Floor Statements

Mr. President, as our Nation's 76 million Baby Boomers near retirement age, the number of Americans over age 65 will double to 70 million--one-fifth of the population. Americans older than 85 represent the fastest growing segment of this population and membership in this once exclusive demographic group is projected to grow from four million Americans today to an estimated 19 million by 2050.

Unfortunately, our health care system is ill prepared to handle the strain of this enormous senior population, largely because we have a critical shortage of geriatricians. Fewer than 9,000 geriatricians practice in the U.S., far below the 20,000 or more needed to effectively care for the Nation's booming population of seniors. Ironically, the number of geriatricians is expected to shrink as many of these doctors retire at the same time baby boomers start qualifying for Medicare in large numbers.

America must plan for the burdens the baby boomers demographic shift will place on our health care system and health care providers. Our first step is ensuring the country has an adequate number of well- trained geriatricians.

I first introduced legislation to address the national shortage of geriatricians during the 105th Congress. While I am encouraged that greater attention has been focused on this issue, little has been accomplished to improve the shortage of geriatricians.

Today, I am re-introducing legislation that will encourage more doctors to become certified in geriatrics. The Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act would forgive $20,000 of education debt incurred by medical students for each year of advanced training required to obtain a certificate of added qualifications in geriatric medicine or psychiatry.

Geriatric medicine is the foundation of a comprehensive health plan for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics, by focusing on assessment and care coordination, promotes preventive care and improves patients' quality of life by allowing them greater independence and eliminating unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or institutions. But this kind of specialized care is complicated and demanding. Many doctors inclined to study and practice geriatric medicine are dissuaded from doing so because treating the elderly takes more time and carries financial disincentives for doctors.

Medical training takes time, so we need to lay the groundwork now to have enough qualified geriatricians in place in ten years from now. This legislation is a commonsense approach and cost-effective investment. We must take these steps today to meet our needs for tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation Reinvestment Act, which enhances the long-term viability of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas by allowing proceeds from leases of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation property to be reinvested.

Mr. President, through provisions of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, the Clark County Department of Aviation acquired land that was formerly owned by the Federal Government. A subsequent law, the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, transferred this land to the University of Las Vegas Research Foundation for construction of a research park and technology center.

Under current law, only 10 percent of the proceeds from the sale, lease, or conveyance of this land may be reinvested. This restriction hinders efforts to promote research and development at the research park.

Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today amends the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 to allow the proceeds of the Foundation's research park leases to be used to carry out the foundation's research mission.

The foundation's research park and technology center in the greater Las Vegas area will enhance the research mission of the university, increasing the potential for the high-tech industry and entrepreneurship in the State. It provides the public with opportunities for high-tech education and research, and at the same time provides the State with opportunities for competition and economic development in the high-tech field. It is imperative that sufficient funds are always available to maintain and enhance the center.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as our Nation's 76 million Baby Boomers near retirement age, the number of Americans over age 65 will double to 70 million--one-fifth of the population. Americans older than 85 represent the fastest growing segment of this population and membership in this once exclusive demographic group is projected to grow from four million Americans today to an estimated 19 million by 2050.

Unfortunately, our health care system is ill prepared to handle the strain of this enormous senior population, largely because we have a critical shortage of geriatricians. Fewer than 9,000 geriatricians practice in the U.S., far below the 20,000 or more needed to effectively care for the Nation's booming population of seniors. Ironically, the number of geriatricians is expected to shrink as many of these doctors retire at the same time baby boomers start qualifying for Medicare in large numbers.

America must plan for the burdens the baby boomers demographic shift will place on our health care system and health care providers. Our first step is ensuring the country has an adequate number of well- trained geriatricians.

I first introduced legislation to address the national shortage of geriatricians during the 105th Congress. While I am encouraged that greater attention has been focused on this issue, little has been accomplished to improve the shortage of geriatricians.

Today, I am re-introducing legislation that will encourage more doctors to become certified in geriatrics. The Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act would forgive $20,000 of education debt incurred by medical students for each year of advanced training required to obtain a certificate of added qualifications in geriatric medicine or psychiatry.

Geriatric medicine is the foundation of a comprehensive health plan for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics, by focusing on assessment and care coordination, promotes preventive care and improves patients' quality of life by allowing them greater independence and eliminating unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or institutions. But this kind of specialized care is complicated and demanding. Many doctors inclined to study and practice geriatric medicine are dissuaded from doing so because treating the elderly takes more time and carries financial disincentives for doctors.

Medical training takes time, so we need to lay the groundwork now to have enough qualified geriatricians in place in ten years from now. This legislation is a commonsense approach and cost-effective investment. We must take these steps today to meet our needs for tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation Reinvestment Act, which enhances the long-term viability of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas by allowing proceeds from leases of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation property to be reinvested.

Mr. President, through provisions of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, the Clark County Department of Aviation acquired land that was formerly owned by the Federal Government. A subsequent law, the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, transferred this land to the University of Las Vegas Research Foundation for construction of a research park and technology center.

Under current law, only 10 percent of the proceeds from the sale, lease, or conveyance of this land may be reinvested. This restriction hinders efforts to promote research and development at the research park.

Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today amends the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 to allow the proceeds of the Foundation's research park leases to be used to carry out the foundation's research mission.

The foundation's research park and technology center in the greater Las Vegas area will enhance the research mission of the university, increasing the potential for the high-tech industry and entrepreneurship in the State. It provides the public with opportunities for high-tech education and research, and at the same time provides the State with opportunities for competition and economic development in the high-tech field. It is imperative that sufficient funds are always available to maintain and enhance the center.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that William Boyd, a fellow on the Environment and Public Works Committee, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of the matter which is now before the Senate.

No objection.

Mr. President, I know the hour is late. I want to acknowledge how difficult this has been for the majority leader. This has been extremely difficult. I know there is pressure from a lot of different sources to do things differently than we have done this week.

I say to the majority leader, whom I compliment for standing firm on what he believes to be the proper role of the Senate on this matter, everyone will have their day. When we complete this legislation--I believe we will be able to do it tomorrow--the House will do theirs and there will be some process to meld together the legislation from the two bodies. Then, of course, there will be input from the administration. At this stage we don't have to be concerned about vetoes. We are a long way from that.

I want the Record to reflect my personal appreciation for the courage of the majority leader during this most difficult 2 weeks.

Would the Chair announce how much time is left for morning business on this side?

Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader announced today the tax cuts were working. My question to him and everyone within the sound of my voice would be: Working for whom? As has been indicated, we have staggering deficits. We have a staggering debt that was not there when this man took the office of President a little more than 3 years ago.

I have been reading a book the last couple days, ``The Price of Loyalty,'' by Ron Suskind and Paul O'Neill. In that book, quite clearly, Paul O'Neill was extremely concerned about the deficits and brought it up at a Cabinet meeting. He was cut off very quickly by Vice President Cheney, saying: President Reagan proved that tax cuts are good and that deficits don't matter.

I believe deficits do matter. I believe we have a situation developing that is going to cause untold misery and harm, as indicated by the budget we have been given today. We will talk about that during the next few weeks as the budget negotiations and debate go forward.

I am happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.

Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Madam President, before my friend from Illinois leaves the floor, I would like to propound a question to him. I say to my friend from Illinois, the majority leader was on the floor today, and I think the Senator from Illinois heard me remark earlier that he said the tax cuts are working. I have thought about that since I spoke 20 minutes ago, and I think he is probably right, they are working for the elite of this country, people who are in the upper income brackets.

Does the Senator from Illinois know of anyone else who is receiving a benefit from the tax cuts?

Madam President, has my friend reviewed the text of the book, ``The Price of Loyalty''?

The Senator does recall in that book where Vice President Cheney, when Paul O'Neill said we should take a look at these deficits that are building up, and does the Senator recall--this is almost a direct quote--Vice President Cheney interrupting the meeting and saying: President Reagan proved deficits don't matter?

Can the Senator from Illinois comment on that statement, ``deficits don't matter''?

Is that the same Larry Lindsey who was fired because he said the war in Iraq would cost more than $100 billion?

We will be happy to donate that to the Senator from Texas.

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 move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I was relieved that the President decided he was going to appoint an independent panel to review what took place in our going to Iraq, but after he made the decision to do that and appointed the panel, it was obvious it was just a hoax. This panel is laughable--if it were not so serious. All one needs to do to understand how this panel is not serious is to look at who is the cochair of this panel. One of the most partisan people in all America is a man by the name of Judge Silberman. Judge Silberman is a person who proudly wears the label of a partisan, even though he hides it as often as he can from the public.

As I said, I was glad President Bush realized we needed a commission to investigate what went wrong, although I would have preferred that Congress appoint members to ensure its independence. If this commission is going to do its job, it must be free of political influence. It must be above even the appearance of partisan bias. Throw those things out the window because there is not only the appearance of partisan bias, there is political and partisan bias because the cochair of this commission is a man by the name of Laurence Silberman.

He is a long-time political operative in the far right of the Republican Party. He has served in a number of different capacities over the years. He has been involved in many partisan matters over the years. To show how well reasoned and thinking people feel about this man, I quote a professor of law at American University by the name of Herman Schwartz:

He [Laurence Silberman] is fiercely partisan, pugnacious

and very political. He is an odd choice for a panel that is

supposed to be above suspicion on a matter that is very

important and potentially very partisan. Picking Silberman

verges on the brazen. It is a thumb in the eye to those who

were looking for a real investigation.

That is who we have as cochair of this independent commission, a man who is politically partisan and the appointment is brazen. As I indicated, he is a long-time political operative, far right of the Republican Party. He served in many capacities. He was an aide in the Reagan-Bush campaign. One of his assignments then was to serve as liaison to the Islamic regime in Iran where Americans were being held hostage. There is some question as to whether a deal was made that the crisis would not end until after the election. One can read lots of information about that, but as soon as the election was over and the hostages were released, it is interesting to note that Laurence Silberman was appointed by the President to the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC.

It speaks volumes to indicate that one of his early decisions came in the case of LTC Oliver North, a principal figure in the Iran-contra affair, which involved the release of Iranian hostages. There is the documentation of many meetings of Silberman with the people in the White House, including Colonel North, prior to this all taking place. Even though North and Admiral Poindexter were convicted of lying to Congress, their convictions were voided in 1990 by Judge Silberman.

It is also interesting to note that another one of the appointees there on that court, who joined with Silberman in overruling the North and Poindexter

convictions, Mr. Sentelle, who became a judge, was largely responsible for the 1994 decision to remove Whitewater prosecutor Robert Fiske and replace him with the more partisan Kenneth Starr as an independent investigator. We know that investigation cost $60 million or $80 million and accomplished nothing.

Silberman worked as an attorney in the Justice Department. He took the No. 2 job under President Ford when Rumsfeld and Cheney had top jobs in the White House of President Ford. I repeat, in the fall of 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running to unseat President Carter--and this is from the L.A. Times, a direct quote:

. . . Silberman and two other Reagan advisors met secretly

with a man who claimed to have ties to the government in

Iran, which is holding 52 American hostages. The brief

meeting later led to unproven allegations that Reagan's aides

sought to delay the release of the hostages until after the

November election.

Well, it is interesting to note that he had not done enough, it appears. In 1987, when Reagan was under investigation by an independent counsel, Silberman did away with the Independent Counsel Act, saying it was unconstitutional. Of course that one was followed up on by the Supreme Court, which overwhelmingly reversed him just a month later. But Silberman had the last word. His opinion, joined by fellow Reagan appointee David Sentelle, voided North's conviction and also spared Reagan's National Security Adviser, John Poindexter.

During the Clinton years, Silberman was one of President Clinton's most aggressive tormentors. In 1998, he was part of a Federal appellate panel that rejected the administration's claim of executive privilege to block the Secret Service from testifying about Clinton's relationship with former White House worker Monica Lewinsky. Silberman's opinion, to say the least, was very political. He ripped the Attorney General for acting in the personal interest of President Clinton and questioned whether the President, by allowing aides to criticize independent counsel Kenneth Starr, was ``declaring war on the United States.'' Not very judicious, I would think.

There was a book that was a best seller called ``Blinded by the Right,'' written by David Brock. It is a very interesting book. It talks about how this young man, who was a student at one of the universities of California, decided to join with the far right, and he made it through even working for the Washington Times. In his book, he explains how that was an interesting experience and how unfair they were in almost everything they wrote. But David Brock, during his tenure as a spokesperson for the right, and writing all these very damaging, misleading articles and even books, said in the book, ``Blinded by the Right,'' that his adviser, the person who directed him where to go, what to say, and even went through books and articles he had written to proofread them to see if he could be more hard-hitting than Brock was, this is the man who is going to be the cochairman of the independent commission. The term ``independent commission,'' used along with Laurence Silberman, is like many of the things in George Orwell's book, ``1984.'' Many of the things are just the opposite. Laurence Silberman cannot be independent. The commission cannot be independent as long as he is there.

As Brock indicated, he wrote articles about President Clinton, an article on Travelgate, which was charges by Arkansas State Troopers about the former Governor Clinton and extramarital sex. Silberman was, and I quote, ``his faithful advisor.''

``The judge,'' according to the LA Times, Brock said, ``encouraged him to be aggressive, and even on one occasion, suggested a specific tip involving the President's sex life to pursue.''

When David Brock, at the direction of many in the right wing, wrote critically about the late Senator Paul Simon, he sent an advance copy to Judge Silberman's home. Brock wrote that Silberman was ``ecstatic about the case he made against Simon. . . .''

During this period of time, Brock said he was introduced to leading conservatives who met regularly in the judge's home even with him and his wife. They were friends and close companions of Vice President Cheney and his wife.

Mr. President, people have a right to be as partisan as they choose but not if you are a judge. Judges not only have to do away with what is wrong, but with what appears to be wrong. Just with the little bit I set forth here, doesn't it seem wrong that this man, Laurence Silberman, is the cochairman of a bipartisan, independent commission when it has been acknowledged by most everyone that this is one of the most partisan people in our community? An American University law school professor says:

He is fiercely partisan, pugnacious and very political. . .

. He is an odd choice for a panel that is supposed to be

above suspicion on a matter that is very important and

potentially very partisan. Picking Silberman verges on the

brazen.

I agree with that, the ``brazen.'' Let's see if that means what I think it means, ``brazen.'' I have a little dictionary here. Let's see what it says.

Brazen: Boldness.

Yes, he is pretty bold.

For the President to pick this man to be cochairman of this commission is, as Professor Schwartz says, ``brazen.'' I continue the quote.

It's a thumb in the eye to those who were looking for a

real investigation.

This is no real investigation. This is going to be Judge Silberman, in an aggressive way, making sure that nothing gets out of hand. He is there to protect the President, not to get fair information. He is there to protect him.

Sitting judges are not supposed to do what Silberman does. But he has a lifetime appointment and the canons of judicial ethics mean nothing to him. He is bold, he is brazen in what he does. He does not hide his partisanship. But, in spite of that this administration, knowing everything there is to know about this man, selects him to be the cochair of this independent commission.

Brock says, in his book: ``Larry''--that is Laurence Silberman-- ``would often preface his remarks to me with the wry demurrer that judges shouldn't get involved in politics. `That would be improper,' he'd say--and then he'd go ahead . . .'' and give this information that was partisan and, even, according to Silberman, would be improper. But he would just go ahead and do it anyway.

Most recently, to show his partisanship, after a lower court unanimously ruled that Attorney General John Ashcroft had exceeded his authority in assuming broad wiretap powers, Silberman was the judge involved in the decision that overturned it. By engaging in partisan activities while he was a sitting judge, Silberman has raised questions about his impartiality, and that is an understatement.

So I hope we continue to talk about the need for an independent, bipartisan commission because as long as Laurence Silberman is attached to this commission, it will be tainted. This crucial investigation as to what went wrong with our intelligence operations cannot be tainted with any hint of bias or prejudice--and it is. It is not tainted, it is smeared with partisan prejudice because of this man.

There is already a distrust of the intelligence gathering surrounding weapons of mass destruction. The Silberman appointment only makes matters worse.

I call upon the President to replace Judge Silberman on this commission. There are many respected Republicans in public service who have demonstrated an ability to put their ideological and partisan views aside when it comes to what affects our Nation. Silberman cannot meet that. This is such an issue and demands such a person. Laurence Silberman is not such a person.

To show how skeptical the country is about our intelligence-gathering operations, even Bill O'Reilly--even Bill O'Reilly, reports Reuters News:

Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on

Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration

and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The anchor of his own show on Fox News said--

This is Bill O'Reilly--

he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the

doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons

program posed an imminent threat, the main reason cited for

going to war.

Appearing on TV, O'Reilly said:

I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all, and I think

all Americans should be concerned about this.

We have a committee, a commission appointed by the President, in the guise of being independent, in the guise of being bipartisan. It simply is not true. As long as Laurence Silberman has anything to do with this, it cannot be a fair, independent, bipartisan commission.

The scope of this so-called independent commission was determined by the President through Executive order. There was no discussion with the legislative branch of Government; it was just a fiat. Despite the fact that numerous questions have been raised about the actions or statements of both the intelligence and communications community in the days before the war, the President's Executive order specifically rules out an examination of the administration's actions.

Can you believe that? Instead, his Executive order makes clear the only issues the commission can address are related to the performance of the intelligence community, precisely the same issues, in many cases, that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees in the House and Senate are already exploring. Unfortunately, this will not be a real commission that can answer the main question we believe needs to be addressed; namely, the administration's role in all of this.

On top of all this, they have appointed Laurence Silberman to cochair. This is a gross mistake. I can't imagine how the President and his people think he can get away with this.

I am happy to yield to my friend. He and I have had discussions. I would just preface it for this----

I would say through the Chair, the Senator and I have discussed this on many occasions off the Senate floor.

Both agree that this issue has to be talked about publicly.

This is a disgrace to a determined, independent, bipartisan commission. It is just wrong.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from North Dakota for a question.

Mr. President, I do not understand how the President and the people around him could do this. Do what? Have a commission with an outline that is very weak and won't contribute very much to find out what our intelligence community did or did not do. But maybe he could get by with it a little better by not having a person who has been proven to be one of the most partisan people in all of America as cochair of this commission. Here is a man who is violating the canons of judicial ethics and responsibilities that judges have. Yet he is on this commission as cochair. I have trouble articulating how irresponsible and unfair and brazen this is.

It is absolutely the case.

I also ask the Senator from North Dakota, through the Chair, to respond to a statement by David Kay given to me yesterday. He said there should be an examination of how the intelligence was used by the administration--not simply the failings of the intelligence community.

Will the Senator agree that David Kay is right, there should be an examination of how the intelligence was used by the administration--not simply the failings of the intelligence community?

I am happy to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

I have the floor. I will yield for a question.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma says this is political season. We are in the Senate. Every day of our life is political season. That is what we do. That is what we do for the American people. That is what we do for the people of the State of Nevada, the people of Oklahoma, the people of North Dakota, and the people of Missouri.

I agree with my friend's statement, there is no showing of weapons of mass destruction. True. The point is, this is serious business. This is not trying to determine what happened at half time at the Super Bowl. This is looking at the situation involving the security of this Nation and actually the security of this world. We should have an independent commission, bipartisan in nature. Everyone agrees with that.

I personally do not like the parameters of what the President set forth. It does not establish what needs to be done. But the purpose of this discussion today with Senator Dorgan and this Senator from Nevada is the commission, as set up as an independent bipartisan commission, is tainted. As I indicated earlier, it is not only tainted, it is smeared. Why? Because the President chose as the cochair of this commission a man who is one of the most partisan zealots in the history of this country. So this commission can never render anything of substance that will be accepted in this country because of this man being the cochair. I suggest, get him off. If he had any care about this country, he would resign.

The Senator from North Dakota hit the nail on the head: Where is our judicial system? There could be hearings and proof established, for example, that David Brock went into this man's home, time after time after time while he was sitting on important cases. What was Brock doing--getting advice as to how he could berate, denigrate, lie, cheat about the President of the United States?

These are facts.

I am happy to yield.

I say through the floor to my friend from North Dakota, the Senator makes the point. The other body which is doing the investigation, no one raises any question about the Members of that commission. They are Democrats and they are Republicans. Very conservative Congressman Tim Roemer is part of that. But no one questions what they are trying to do to get to the facts of this matter.

My point is, and the point of the Senator from North Carolina is, this so-called bipartisan independent commission can never render anything the American public will accept because of the person that is cochairing it. Laurence Silberman is a partisan zealot.

Now the New York Times article the Senator pointed out is a group of people, including Tim Roemer, and Governor Kean of New Jersey. No one questions his integrity. He believes we should move forward and get this done as soon as possible.

I repeat, the independent commission President Bush has appointed to look at the failure of intelligence in our country will never, ever be accepted for a number of reasons, not only the breadth and scope of the investigation but because of the cochair, Laurence Silberman.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If the Senator will yield, I say to my friend that under the rules the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has established, he is counting those children who are in gestation and not having been born. If that is the case, I can still up him one. I will have 15 because we have a new baby who will be born a month from now. So I am still two ahead of him.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I would like the Senator to comment on the Los Angeles Times headline: ``Bush Supports Shift to Jobs Overseas.''

You are aware, of course--that is why you are here--of ``the loss of work to other countries, while painful in the short term, will enrich the economy, his report to Congress says.'' This is the man who succeeded Lawrence Lindsey, who had such a great career in the Federal Government. You are familiar with Lawrence Lindsey, are you not?

This is his successor. I think he will maybe fit in the same shoes as Lawrence Lindsey did. So the Senator doesn't think this is such a good philosophy, that we are shipping all the jobs overseas?

Mr. President, I first of all extend my appreciation and my apologies to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, for allowing me to go before him. I will be as brief as possible. I wanted the discussion to be in keeping with what has been said by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Hampshire.

I am not a scientist, but I am a historian. I understand history. I know, for example, in 1844 Congress was approached by a man who said: I want to revolutionize the communications systems in this country. He asked Congress to appropriate $40,000 for an experiment he did not have the wherewithal to do. He had been trying for many years to get the money to do this.

The experiment was to build a telegraph line between Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD. For $40,000 they did it. The Federal Government did not ever have to put another penny into that project. It revolutionized the way we communicated in America--the telegraph system. The Federal Government did the right thing by doing the research and development on this issue.

Let's fast forward now more than 100 years from 1844 when two scientists from MIT, by the name of Danby and Powell, were stuck in traffic in New York. They were both professors at MIT, scientists. They said: This is ridiculous. We shouldn't be stuck in traffic like this. We should figure something out that would stop this.

They went back to the laboratories, and they, within a short period of time, invented magnetic levitation, which is the ability of these huge trainlike vehicles to speed through the air, but the vehicle is less than a quarter of an inch off the guideway. It goes 300 miles an hour.

The Federal Government, the United States of America, for 5 years paid for research and development for this new technology. There were cost-cutting issues that came forward and it was eliminated. There was no more research and development. But the Germans and the Japanese picked up from where we left off, and now they are in the process of finalizing their experimentation of magnetic levitation.

We are going to have magnetic levitation in this country, no question about it. It is only a question of when. The bill that is now before this body will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on magnetic levitation. The bill before that did not spend that much. It is going to happen, but we are going to have to import the equipment and the technology from Germany and Japan.

I believe the Senator is right. I believe the Federal Government has to be very careful in picking and choosing where we help with research and development on a scientific project, but we have an obligation, I believe, to the taxpayers of this country to develop the telegraph or magnetic levitation.

I underscore the need for this and applaud and congratulate the Senator from New Mexico for his usual farsightedness.

Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?

Mr. President, I think the picture here says it all. We have on the floor now two of the majority party and two of the minority party, representing diverse areas of this country, including Wyoming, Missouri, Vermont, and Nevada, and I also see my friend from New Jersey in the Chamber. Each State is so reliant and dependent upon doing something about this highway bill that all of us in the Chamber are doing everything we can to move this ball down the field.

The State of Wyoming is an example that doesn't have a lot of people coming there to pay enough money into the trust fund to take care of the needs of that great big State. Not only is it large area-wise, but having spent some time there myself in the cold winter, I know maintaining the roads in Wyoming, compared to a place such as Nevada, is more expensive because of the tremendous variation in temperatures.

My point is that this legislation is bipartisan. It is legislation that is for every part of the country, as evidenced on the floor.

I was speaking here, off the record, with the distinguished Senator from Missouri. We are going to pass this legislation now in a matter of hours. It is imperfect, but it is a really good piece of legislation to allow the director of the Department of Highways in the State of Nevada to have some ability to look down the road, as they have a continuum for money, so we can complete projects we have to do in Nevada. We are a big State area-wise. We have problems in the southern part of the State that are totally different from in the northern part of the State. It rarely freezes in the southern part, but in the northern part, for instance, we have Wild Horse Reservoir that, on various occasions, is the coldest place in the country. So we have our own problems, as do Missouri, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wyoming. I am so happy there has been this cooperation on this bill. I hope it sets a tone for the rest of the year. It is a Presidential election year and some Senate seats are up.

For the first bill this year, I think the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished Democratic leader picked a good one to show that we can work together on matters and set aside our partisan differences. We have done it on this bill. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, I want to make this comment. I am sure we all wonder, having served in legislative bodies, what has been accomplished, what have we been able to point to that we have done that changes the lives of people in our country. Let me say to my friend from New Jersey, he need not worry about that because his legacy has already been established.

I owe so much to the Senator from New Jersey, as does my whole family, and I speak for most families--I should say the vast majority of families in America, many of whom don't realize what the Senator from New Jersey has done to make their lives more pleasant.

When we used to travel back and forth from Las Vegas and Reno to Washington with my family--they were little children at the time--my daughter and my boys, especially two of them, could not stand cigarette smoking in an airplane. It really made them physically ill. We would pacify them and say, well, that is in a different section; do not worry about it. As we know, when one person smoked on an airplane, we all smoked on an airplane. The Senator from New Jersey is more responsible, by far, than any other one person, or group of people, for being persistent and pushing that there would be no smoking on airplanes. The Senator from New Jersey did that.

When he started out on this issue, people thought he was tilting windmills. No one believed with the very powerful interests that favored smoking on airplanes, including the airplane owners and, of course, the cigarette manufacturers, that the Senator from New Jersey could accomplish what he did. But he did.

In addition to that, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Senator from New Jersey for pushing to make sure all States had a .08 standard for blood alcohol. The Senator from New Jersey did this.

The reason I mention these two things that are the legacy--and I have only mentioned a couple of things because they stick out in my mind that the Senator from New Jersey has done, that I know. With the tireless efforts of the Senator from New Jersey on the things that he believes in, that he is talking about, this will get done. This will be accomplished for a number of reasons, not the least of which it is the right issue but, No. 2, because the Senator from New Jersey is the one who is pushing this.

I want the Senator from New Jersey to know how much I--and I speak for millions of Americans--recognize his great contributions to making our lives healthier, better, and safer in America.

The Senator from New Jersey was responsible for one of the most memorable debates that I ever was present for in the Senate, and I am sure the Senator from New Jersey will remember it. It was a debate on drunk drivers. The very articulate Dale Bumpers, former Senator from Arkansas, gave many great speeches but none more memorable than when he spoke about his being a law student at Western University and he received a call from his brother. He knew it was bad news. He did not know how bad it was, but a drunk driver had killed his parents when he crossed over the line.

The Senator will also remember the distinguished former chairman of the Budget Committee, now the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, Kent Conrad, who was made an orphan as a little boy by a drunk driver who killed his parents.

So we have to continually do more to keep these higher-risk drunk drivers off the road. They are a menace to society. In my opinion, the only thing they understand is force, power. They have to be put in jail. They have to be prevented from driving their cars.

As the Senator knows, we are in a parliamentary quagmire and maybe there is a short-lived victory for those who oppose what the Senator is trying to do but it will not last long.

Mr. President, I wish to take an opportunity to respond to some of the statements made by the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona, my friend Mr. Kyl. I have the greatest respect for him. He is a neighbor of the State of Nevada. We have worked well together in many different areas, but his statement regarding this highway bill is simply off base.

I respectfully suggest that maybe we should understand that there are three separate but equal branches of Government. We have a responsibility in the legislative branch of Government to do what we think is right for the people of our respective States. I think we have done as well as we can do for the people of this country.

The Presiding Officer has been a Governor of 1 of our 50 sovereign States. I think he would--I have not spoken with him--have recognized during his tenure as Governor how very important the highway programs were in the State of Tennessee.

In this legislation that is now before this body, the State of Tennessee is going to do extremely well with this bill. The State of Tennessee, which has been a State that has given far more than it has taken in--that is, in the State of Tennessee, for every dollar paid into that fund, the people of Tennessee have contributed 10 cents out of every dollar to the rest of the country. The people of Tennessee have not gotten what some think is a fair shake in this legislation.

There was an effort to bring every State, including the State of Tennessee, to 95 cents in this bill. The State of Tennessee, rather than getting the 90 cents on the dollar previous to this bill being enacted, will get an average of 94.25 cents for every year this bill is in effect, and, in the final year, it will get 95 percent. That is a tremendous boon to the State of Tennessee.

We have done that for every State in the Union that in the past was paying into the trust fund far more than they were getting.

The State of Arizona also gets 95 cents on the dollar. My friend, the Senator from the State of Arizona, is complaining because we don't do it fast enough.

I want everyone to know how very difficult it was to get a formula that would bring every State up to 95 percent at the end of this sixth year. It was extremely difficult. So I would respectfully suggest to my friend from Arizona he should be complimenting us rather than saying he does not like what we have. In years past, we would not worry about the State of Arizona and the State of Tennessee. What we would do was see if we had the votes and just roll over everybody. That was how we used to do this. This is my fourth bill. That was how we used to do things, but we are not doing that this year. We are trying to be fair.

Rather than being critical of what we have done to bring everyone up to 95 percent by saying we did not do it soon enough, we should be complimented. Frankly, we could do this bill without the States of Arizona and Tennessee. We could do without those four votes. But we decided to be fair and to do everything we could to allow a minimum at the end of this year.

So I repeat for the third time, rather than being castigated for not bringing up the 95 percent sooner, I think the people of the State of Arizona--I know the people in the Department of Transportation--are happy with what they have. This is going to be a wonderful thing for the State of Arizona.

I really do not recognize tears shed by a State that is growing rapidly. The State of Nevada beats all States. We have grown more rapidly in the last 14 years than any State in the Union. We hold the record. We are the fastest growing State in the Union. So when someone says they are a rapidly growing State and should be treated differently, we also understand what it means to grow fast. We believe we have treated Arizona very fairly.

This is probably more difficult for someone in the majority to say but it is not hard for me to say: I dare the President to veto this bill. He is not going to veto this bill. This letter we have, this statement of administration policy, comes to us all kinds of times on various types of legislation. President Clinton sent us threats. President Bush sends us threats. That is what they are. The President will not veto the biggest jobs bill during his entire 4 years in office. He is not going to do it. I do not care if it is the number we have in this bill or the one Chairman Young from the House wants. He wants $270 billion. Ours is $255 billion. This bill will not be vetoed by President Bush, and my colleagues can take that to the bank.

My friend from Arizona also says he is disturbed that because we got the money for this bill, he wants to make sure the World Trade Organization does not punish us. I wish they would punish us and kick us out of the World Trade Organization. I do not want to be part of the World Trade Organization. So that does not sell too well with me.

So I repeat, States have been treated very fairly in this bill. We are going to be able to invoke cloture on this bill because it is the right thing to do.

I understand the legislative process. We are going to pass a bill; the House, in their wisdom, will pass a bill; and it will go to conference. We will try to prevail in what we want. The House will try to prevail in what they want. When they are invited, which I am sure will be often, the administration will be expressing their views at the conference. Then we will have a bill and it will be sent to the President's desk. That is how the process works.

It is way too early to be threatening a veto. This is done lots of times. I do not think anyone should be quaking in their boots over a statement of administration policy. They probably have a stack of these statements of administration policy left over from the Clinton Presidency that is that high. They just peel these out on probably two- thirds of the bills we have.

I have been around for awhile. I am not impressed with this statement of administration policy because the administration knows, everybody in this body knows, that this is one step, but an extremely important step, in a very long effort to get this bill to the President's desk. We will get it to the President's desk. It will not be easy, but what has been accomplished has been very important to the process.

As I said earlier, this bill should be a picture for the American people. We are working in the Senate in a bipartisan fashion to produce a bill that is good for the American people. It is a bill that I have said before is imperfect. It is not perfect. It is difficult to do.

This is the bill. I can hardly lift it. I guess that shows how weak I am, but it is still a pile of paper. This stack of it is the highway portion of it. Another stack of it is the transit portion of the bill, and then the finance portion. This has been a year in the making. It has been extremely difficult to do.

For someone to come to the floor and say what we need to do now is have a 1-year extension--I do not think so. In the process, we would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs by extending this a year. The Presiding Officer knows that the planning department and the departments of transportation for every State in the Union have to do multiyear planning. There cannot be a transportation system in a State on a year-to-year basis. Some of these projects take years to complete, and if we stall for another year, it is going to make the projects more expensive. They will cost more money, not less money.

So I understand that my friend from Arizona comes here all the time as a spokesperson for the administration. He does it on lots of issues. I respect his being someone who answers the beck and call of the administration. He is here on so many different issues spouting what the administration wants, but we are legislators and we will get to the White House, the administration, in due time to work this out.

I repeat, we are a separate but equal branch of Government and this is not the time for the President--rather, the President's people; I should not use his name--to be waving all of these threats.

My friend from Arizona talks about these deficits. Well, my colleagues have heard us on this side talk about why we think the deficits are there, but in this legislation we have not talked about all the bad things and all the negative things that we believe the majority party is doing and the majority has not talked about all the bad things they think we are doing. This has been a bipartisan rush to score a touchdown and take this bill to the House and see what they do to respond.

I hope they can do it quickly, and I am confident they will. They can usually move things much more quickly than we can and then we work out a process to work out the differences between the House and the Senate and move this thing to the White House. It can be done and it really has to be done; we have no choice. This transportation bill is important for the American people. As the Senator from Mississippi, the distinguished former majority leader and minority leader, Mr. Lott, said on this floor this week, there will not be more important legislation we deal with this entire year than this legislation. This is the most important thing we are going to deal with, and I agree with the junior Senator from Mississippi, this is the most important legislation we have to deal with.

I compliment and applaud the chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the committee, my counterpart, the chairman of the subcommittee. We have worked well together. I think we have set an example for what the Senate should be, could be, and I hope will be in the future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, I say, through you to the majority leader, one of the things we have appreciated on this side during the tenure of the Senator from Tennessee as majority leader is that you have been very good to us, with rare exception, in allowing us to offer amendments. You have given us ample time to offer relevant amendments and nonrelevant amendments prior to doing something procedurally to stop the debate.

I recognize, as does Senator Inhofe, that it is not the Republican leadership that has thrown the roadblocks up to the amendment process on this bill. We acknowledge that. There are a number of Senators, for various reasons, who have prevented this bill from moving forward.

Speaking only for this Senator, I do not hold the Republican leadership responsible for these dilatory activities. I think the majority leader, in conjunction with the minority leader, the Democratic leader, has to assess how best to proceed in the immediate future.

This, as the majority leader has said, is an important piece of legislation. As Senator Lott said yesterday, this could be the most important piece of legislation we will handle this year. Whether that is right or not, I do not know, but I know it is a very important piece of legislation. I hope there is a way we can move forward on this bill.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Oklahoma has to be gone from the floor this morning. We have our caucuses at 12:30. There are a number of people on our side who have requested time for morning business. I am wondering if it would be appropriate, in that we are in kind of a procedural tangle anyway, that we have time for debate only until the caucuses.

The request is that we remain on the bill, but for debate only, until 12:30.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw amendment No. 2276 on behalf of Senator Dorgan.

Will the chairman of the committee yield for a question?

Mr. President, on the issue now before the Senate, propounded by the senior Senator from Virginia, a unique situation has arisen in Nevada. In Nevada, the State legislature, last session, had a debate on whether or not they would have primary seatbelt requirements for the people of Nevada. They did something interesting. The State now has a law that requires seatbelts for children but not for adults. I think this is pretty compromising.

The Senator from Virginia is not on the Senate floor, but I could go for something like that--that there could be a requirement that States have a mandate that children have to wear seatbelts. The State of Nevada debated this and, as far as adults, it failed. So I ask you and the Senator from Virginia to consider amending the matter now before the Senate to have a requirement for children. I think that is something that would be accepted. I think the debate would be very short and to the point.

I think if he proceeds on his requirement to have seatbelts mandated for everyone, States that are individualistic, such as Nevada--the State of Nevada doesn't like to be told what to do. They believe they are a sovereign State and the legislature meets and debates these issues. On this issue about primary seatbelts, that was brought before the legislature just last session. I think it would be very difficult for this Senator to say that I know more than the Nevada State Legislature, which not only held hearings on this issue but had a long debate and turned down this mandate. While I personally may disagree with that, the point is that the people of the State of Nevada, through its elected legislature, have spoken.

I hope--I repeat for the third time--that the Senator from Virginia would consider modifying the amendment now before the Senate and have this apply just to children.

The question is, through the Chair to the Senator from Oklahoma, how he feels about this. Before he answers, I wish to compliment the Chair and his wonderful father who was one of my role models in this body. It is true he brought this amendment up on a number of occasions, but it never passed. We are now in the same situation as in years previous.

It seems to me we would be well off if we made incremental improvement, and I think that improvement would be to make sure this covers all children.

I again ask the question of my friend from Oklahoma, does he think that is a reasonable compromise?

If I could, Mr. President, I try very rarely to boast on the floor of the Senate, but this is an opportunity I can do so because I noted a sense of pride with the Senator from Oklahoma talking about his 11 grandchildren. A week ago last Sunday, I had born into my family my 14th grandchild. So is it OK if I am a little boastful about that?

Eleven is OK, but the Senator from Oklahoma still has a way to go.

What is that?

Neither have we. In fact, we have just begun to propagate.