Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield?

We have explained to the majority that we would, in fact, ask consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to offer her amendment. Senator Daschle is occupied at the present time. If necessary, I could offer it on his behalf, but I think it would be better if he offered it himself. So we ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to go forward with her amendment.

Mr. President, we have someone who will speak in opposition to the Boxer amendment. There is a second-degree amendment on its way. It is not yet ready. It is coming; sometimes I don't know from where. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside. In keeping with the unanimous consent agreement that was entered last night, at some subsequent time there will be the opportunity to offer the amendment Senators Kohl and DeWine are going to offer as a second- degree amendment to Boxer.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Under the terms of the order, Senator Kohl has 15 minutes when he offers his second-degree amendment. We have been advised he will not use that entire amount of time, so at this time I ask consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to use 4 minutes of the time under the control of Senators Kohl and DeWine.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am wondering if there is a need for a recorded vote.

I think we can do this by voice because it is my understanding that the Kohl second degree is also going to be done by voice vote, so that would eliminate the need for two votes. We could go directly to the Boxer amendment, as amended.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, under the terms of the order that is now before the Senate, Senator DeWine and Senator Kohl were to offer an amendment. Senator DeWine is not offering the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be allowed to offer a second-degree amendment to the Boxer amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, what is the business before the Senate? Is it the Boxer amendment, as amended by the Kohl amendment?

What time is remaining on that?

Madam President, on this amendment all time has been used. I ask the good offices of my friend from Idaho to allow the Senator from California 1 minute to respond to the statements of the Senator from Idaho.

I ask unanimous consent that the request be so modified.

Madam President, that is fine. I would indicate that following however long the quorum takes, we would vote on the Boxer amendment as amended by Kohl. Then I would alert everyone that we would then have a period of time for up to 1 hour, that Senator Campbell--at least the way I understand the order now before the Senate--would have up to an hour on his amendment. Senator Kennedy would follow with an hour on his amendment. Then two 2 hours would, of course, have gone by. Senator Frist has the opportunity to offer an amendment. We do not know if he will at the time.

My point being on those two amendments, the Campbell and Kennedy amendments, there will be no votes until Tuesday. But that is a significant amount of time. Following that, Cantwell has 60 minutes. So this afternoon we should have a lot of debate with no votes in the immediate future. I would simply ask that those Senators be ready to go as soon as the vote is completed on this matter.

Mr. President, the majority leader has indicated it, and the minority is happy to go forward with a vote at this time.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the order now before the Senate indicates the next amendment is the Campbell-Leahy amendment. That is 60 minutes. The time, of course, is in the usual form. Following that is the Kennedy cop killer bullets amendment. Following that is the Cantwell amendment and maybe somebody else in between. That is where we are. I do not see Senator Campbell on the floor.

I would ask that Senator Dodd be allowed 10 minutes from Senator Kennedy's time on the amendment that will soon be offered.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senators Campbell, Hatch and Leahy to offer the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act amendment.

The purpose of the amendment is simple. It would exempt present and retired law enforcement officers from State and local laws that prohibit carrying concealed firearms, as long as

the officers were bearing valid ID issued from their employing agency.

The Fraternal Order of Police, representing more than 1,000 Nevada law enforcement officers and more than 300,000 members nationwide, supports this amendment.

They support this bill because it would improve public safety. It would allow law enforcement officers to protect the public, as well as themselves.

This amendment mirrors a bill sponsored by more than two-thirds of America's Senators.

Again, our overwhelming support underscores the fact that this measure will protect our communities, as well as the brave police officers who serve us so well.

As I learned many years ago when I was on the Capitol police force, law enforcement officers are never truly ``off-duty.'' They are dedicated public servants trained to uphold the law and keep the peace.

When there is a threat to the peace or to our public safety, law enforcement officers are sworn to answer that call--and answer it they do, whether they are on duty or not.

Law enforcement officers are always protecting the innocent just as they are always under threat from the guilty.

Although a police officer might not remember the name and face of every criminal he or she has put behind bars, criminals have long memories. A law enforcement officer is a target whether in or out of uniform, whether active or retired, and whether on duty or off.

In fact, roughly 5 percent of officers who are killed in action are actually ``off duty'' at the time of their death.

This amendment is designed to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals, and to allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms that will help them protect innocent citizens.

I urge all my colleagues to support this measure, which will make our communities safer and protect our brave police officers.

We yield back the time of Senator Kennedy.

He is not ready yet.

I yield back time on this side.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, I have spoken to the manager of the bill for the majority and spoken to the majority leader. It is their intention, and I think it is a good idea, to have Senator Mikulski finish her amendment. She has 40 minutes. Following that, there would be an amendment offered by the majority. When we complete the debate on those two matters, we would vote on those two matters. We would, in fact, have two votes, and they would be stacked. Following that, we would again look at the schedule and see where we are.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye''.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if my friend will yield, on our side, Senator Dayton will be here in the morning to offer his amendment. Following that, Senator Levin will offer an amendment. Senator Bingaman wishes to offer his amendment on Monday.

I also say to my friend that Senator Reed has told me he will come tomorrow or Monday to start laying the groundwork for his amendment and the amendment with Senator Feinstein. The votes on those amendments will occur Tuesday morning. When they get the floor, they can talk about their amendments either tomorrow or Monday.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this most important legislation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of this bill, which is sponsored by Senators Craig and Baucus.

This legislation protects firearm and ammunition manufacturers from lawsuits related to deliberate and illegal misuse of their products. Even more important, it protects the rights of Americans who choose to legally purchase and use their products.

As a gun owner since I was a young boy, I strongly support the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional right of responsible individuals should not be compromised or jeopardized by a small handful who use firearms to commit crimes.

In my native State of Nevada, many people own firearms and the vast majority of them use their guns responsibly and safely. It is their right to do so, guaranteed in the United States Constitution. It is not some privilege granted at the whim of Congress or any other part of government. So I will work on a bipartisan basis to protect and safeguard that right.

I will work to pass this bill, and I think we have the votes to pass it.

Toward the end of last year, we tried to consider this bill in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough time left in the first session of this Congress to consider this bill in a fair manner.

Now the time has come to pass this bill.

We will now debate and vote on the amendments that Senators want to offer to this bill, and then we will pass it. And when we do, we will be standing up for the Constitution and the rights of every American citizen.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I say to Senator Murray, I am in agreement that a commitment was made to include $120 million per year for the ferry boat discretionary program.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that tomorrow the majority will allow a period of morning business that will come sometime during the day. I would ask that the consent be, on the Democratic side, that Senator Conrad be recognized for 45 minutes, Senator Harkin for 30 minutes, Senator Byrd for 30 minutes; and, of course, if the majority wants whatever time, in whatever order they wish, they would be interspersed with these speakers, meaning there would be a Republican, a Democrat, as we do all the time.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

Mr. President, I feel constrained to say that we have been in a quorum call now for 4 hours 10 minutes, but that does not take away from the fact that people have been working very hard during this entire period of time, plus earlier this day. I personally extend my appreciation to the two leaders, the Republican leader and the Democratic leader, for working with us. Senator Frist is not on the floor tonight. We have been in constant contact with him during the evening.

I also want to say that Senator Reed, my counterpart from Rhode Island, has been representing those people who are extremely concerned about this issue, probably 12, 15 Senators. He has been extremely helpful, as he always is. He has represented his cause in the most efficient way. Without his cooperation and work, Senator Daschle and I could not be at the point where we are today.

Mr. President, there is nothing more important we could do for our senior citizens than help them with the soaring cost of health care, especially the high cost of prescription drugs.

Unfortunately the Medicare bill passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Bush doesn't do this. In fact, for many seniors this law will do more harm than good.

One provision of this new and overly complicated law establishes ``comparative cost adjustment'' demonstration programs that will take place in six metropolitan areas. ``Comparative cost adjustment'' is just a fancy term that really means: How much you pay for your Medicare premiums depends on where you live.

In other words, some Medicare recipients will pay more than others for the exact same coverage, simply because of where they live.

Medicare premiums for seniors living in the six regions selected to participate in the pilot program would be based on a set payment--like a voucher--from the government. This payment would be based on a combination of the prices charged by private plans and the cost of Medicare fee-for-service in their area.

Seniors would enroll in either a private plan or in fee-for-service Medicare. But those who chose a plan that cost more than the defined contribution would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets.

And since senior citizens in the fee-for-service program tend to be older and sicker than those who enroll in Medicare HMOs, costs for that group would probably be higher, and the defined contribution likely would not cover the entire cost of the fee-for-service premium.

So over time, seniors who want to remain in the traditional Medicare program, because they want to keep choosing their own doctor or for any other reason, would have to pay more and more out of their own pockets.

Under this experimental program, I fear that traditional Medicare would become too expensive for many patients simply because of where they happen to live. We have a large population of retirees in north and south Nevada, and I am told there is a good chance one or both of these areas will be selected for this experimental pilot program. That would place a disproportionate burden on seniors in my State who are already struggling to make ends meet and pay for their health care.

So the legislation I am introducing today will prohibit any of the six demonstration programs from occurring in Nevada.

Senior citizens in Nevada should not have to pay more than their neighbors for the same Medicare services. I will keep fighting to protect Nevadans from being used as guinea pigs in this ill-advised experiment.

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

Mr. President, there is nothing more important we could do for our senior citizens than help them with the soaring cost of health care, especially the high cost of prescription drugs.

Unfortunately the Medicare bill passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Bush doesn't do this. In fact, for many seniors this law will do more harm than good.

One provision of this new and overly complicated law establishes ``comparative cost adjustment'' demonstration programs that will take place in six metropolitan areas. ``Comparative cost adjustment'' is just a fancy term that really means: How much you pay for your Medicare premiums depends on where you live.

In other words, some Medicare recipients will pay more than others for the exact same coverage, simply because of where they live.

Medicare premiums for seniors living in the six regions selected to participate in the pilot program would be based on a set payment--like a voucher--from the government. This payment would be based on a combination of the prices charged by private plans and the cost of Medicare fee-for-service in their area.

Seniors would enroll in either a private plan or in fee-for-service Medicare. But those who chose a plan that cost more than the defined contribution would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets.

And since senior citizens in the fee-for-service program tend to be older and sicker than those who enroll in Medicare HMOs, costs for that group would probably be higher, and the defined contribution likely would not cover the entire cost of the fee-for-service premium.

So over time, seniors who want to remain in the traditional Medicare program, because they want to keep choosing their own doctor or for any other reason, would have to pay more and more out of their own pockets.

Under this experimental program, I fear that traditional Medicare would become too expensive for many patients simply because of where they happen to live. We have a large population of retirees in north and south Nevada, and I am told there is a good chance one or both of these areas will be selected for this experimental pilot program. That would place a disproportionate burden on seniors in my State who are already struggling to make ends meet and pay for their health care.

So the legislation I am introducing today will prohibit any of the six demonstration programs from occurring in Nevada.

Senior citizens in Nevada should not have to pay more than their neighbors for the same Medicare services. I will keep fighting to protect Nevadans from being used as guinea pigs in this ill-advised experiment.

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

Mr. President, this is an equitable distribution of time and will save a lot of confusion. We therefore agree.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the debate this afternoon with respect to the cloture vote, any Democratic speakers be limited to 10 minutes each. The reason I propound this request is that we have less than an hour left on our side. We have a number of speakers who have a desire to speak. If we have a limited time, they will not be able to do that. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

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

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, my colleague, Senator Ensign, has been waiting for the minority leader to come. The time is here for the majority to use. If the minority leader decides to use 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the majority be given the final 5 minutes to speak on this matter.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``nay''.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, through you to the distinguished majority leader, I got a call from a dear friend in Nevada today, a surgeon. He is very active in public affairs, a very close friend of our Republican Governor. He told me that in Nevada, where the Governor called a special session that we have caps, the insurance rates have not been affected at all; they are still going up. He originally had a policy with St. Paul. They pulled out. Another company came in and doctors are always concerned with what they call the ``tail,'' to make sure if something happens after their policy expires that they are covered for acts that took place in the past. He went with a new company. They pulled out after a year and a half. Now he is going to have to pay more than $100,000 for 1 year to have coverage for today and acts that took place in the past.

I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, a physician, this medical malpractice is something we have to address. I don't know the best form to do it. But when we do it, we are not only going to have to deal with some of the policies outlined by both parties today, but we will have to take a look at what the insurance industry is doing to my friend and other physicians. This is not just a problem generated solely by the trial bar; the insurance industry has some culpability.

I hope the distinguished majority leader, when again we get to this issue, will help us come up with a framework and we can discuss this issue. Part of the discussion has to be directed toward the insurance industry.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I know H.R. 3740 is an important piece of legislation. It extends the highway bill now in effect for 4 months. I have not spoken to Senator Inhofe today, but we have communicated through staff. He and I would rather have a 1-month extension. It is my understanding that the two leaders have met and think that 60 days would be an appropriate time. I want everybody to be on notice that if there is any effort to extend this beyond 60 days, I will do whatever I can to make sure that is not the case.

It is so important that we move this most important piece of legislation to 4 months, as there will be no bill this year. We have spent too much time over here. It now appears that the debate is over dollars. It is not about the content of the bill in any way.

I hope the two leaders understand the grief and difficulty that Senators Inhofe and I and Kit Bond and Senator Jeffords have gone through to get to the point where we are. I will agree with the decision of the two leaders, but when it comes back from the House, I hope there will be an agreement to split the difference after that.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, is the Senator from Massachusetts aware of what happened last week regarding one of the President's chief economic advisors, N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors? Recognizing that the country has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs during the time he has been President, is the Senator aware that this man recommends that in an effort to bolster manufacturing jobs, he wants to have people who work at McDonald's reclassified as manufacturers? Is the Senator aware of that?

I will read exactly what the man said, in case the Senator missed that. The plan is to simply reclassify existing jobs in the fast food industry and declare they are now manufacturing jobs. He said:

When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example,

is it providing a ``service'' or is it combining inputs to

``manufacture'' a product?

Is the Senator aware of this statement which I would consider ridiculous?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

I am stunned by the statement of Secretary Paige. I have the greatest respect for Governor Doyle. I know if he said he said it, he said it. But with regard to the NEA, for example, someone I went to high school with spent much of his adult life working for the NEA, organizing all over the West. That is a terrible thing to say about my friend Rinaldo Martinez, that he is part of a terrorist organization. That is stunning.

Back to the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs.

The President's people want to reclassify people who work at McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's as manufacturing so that the loss of manufacturing jobs appears less. But would the Senator comment on the fact that it seems it may be better for the President's folks to dwell on people who work in those places not having a

raise in the minimum wage for as long as they have? People are working two and three jobs to make ends meet just barely. We don't hear a word from the administration, not a single word on increasing the minimum wage for these people who work in these places that they want to reclassify as manufacturing jobs, where they now make $5.15 an hour. And we have been stymied procedurally from raising even an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage that will allow us to do that. Yet they want to reclassify people who work in those places as manufacturers. Is this the height of nonsense?

We have heard a lot about the loss of manufacturing jobs in our country.

There are traditionally very good jobs, the kind that can really support a family--decent hourly wages, good health care coverage, and paid vacations. They provide an honest day's pay for an honest day's work because these jobs aren't easy.

It takes concentration, skill and stamina to stand on an assembly line making automobiles, or aircraft, or televisions, or dungarees. And most important of all, it requires pride in a job well done.

When I grew up, you saw the ``made in the USA label'' on almost everything you bought. It was an assurance that a product was of the highest quality because it had been manufactured by American workers.

Today it's hard to find that label on many products because fewer and fewer things are being ``made in the USA.''

Over the last 42 months, our Nation has lost manufacturing jobs every single month--a total of 2.8 million jobs.

These are the statistics, and behind these statistics are 2.8 million grim stories.

Every time a job is lost, a family's world is torn apart.

A worker loses the self-esteem of supporting a family, and also loses the sense of pride in a job well done. The family will probably lose their health coverage. Maybe they'll have to give up their dream of owning a home, or their children will have to forget about attending college.

This is why the loss of manufacturing jobs is such a crisis in our country.

For months now, we have wondered whether the administration has a plan to revive our manufacturing sector, and help create new manufacturing jobs.

Mr. President, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. It now appears that the administration might in fact have a plan to create manufacturing jobs.

Unfortunately, that plan is simply to reclassify existing jobs in the fast food industry and declare that they are now ``manufacturing'' jobs!

This idea was suggested in the Economic Report of the President which was sent to Congress last week, and by N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

To reiterate, in a speech to economists, Mr. Mankiw said that reclassifying fast food jobs as manufacturing was ``an important consideration'' in setting economic policy. And the White House drew a box around this part of the Economic Report:

When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example,

is it providing a ``service'' or is it combining inputs to

``manufacture'' a product?

Sometimes, seemingly subtle differences can determine

whether an industry is classified as manufacturing. For

example, mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks

is classified as manufacturing. However, if that activity is

performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service.

According to an article in last Friday's New York Times, some economists in the administration want to count flipping hamburgers as manufacturing so they can claim more jobs in that sector of the economy.

Mr. President, if this idea wasn't such a cruel mockery of American workers and their families, it would be funny.

I have nothing against people who work in the food service industry. Here in the Senate I have fought to protect these workers. I have tried to get a vote on increasing the minimum wage. And I have fought to protect overtime pay.

But it is a fact that very few food service jobs can compete with good manufacturing jobs in terms of supporting a family.

I suppose the food service workers could organize themselves into unions, as many factory workers have done. Maybe they could call themselves the Amalgamated Hamburger Assembly Workers or the Brotherhood of French Fry Baggers.

They could call themselves that, but they would still be food service workers, not factory workers. And their jobs would still be service jobs, not manufacturing jobs.

You can change all the terminology you want, but you can't change the fact that our country desperately needs a real plan to boost our manufacturing sector.

We need to look at tax credits for businesses to create manufacturing jobs; we need to cut health care costs; and we need to enforce our trade agreements so they will be fair to American workers.

We need a plan that recognizes what the loss of manufacturing jobs has meant to almost three million American families.

This is a serious problem. But this suggestion by the administration can't be taken seriously.

On behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Hughes, a deputy U.S. marshal who is serving in Senator Frank Lautenberg's office on a detail, be given floor privileges during consideration of S. 1805 and S. 1806.

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

Mr. President, the managers will yield to the Senator from California 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, have an additional 2 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Madam President, I have said on this floor on a number of occasions how the chairman and ranking member of the full committee and how the subcommittee chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee have worked together for more than a year to come up with a program that we thought would be the most fair for this country.

I say to my friend from Arizona for whom I have the deepest respect, and my friend from Texas for whom I also have great affection, in years past we did not go through the turmoil of coming up with 95 percent for all States. In years past we just decided how many votes it would take to get a bill passed. Some States did very poorly.

When I started in this process, some States got less than 80 cents' return on every dollar. It was moved up to 80, then 85, then 90.5. We have taken this gigantic first step from the last bill, which had no increase, for 95 cents for every State. It is a remarkably fair, good way of doing business.

I say to my two friends--I acknowledge it is imperfect--but we have had people who have run on computers numerous other programs to try to come up with something that would satisfy the needs of this country. How would the State of Alaska like it if for every dollar they paid into the highway trust fund they got $1 back? Alaska would suffer. The State of Alaska, which has such tremendous, important needs and has weather conditions that make road construction and road rehabilitation extremely expensive, could not survive with a return of $1 for every $1 they paid in.

My friends have indicated that would be the fair thing to do: For every dollar a State puts in, they get a dollar back. It doesn't work.

Yesterday, the distinguished senior Senator from Wyoming spoke. Wyoming is a perfect example of a State that cannot survive on dollar for dollar. What we have done is taken into consideration in this formula States, such as Wyoming and Alaska, and made sure they get more than $1. If some States get more than $1, some States are going to have to get less than $1. That is the way it is.

These big States--Texas, which has two votes in this body; Florida, which has two votes in this body; California, which has two votes in this body--we could have made it so that all States got 95 percent except States with populations of more than 15 million people. That would have been easy. We would have lost six votes. We could have still passed this bill.

We thought in fairness that those large States should also get 95 cents on the dollar, and we have done that. I think this is fair and reasonable, and I commend and applaud my colleagues on this committee.

We have a diverse group of Senators on this committee. We were able, working for more than 1 year, to come up with a formula that met the needs of this country to the best of our ability. To come in at this late date and say:

We have a better formula, we have worked on it the last week, and your work the past year does not mean much, and let's have the State of Alaska get a dollar back for what they pay in, the State of Wyoming get a dollar back for what they pay in, and everybody will be happy and we can go home--what we have done has been extremely fair.

I hope the Senate will respond as they did with this cloture vote. This is a resounding vote that we had this morning because the Senators recognized by a vote of 86 to 11 that what we have done is appropriate.

There are very few measures that come before this body that get a vote like this: 86 to 11. I think that represents fairness in this legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on her amendment. I believe it takes unanimous consent. And I ask for the yeas and nays, not a vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas.

I simply want to say, when the Senator finishes, we have been advised by leadership that they need a vote in the next 5 minutes. If we have more speakers, then I will have no alternative but to move to table. But what we have agreed to do, I say to the chairman of the committee, on this side, is to allow an up-or-down vote, but there will not be an up-or-down vote unless there is some acknowledgement that the debate is going to end now because we have spent considerable time on this amendment. It has been a good debate, but all things have to come to an end, and they will, either with a motion to table or an up-or- down vote now.

Thank you very much. I would direct, through the Chair, a question to the Senator from Texas.

Are you about to complete your statement?

Mr. President, I am going to move to table. We have waited. The time has come. We either have an up-or-down vote now or I am moving to table. I am not going to yield the floor anymore.

Madam President, I have the floor.

Madam President, I have the floor. I direct a question through the Chair to the Senator from Texas: Can we have an up-or-down vote? The leadership wanted one 5 minutes ago. We either do it now or I am moving to table.

I ask the Senator from Texas, how much more time do you need to respond?

I ask the Senator be yielded 1 minute prior to a vote on this matter.

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 further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

I take a brief minute to express my appreciation, as I have done in this Chamber before, to the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, for their outstanding work on this legislation.

For anyone to come to the floor and accuse the senior Senator from Iowa and the senior Senator from Montana of being budget busters simply does not meet the facts of their careers. These two fine Senators are known for pinching pennies. They are known as people who are concerned about taxpayers' dollars, as indicated by the many disputes that have arisen and the fact that we have criticized them a lot of times for not coming up with enough money for different things.

For them to come forward on this bill means so much. It exemplifies their public service and also exemplifies the importance of this legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Inhofe and I have been in touch with a number of Senators on the other side. What we would like to do is have anyone who wants to speak on waiving the point of order do that, and then, when that is done, we are going to ask consent to set aside the waiver and go to the next amendment, which would be Senator Kyl, who has another amendment.

I am happy to yield.

OK. That settles that. I would advise all Senators, then, we will not be able to vote on this until maybe a little before 2 o'clock. Both leaders have indicated there are people who have problems with being here, and they have agreed to let them not be here, so we will try to speed that up and get to Senator Kyl as quickly as we can.

I would say this: If there is no more debate and it is completed on the point of order waiver, rather than sit in a quorum call, I would suggest maybe Senator Kyl could talk about his amendment to just speed things up when we finish the point of order vote.

I want to say to everyone here, I think sometimes mornings are a little testy around here. I think, as the day has gone on, we have worked out an arrangement where, to this point at least, we have had up-or-down votes, and we are going to continue to do that for the foreseeable future. The main thing Senator Inhofe and the rest of the managers and I want to do is make sure people feel they have had a fair shake here. We hope we are accomplishing that. We are certainly trying.

I indicated to the Senator from Arizona that at the appropriate time--and probably this is an appropriate time--I would talk publicly about statements I made on the floor yesterday. There was some, I think, very serious debate yesterday, and I indicated during that debate the Senator from Arizona was--I think the words I used were ``at the

beck and call of the White House.'' I would like the Record to reflect that was a poor choice of words, that the Senator from Arizona on many occasions has been independent on issues the White House has propounded and advocated.

And so without belaboring the point, if there is an apology that is necessary, I am certainly willing to do that and apologize to my friend from Arizona, who I have the highest regard for. If I did anything to hurt his feelings, embarrass him or--in hindsight, it does not make me look very good to be name-calling. That is basically a subtle way of name-calling, and I apologize for that.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the waiver.

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 further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''

I move to reconsider the vote.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

My friend's memory is very good. The figure is $67 billion. And people wait in traffic and waste 5.6 billion gallons of gasoline every year.

Mr. President, from time to time I say nice things about Senators on this side of the aisle, and I do not often enough say nice things about those on the other side of the aisle. I want to say the presentation made by the junior Senator from Missouri is one of the finest presentations I have heard in many years in the Senate. It was logical. It was to the point. It laid out what we, the four managers of this bill, have been trying to do, and how difficult it was to arrive at the point where we are. I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Missouri for an outstanding statement. It was well delivered and had a lot of substance.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would have voted ``nay.''

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, may I make a suggestion. This last vote took 35 minutes. We have people who have been waiting to offer amendments all day. We have a number of amendments lined up for people to offer. I would hope the leadership would call a halt to these votes after a reasonable period of time.

There are people who have already come to me, there are people who have come to Senator Inhofe and the two leaders, about how long this is going to take. It could take a long, long time, but it is going to take a lot longer time if these votes go on endlessly. So I would hope we could terminate these votes more quickly.

If people miss a vote now and then, it is not the end of the world. I hope everyone would be in agreement. People feel very strongly about these amendments, and they have a right to offer them. The decision has been made today by the managers of the bill to let them offer them, to have up-or-down votes on them. Until there is some change, that is what we are going to continue to do. But everyone should not be punished by the dilatory nature of Senators for whom we wait around endlessly. I hope the next vote will be 20 minutes and then we will call it quits.

Mr. President, I have just spoken to Senator Dorgan. He is in the cloakroom and he wishes to speak for a few minutes prior to the vote on his amendment. We should advise the Senate there should be another vote in the next 10 minutes or so. Does the chairman agree with that?

I appreciate my chairman acknowledging the fact at this stage--things could happen later on--we have another amendment on our side and two more amendments on the other side, and that is all we know of on this bill. There may be other things come up but that is what the managers have been told.

I underline and underscore what the chairman of the committee has said. It is not right to have these votes go 38 minutes. People have other things to do. It is unfair to the Members here, voting on time, to nonchalantly walk in, knowing the vote has been held up. These are not close votes. There is nothing that will be damaged by someone missing a vote. If you have an important engagement, tell that to your constituents. It is unreasonable to do this. I hope later we will acknowledge that and help move the bill forward.

I am happy to yield.

I say to my friend, the junior Senator from Louisiana, we have tried that today and we have had objections to stacking votes. We will continue to try. We would be elated to do that. We know the schedule is extremely difficult for everyone but it is especially difficult for a mother of two children at home.

Knowing Senator Breaux--and this is directed toward him--we hope he does not have too good of a time.

I am happy to yield.

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.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If the Senator will yield, the four of us--the chairman, ranking member, chairman, and ranking member--have worked tirelessly to arrive at a point where we can complete this bill. This is an important amendment.

The Senator from Missouri has worked with us, the three managers--if I said weeks, it would not be valid; it is months. We are at a point where we simply cannot do this. I will make a commitment to my friend from Missouri that when we get to conference or when we work on this or do our deal with the House, I will personally be involved in this and try to work out something that would be satisfactory to the Senator from Missouri. It simply won't work at this stage. I ask that the Senator withdraw the amendment at this time.

Amendment No. 2502 Withdrawn

This has been a long, arduous 2 weeks for me and the other managers. We are at the point now that I understand we can soon go to final passage. If there is something to the contrary, I would certainly like to know about that.

Prior to final passage, the chairman of the committee has some matters that need to be disposed of. I wanted to alert everybody we are getting close to the end of this matter.

Mr. President, 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 send an amendment to the desk.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Are we in a quorum call?

What is the matter pending before the Senate?

To my understanding, there is no further debate on that amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Corzine.

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

Mr. President, 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 call up amendment No. 2312.

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

I ask the amendment be agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

I agree with the Senator from California on the importance of the Golden Gate Bridge for the State's highway system. I support working with you during conference to ensure that the Golden Gate Bridge District can receive funding for seismic retrofit.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, I will be brief. I know the distinguished Senator from Georgia wishes to speak. We have spoken on the floor at some length over the last 2 weeks about the cooperation that bound the four of us together. It really has been one where we have grown closer as friends and Senators.

We have a lot more work to do on this bill. I want to again express my appreciation to the Senator from Oklahoma. We have both served in the House. We have been in the Senate for a long time. During the past year, I have gotten to know the distinguished junior Senator from Oklahoma and

have developed a great deal of respect I did not have. The reason is that even though there are only 100 of us, on most occasions we do not work on a very close basis. We come through and vote, have committee hearings, and hear each other talk, but here we had no alternative but to sit down in the trenches and try to work out tremendous differences that we began with. We were able to do that.

Legislation is the art of compromise. Had Senator Inhofe stuck to his guns and I stuck to my guns, we would not have a bill. That is nothing bad. That is what legislation is all about, consensus building. I deeply appreciate the ability I have had to get to know my friend from Oklahoma much better.

I express my appreciation, of course, to my counterpart on the subcommittee, Senator Bond. I appreciate his good work. They both have excellent staffs. I have gotten to know them also.

Of course, Senator Jeffords and I, everyone knows of our close and longstanding relationship and how much we care about each other. I appreciate very much his work on this bill and his allowing me a little bit of freedom on a bill that normally but for the closeness of our relationship would not have occurred.

The other Senators have spoken about their staffs and how much they appreciate them and that they would submit the names for the Record and they ran off a lot of names. I have one staff person. No one knows this bill better than he does. No one knows the numbers better than he does. I am so well served by J.C. Sandberg. I appreciate so much the tireless efforts on his behalf. He was up until 3 in the morning this morning, last night, and many nights during the past 6 months. He has worked very long hours. I wish I could rattle off the names of lots of other people who worked with me on this bill, but the only person who did great work on my staff was J.C. Sandberg, which was exemplary. Not only has he rendered great service to me and the people of the State of Nevada, but I believe this entire country.

Also, my legislative director, Lisa Moore, has done good work. She has been around all the time helping J.C. and helping me, and I want her to know how much I appreciate her good work.

Mr. President, Milton Wesley Sanders passed away on Tuesday, February 10, in Washington, DC. He was one of the rapidly vanishing members of what we rightfully call the ``greatest generation''.

These valiant Americans who fought in World War II did not merely defeat a savage and evil enemy. They literally saved the free world. What would our own lives have been like if the forces of Nazism had prevailed in that war? It is truly unthinkable, and thanks to the greatest generation and men like Milton Sanders, we will never have to know the answer.

This generation of Americans grew up during the Great Depression, so they already knew about sacrifice. And when their country called upon them to sacrifice even more, they did not hesitate.

Milt Sanders' first heroic act occurred when he was still in flight school in Florida. During a training flight near Tallahassee, FL, his new P-47 aircraft malfunctioned because of a missing part.

Rather than bail out over a populated area, he decided to take the airplane in for a ``safe'' crash landing. He could have landed safely on the campus of the Florida State College for Women now known as Florida State. But when he saw a lot of students walking across campus, he headed for a nearby field.

In the instant before landing he had to divert the aircraft to avoid hitting a farmer. In the resulting crash, he suffered a skull fracture and numerous other injuries. But his quick thinking and courage had saved innocent lives.

During the war, Milt flew 116 combat P-47 fighter-bomber missions with the 9th Air Force in the European theater of operations. He supported operations from the pre-Normandy invasion buildup through the race across France, the Battle of the Bulge, and the final victory over Nazi tyranny. He brought back seven aircraft so badly shot up that they were immediately sent to the scrap heap. He was credited with shooting down one German aircraft and destroying more than 25 aircraft on the ground. For his valor, Milt was awarded two Distinguished Flying Crosses, 20 Air Medals, two Presidential Unit citations, the French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star, and the Belgian Fourragere.

Milt, who was known to some of his squadron buddies as ``Sandy,'' experienced the heroism of war, and he also saw the horror.

He saw one friend's aircraft crash into the ground. He saw another man bail out only to be knocked unconscious when he collided with his airplane. That man's parachute never opened.

He saw dead bodies that were booby-trapped.

He befriended an English family in London, only to find when he went to visit them that their home had been destroyed by a German V1 rocket.

Milt and his comrades knew the dangers they faced. After flying a mission at night, he would later recall that ground fire is frightening during the day, ``but to see it at night at a low altitude, you think every shot coming up has your name on it.''

Yet despite the dangers, he fought without fear.

After World War II, Milt continued to serve in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel and retiring with 20 years of honorable service in 1962.

Even when his active duty service had ended, he continued to serve our country through his work with several firms providing weapons systems and equipment to the Department of Defense. This association continued until his civilian retirement in 1989 at the age of 72.

The measure of a man's life is not solely in what he did, but in what he did for others. Throughout his life, Milton Sanders constantly sacrificed his time and talents in service to others in his church, his community, and his Nation. Every person who came into contact with him knew he was a friend they could always count on, no matter the hour, no matter the need.

Perhaps Milt's greatest contribution to our Nation comes from the legacy of his 46 years of loving marriage to his wife Jean. They have eight children, including two graduates of our military service academies; 28 grandchildren; and 17 great-grandchildren.

I will always treasure the memories of my monthly home teaching visits to the Sanders home. His piano playing, story-telling and beautiful prayers will always be vividly present in my mind. Jean, I learned during these visits, has always been the foundation of their wonderful relationship.

Like so many other members of his generation, Milton Sanders was a great yet humble patriot. Because of the sacrifices they made, our lives are immeasurably better than they otherwise might have been. Our Nation owes them more than words can ever convey.