Roberts.

Of course.

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

Madam President, on June 10, the Las Vegas Review-Journal published an editorial about the program my friend from Kentucky seeks to fix. As the editorial noted, this program was created to compensate our cold war veterans who are sick from their work at nuclear facilities around the country, including the Nevada Test Site, during the cold war.

These brave men and women were not told that they were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and other toxic substances. In fact, for years the Department of Energy knew the deadly effects of these substances but still resisted workers' attempts to seek compensation for their work-related illnesses.

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, which began in 2000, was created to remedy the decades of stonewalling and deception by the DOE. When we worked to create this program in 2000, we put part of it under the auspices of the Department of Energy. We intended to provide relief to sick workers and their widows who are strapped with medical bills. As of April, only one worker in Washington State had received any compensation through the DOE program. Three more workers have now received compensation.

More than 24,000 workers have filed claims with the Department of Energy. After 4 years and about $74 million worth of work, exactly four of these workers have received compensation. The Review-Journal calls the DOE's program a ``boondoggle.'' I couldn't agree more. Many of these workers, if not most of them, are very sick. They are aging. If they have to wait much longer, they may not live long enough to receive the compensation they deserve. That isn't fair, and it isn't right.

My colleague from Kentucky is offering his amendment because these workers' illnesses will not wait for the DOE to fix this program on its own. This program has another serious problem that his amendment seeks to correct: some workers who file claims and deserve compensation have no entity to pay their claims.

In Nevada, for example, 482 workers have filed for compensation. If they were exposed to toxic substances at the Nevada Test Site before 1993, they would have no so-called ``willing payer'' of workers' compensation.

For 3 years, Congress has asked the Department of Energy to suggest a way to fix this problem. The best answer we have received is, we are looking into it.

In its last hearing on this program, the DOE said it had no responsibility to help workers through their State workers' compensation programs. The bureaucrats at DOE are missing the point of this program. Yes, DOE is finally beginning to admit to some of its workers that their jobs made them sick. That is a step in the right direction. But admitting responsibility for

these illnesses, and then declining to offer any help, is not in the spirit or the letter of the law we passed 4 years ago.

The Department of Energy was given a huge opportunity with this program to rectify its previous mistakes that caused these workers to become sick. I am very disappointed with what the DOE has done with that opportunity, but I am not surprised considering how they have botched our nuclear waste program.

I hope our action today will move us toward fulfilling the promises we made to these workers. Just as we would never leave a soldier on the battlefield, we must not leave behind these Americans whose work in the nuclear industry helped our Nation win the cold war.

Madam President, before this amendment is agreed to, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes on this amendment.

Does the Senator from Vermont have the floor?

I will wait my turn.

I was wondering if the Senator from Virginia had yielded the floor, but he has not.

Mr. President, we are trying to complete this Defense bill. The

Senator from Vermont has made his case. The Senator from Virginia has made his case. The record should be spread with the fact that Senator Leahy is going to get a vote on his amendment before we finish this bill, and I would hope we could move on. As far as I am concerned, the issue is very clearly defined. I have heard people ask all during the day, What is happening with this bill? Why can we not move it more quickly?

The Senator from Michigan, the manager of this bill on the side of the minority, and I have worked very hard the last 24 hours to try to clear amendments, and on our side there are a definite number of amendments. As I understand it, this is our 11th day on this bill. We have spent weeks on these bills in the past. We know the importance of the Senate agenda. There are so many other things to do. We have just wasted a tremendous amount of time, obviously for the reasons the majority does not want to vote on Senator Leahy's amendment. So I would certainly hope that everyone understands that anything that is being slowed down on this bill is not because of us.

There are a number of issues we need to debate on a Defense bill. Certainly, we should have an amendment that deals with end strength; that is, what should be the troop levels. The person who is offering that amendment is a graduate from West Point, a retired major from the Army. Certainly, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island is qualified to offer that amendment. We should do that. We should get to that.

Another issue that we need to debate is the missile defense system. Some feel very strongly that it is an important program on which we should spend lots of money. Others believe we are spending too much money on it. That is an issue that should be debated.

The distinguished senior Senator from Delaware wishes to offer an amendment to cut some of the higher tax cuts that were given and have those moneys spent on Iraq.

We have a number of important issues. There are a number of issues that may not seem important in the overall scheme of things, but to the individual Senators they are extremely important.

I repeat, I want everyone to understand we are doing everything we can to move this bill along. In the last several days, we have heard threats of filing cloture because we are slowing the bill down. We are not slowing the bill down. Nothing can be guaranteed around here, but I would certainly suggest if there is a cloture motion filed on this bill, I do not think the majority is going to get cloture on this bill. We want the opportunity to offer a few amendments.

Now, we all understand that President Reagan died. There is never a good time for someone to pass away. We all felt so strongly about President Reagan, and we joined in the celebration of his life last week. But we should not be punished on this bill because of that. So I would hope that we could move this bill along.

As everyone knows, tonight we are not going to be able to go very late. We can finish this bill, but we are not going to finish the bill tomorrow. We cannot finish the bill tomorrow.

I have said on this floor so many times--but when something is good, it has to be repeated--there are no two finer people in the Senate than the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia and the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan, the two managers of this bill. But we have to move on.

Through the Chair, I say to my friend, the chairman of this most important committee, we are not trying to slow this bill down. We have done what we can to move it forward, but I have stated there are some issues that we must address. We are going to continue to work. I have talked to the Democratic leader on many occasions. He is, of course, always aware of what is going on on the floor. He wants this bill completed as much as the rest of us. So I would hope that we could get a vote on the amendment of Senator Leahy as rapidly as possible and move on.

I do not know if this is true, but I have been told the majority wants to vote on some judges tonight. That is also going to take some time.

Close.

Reserving the right to object, I would ask the distinguished Senator to modify the request to allow 2 minutes prior to the votes on Mr. Duffey, Mr. Stengel, and Mr. Diamond.

I would also ask the distinguished chairman of the committee, we understood there would be an up-or-down vote on the second-degree amendment offered by the chairman and also an up-or-down vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont.

I have no objection.

Will the Senator yield?

In our conversation on the floor, we talked about what we wanted to do. We did talk about Bond-Harkin, Reed end strength. I ask the two distinguished managers of the bill, because of the difficult schedule that the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the minority leader have on Friday, if we could have one amendment that the Senator from South Dakota is going to offer dealing with health. He would take a very short time agreement on that. And the Senator from Delaware wishes to offer an important amendment dealing with taxes, and he will take a relatively short period of time. He has to decide that. But we are talking about this before we get to missile defense. They say they would certainly like to get that done because, as you know, their schedules are extremely difficult in the next day or two.

At least we got it down a little ways.

That is the one.

And Senator Daschle would take a very short time agreement. We have not had the opportunity to fully vet this with Senator Biden other than he wanted to get up early because of his schedule on Friday, but we will discuss this with them.

If the distinguished chairman will yield, Senator Daschle would be happy to wait until Monday with a very short time agreement. But we do have some other amendments on this bill.

Every year, as you know, there are a few abortion amendments. They don't take a lot of time because we have debated a number of them on previous occasions. We have a number of other issues. But as we talked about earlier today, if we do end strength and missile defense, we get Senator Biden's amendment out of the way, the others should go fairly quickly.

If the Senator will yield.

I don't usually deal in the minutia of things, rather broader issues. But I just wanted to say something to the distinguished Democratic leader of this important committee, I do believe we are near the end. I say that because we have been on this bill 11 days. If we spend a few more days on it, we are near the end.

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

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