Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make it easier for local law enforcement officers to travel across the country. Whether on official travel or personal travel, Federal law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms with them throughout their travel. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the same privilege--and responsibility--to local law enforcement officers.

Ever since the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, we have seen how our local emergency responders, including local law enforcement officers, play a vital role in protecting not just their local communities, but the entire Nation. We think of local law enforcement officers as the Nation's first responders, but they are also the Nation's early preventers. They are the first to identify local crimes that could turn into National attacks. They are the first to report suspicious behavior that could thwart a future terrorist attack. Stopping a terrorist threat before it becomes an attack is the best way to keep our Nation safe. That effort relies upon the eyes, ears and experience of our Nation's law enforcement officers.

A terrorist attack in any city is a national concern. Local law enforcement officers are a crucial element of the plan to protect our Nation. I appreciate the help of Detective David Kallas and General Counsel John Dean Harper for bringing this issue to my attention. This bill will help give them and their law enforcement colleagues the standing they deserve as they continue to protect our hometowns and the Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make it easier for local law enforcement officers to travel across the country. Whether on official travel or personal travel, Federal law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms with them throughout their travel. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the same privilege--and responsibility--to local law enforcement officers.

Ever since the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, we have seen how our local emergency responders, including local law enforcement officers, play a vital role in protecting not just their local communities, but the entire Nation. We think of local law enforcement officers as the Nation's first responders, but they are also the Nation's early preventers. They are the first to identify local crimes that could turn into National attacks. They are the first to report suspicious behavior that could thwart a future terrorist attack. Stopping a terrorist threat before it becomes an attack is the best way to keep our Nation safe. That effort relies upon the eyes, ears and experience of our Nation's law enforcement officers.

A terrorist attack in any city is a national concern. Local law enforcement officers are a crucial element of the plan to protect our Nation. I appreciate the help of Detective David Kallas and General Counsel John Dean Harper for bringing this issue to my attention. This bill will help give them and their law enforcement colleagues the standing they deserve as they continue to protect our hometowns and the Nation.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, as Senator Inhofe has already stated, our staffs worked hard over the weekend on amendments people have to this most important legislation. We have gone over many amendments, but have approved 34 amendments we would accept. These are good amendments. They have been reviewed closely by both the majority and minority. A lot of progress has been made. We hope people who have problems with the substance of this legislation, who want to offer amendments, will come and talk to us about it today. We are arriving at a point where there is not going to be a lot of time. Tomorrow we hope to be in a position to do the managers' package--the finance, transit, and EPW aspects of the legislation--and move forward, but we hope Senators who have concern about the legislation will come forward so we can move more quickly. We are running out of time on this very important legislation.

Medicare and Prescription Drugs

Mr. President, in 1965, when Congress created Medicare to provide health care security for our senior citizens, it took less than a year for that to be considered and then put into full operation; in fact, 11 months. That was back before we had computers. All we had then were slide rulers and some adding machines.

On the legislation with which we are dealing now, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, the new Medicare revision, we have a different situation. We are told this legislation we passed--and that was signed by the President and deals with our senior citizens--is going to have to wait for more than 2 years before it can be implemented. Today our senior citizens need help with soaring drug prices. They deserve the security of knowing they will be able to buy the medicine that can keep them healthy and happy. The American people want to know that when their Government wants to get things done, it can act quickly.

This law is a bad deal for senior citizens. That is why the main provisions of this legislation won't take effect until after the election. That is wrong. I suppose the administration thought our senior citizens would be grateful a bill passed, no matter what was in it, and that they wouldn't bother to find out what was in it. But they did find out. They already know. The President has underestimated our seniors.

I have met with seniors throughout the State of Nevada, and they know what is in this law. They don't like it. I read on the floor last week a meeting that was held by people from the State of Nevada to describe what is in this bill.

More than a hundred people showed up and all hundred were there to complain about this legislation. They don't like the fact that this will make many of them pay more for their drugs than they already have to pay. They don't like the fact that many who have drug coverage under private plans could lose their benefits because of this legislation. They don't like the provision in the law that forbids Medicare from negotiating with drug companies to get better prices. Insurance companies can do it and HMOs can do it. But Medicare--the largest health care delivery unit in the world--cannot negotiate with the drug companies to get lower prices.

Instead of working with Congress to address these and other concerns, the President has threatened to veto any change. Then he turned to his reelection campaign and asked them to help polish the image of this new Medicare law. So a company that is part of the President's reelection campaign is now doing the ads even with Medicare.

Fair enough, you might say. That is politics. Except the President is waging this ad campaign at taxpayers' expense. Simply, that is not fair. I am told he is planning to raise $200 million for his campaign this year. But apparently that is not enough because the administration is spending as much as $22 million of the taxpayers' money for this publicity campaign.

I have no doubt that senior citizens need information about this new Medicare law, and education and awareness about a new program is a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars; but these ads they are pushing are misleading. They don't tell seniors what they need to know about the bill. These ads don't shoot straight with the American people. They give our senior citizens false assurances, not facts.

For example, the ads reassure seniors that they can keep their Medicare coverage and the right to choose their own doctor. But the fact is many seniors, including many in Nevada, could be forced into demonstration programs that will make them pay higher premiums if they want to stay in traditional Medicare, and they will not be able to choose their own doctor.

In the same fashion, the ads don't mention that seniors will be prohibited from using their own money to purchase supplemental coverage to fill the gaps in the new law.

As part of this advertising campaign, the administration is also running print advertisements. I was surprised and perplexed when I saw an ad in the newspaper that runs on Capitol Hill, Roll Call. This newspaper is aimed at Senators, House Members, and Capitol Hill staff, and it is also aimed at lobbyists and so-called Washington insiders. If the President is trying to educate senior citizens about this new law, why would they place ads in Washington newspapers where less than 3 percent of the readership is over age 65? It is for obvious reasons.

The last straw was when I learned these ads are being produced by the same company that makes President Bush's campaign commercials. But that makes sense because they are simply campaign commercials--except his campaign isn't paying for them; you are, the American taxpayers.

These ads are political and that is clear. They are not intended to help seniors understand this complicated

Medicare law. They are intended to offset the negative public reaction to this bad law.

The President has every right to defend this law, which he urged Congress to pass, but he doesn't have the right to make the taxpayers pay for it.

Mr. President, again, I see my friend from North Dakota, who has an amendment, and he has been waiting to get a vote on it. I hope the Senator from North Dakota will get a vote on it soon.

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

Madam President, I was in this Chamber just a few days ago singing the laurels of my friend from Arizona and saying what a fine man I thought he was, what great work he did on campaign finance reform. I was basically talking about my deep respect and admiration for the senior Senator from Arizona.

Having said that, it does not mean I have to agree with everything he says. I have to say, with the deepest respect, that on this issue he is simply wrong.

There are certain things we have to do in this country that are logical and, over the long term, make a great deal of sense. We have a national highway transportation system started by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The simple fact that the interstate system has been completed, meaning all of the interstate system is finished, all the connecting points have been made in this great puzzle, does not mean we have obligations that cease with highways in this country.

We not only have a national highway transportation system, we also have a national security system. The State of Nevada contributes greatly to the security of this country. We have Nellis Air Force Base, which is the largest and most important fighter training center in the world for our Air Force. We have in the northern part of the State the Fallon Naval Air Training Center, which is the most important part of the fighter training facility for our U.S. Navy. It is so important. People in that desert learn to fly landing on carriers.

We started in Nevada the great work that has been done on unmanned vehicles, military vehicles, the drones, at Indian Springs. We store thousands of tons of ammunition at Hawthorne Ammunition Depot. People from all over the country--the State of North Carolina, the State of Arizona, the State of Vermont, the State of Oklahoma, all over the country--contribute to taking care of those military facilities. The State of Nevada cannot afford to do it all. The taxpayers in Nevada do not pay for those bases even though there is a cyclical spinoff that is important to the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada depends on the American taxpayers to make sure those civilian and military employees at those most important bases are taken care of.

I am the only Member who is in the Chamber who is on the Appropriations Committee. When we work for military construction projects at Nellis Air Force Base, Fallon, and other bases I mentioned, those construction projects are paid for by American taxpayers. People from all over the country make their tax payments. It comes to this Congress, and it is decided that Nellis Air Force Base needs new hangars or needs to buy some new land so that the people around the base are not bothered. That is all paid for by American taxpayers. It doesn't come equally from Nevada. The Congress does not say: As soon as you get enough money in taxes to come from the State of Nevada, we will build that new hangar for the F-20s. That isn't how it works. The same applies to our National Highway System.

I am disappointed that the staff of the good Senator from Arizona did not at least listen to what I said, Senator Inhofe said, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Bond said last Monday. I talked at that time about how this bill is so much more fair than bills in years past.

Just a few years ago, there were some States that were only able to keep 75 cents out of every dollar they contributed into the highway trust fund for their own States. The rest of it went to other places. But a decision was made, and it was not an easy decision--the Senator from Arizona knows around here you count votes, and when you have enough votes to get something passed, you pass it. In years past, people counted votes around here. When they found they could get to 60 votes, sometimes 51, the legislation was jammed through this body. That is why some States wound up not getting very much on the money they paid into the highway trust fund.

When the Senator from Arizona talks about this being pork--and we have talked about that here quite a bit--this bill is basically paid for by the highway trust fund. It is paid for by the fact of when people go to buy a gallon of gasoline, they put money into a trust fund, and we are using those moneys now to distribute among the States. We were a little bit short to cover everything that needed to be done in this bill, so in conjunction with the majority and the minority and members of this administration, we said, we are not going to raise any taxes but we are going to readjust some of the taxes that are already in existence, and we did that to make up a small part of our highway bill.

To talk about pork and people are sick of money being spent--I didn't vote for the Medicare bill. I agree with him, that was a bad deal. You cannot come out here with one big paintbrush and paint everything the same. Why is this country in such deep trouble with deficit? It has very little to do with domestic discretionary spending. We could today eliminate the FBI, close all the prisons in the country, close the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, close the Congress, close the Supreme Court, close the Executive Office of the President, and we would still be in deficit. We simply do not have enough money coming into the Government to cover the expenses. Domestic discretionary spending--you can eliminate it all, and we still could not balance the budget.

The fact is, because of the tax cuts that have taken place over the years, we don't have enough money coming in to cover this. That is why last year we had a budget deficit in excess of $500 billion. This next year will be higher than that. It is not domestic discretionary spending. Especially don't pick on the highway trust fund, don't pick on the highway bill.

From everything I have understood, all of the President's statements about not liking the highway bill have nothing to do with the Senate version of the bill. It is what they are talking about doing in the House. They want to spend more money than what we are spending. The President has not directed any of his comments to the Senate version of the bill, as far as I know, and I think I pretty much know.

I know the good Senator from Oklahoma was on Fox News today explaining that point.

I will yield for a question.

Was that a question?

I am sorry. I missed the question.

Absolutely. I would respond to my friend, yes. I have been in on the negotiations, yes. This is not something that has taken place over the last 2 weeks. This committee--Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and Senator Reid has spent months working on this bill. Of course, the administration was in on every one--not every one of them but a lot of those conversations. Yes, we originally wanted a bill much bigger than this one, but because of the pressure we got from the White House and other places we have the bill now the number that it is.

So I absolutely have followed this very closely. This bill is extremely important. This is the fourth or fifth highway bill I have worked on.

Before I was interrupted, I was talking about how much better this bill is than the bills in the past when States gave away 25 percent of the money that came into their States. It was determined, when the so- called four managers started this, what we would like to do with legislation. What we wanted to do was to try to work it out so that every State of the 50 States would get 95 cents out of every dollar they put into the trust fund.

Keep in mind this was a big leap forward because some States were getting less than that. Let me just briefly go over, so that people who are watching this--staffs, Senators--understand how difficult this bill has been. Let's go back to the bill of 1982 called the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. This bill established the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. What this is all about is a determination was made to do everything we could do to keep people off of our highways, which saves the highway trust fund money. Therefore, we would work to help with mass transit because if we had good bus service, if we had monorail like we have in Las Vegas, if we have subways like we have in various places, including Washington, DC, it keeps people off the streets and saves us money out of the highway trust fund. So that was the first time we established that. That was in 1982, the first year the Senator from Arizona and I came to Congress.

It contained an 85-cent minimum return provision, meaning that all of those States were getting in the seventies before they would get a minimum of 85 cents for every dollar they put into the trust fund. The Federal gas tax was increased from 4 cents to 9 cents back in 1982. So that took care of that bill.

In 1987, this was a difficult year. That year President Reagan vetoed our bill. We had to override the President's veto. We did that. We did it by one vote in the Senate and they overrode it by a significant number in the House. It was a good bill. It was a bill that changed the speed limit above 55 miles per hour. It included a provision requiring States to be more concerned about the environment as they were doing the road work.

Then 1991 was the first so-called ISTEA bill, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Earlier, all of us talked about the importance of Senator Moynihan and Senator Chafee and having a highway program in this country that was reflective of the changes to the Interstate Highway System that had been constructed. What we did in the 1991 act was create the CMAQ; that is the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program. This was extremely important so that there would be transportation conformity, air quality. With the Interstate System largely complete, as I indicated, ISTEA shifted the Federal program from capital construction to focus on people and goods movement. There were a lot of things we looked at in that bill that simply had not been looked at before. We realized just building new roads was not the answer to all of our highway problems, our congestion problems, our transportation problems in the country. We came to the realization that we talked a lot about that the whole country suffers when there is a traffic jam.

Millions of gallons of fuel are wasted as cars sit and idle. They are the most inefficient when they idle. We also came to the realization, talked a lot about it, that when people are stuck in traffic they can no longer be productive workers. They cannot deliver their goods. They cannot be on their computers at work. They cannot be going to court. They cannot be taking care of their patients. When traffic is stopped, it stops people from being productive. So we talked about that in the 1991 ISTEA bill.

We also expanded the transportation decisionmaking process to include local officials, and even citizens.

Now, in 1998, we did TEA-21 which continued the basic policy structure established in ISTEA. The reason that was important, from 1982 to 1998 we had not changed the minimum requirements States would receive. Six years ago when we took this bill up we said every State will get 90.5 percent of the money they put into a program. That was a big step forward involving a changing of formulas and billions of dollars changed. We did that. We thought it was fair.

In the bill we are taking up this year, we have even gone further. We have said it is important that after we pass this legislation, States at the end of this bill will get 95 percent of what they put in.

My friend from Arizona is right; States that are getting 90.5 percent now would rather get 95 percent tomorrow rather than at the end of this 6-year period. But we are moving this ball down the line toward the goal line, and I think we are scoring a touchdown. Even though the Senator from Arizona talks about how bad this bill is and how he does not like it because of all the pork in it, I do not know what his definition of pork is. I really have some trouble understanding that.

This is a highway bill. There is some money spent for doing work on bridges. As was stated just a few days ago by the Senator from Florida, actually 29 percent of all bridges in this country are substandard. What we have done in this bill, S. 1072, is to try to make sure there is growth among the core programs of this bill, and we have created a new program which is called the safe routes to school program. This has been accepted across the country as being important. We believe children should walk and ride bicycles to school as much as they can. In some places they cannot do that because the traffic patterns are such that they cannot. So part of this money would be spent building bicycle paths and in effect making it easier for children to walk and ride to school.

This reduces the rate of return gap between donor and donee States. So I think we are doing the right thing in this bill. As I indicated, I cannot envision why my friend from Arizona complains about this being pork. It is a highway bill. Is building a highway something that is bad? Is repairing an outdated, dangerous bridge bad? I do not think so. Is trying to improve air quality while doing construction bad? I do not think so. So I do not know why my friend from Arizona is so angry and is talking about all of these bad things. This is a good bill.

As I indicated, the situation in dealing with our national defense system it is not based upon how much money a State pays into a program. It is based on where we need the defense program. Using the theory of my friend from Arizona, what would the State of Idaho do? Idaho is a big State. It is a bridge State. It helps one get to California. If they only got back the money they paid into the program, the roads in Idaho would be a mess. What about Wyoming? What about South Dakota? What about North Dakota? What about Alaska? If one takes off from Seattle and goes to Miami, that is how big the State of Alaska is. Now, they do not have any people there. They do not pay much money into the gas fund. They need help. Their roads are very difficult to maintain.

Wyoming also has no people in it, basically. My friend from Arizona wants Wyoming to get the money they pay into the program, and that is all? This is the United States of America. We are a central whole divided among self-governing parts, and we have a central government that helps make these States not independent, saying every penny they pay into the tax system is all they get out. It will never work that way.

My friend from Arizona, as much as I respect and understand what great contributions he has made to the country,

on this debate has added nothing. He has added nothing. He is just off base. I don't know how else to say it.

I will be happy to yield.

I would say, through the Chair to my friend from Vermont, yes. Major Eisenhower was asked to bring a caravan of military vehicles across the country. He did it, but it was not easy because the roads were impassable on occasions. The people in the convoy had to work on roads as they came across the country. This young officer decided at the time if he ever had the ability to change the condition of the highways in our country, he would do it.

Lo and behold, Eisenhower is elected to be President of the United States and one of the first things our Republican President does is to propose this program that is loaded with pork, that builds roads. President Eisenhower is responsible for the Interstate Highway System more than any other person, and he did it because it met the needs of this country.

As we said, the actual construction of the roads has been completed. One of the last places it was done was in the State of Nevada. Actually it was in California, but it connected Mesquite, NV with St. George, UT. But they had to go through this terrible hard rock to finish the Interstate Highway System. It took a long time and it was extremely expensive to do that, but there were a few little places like that which hung on for years until we could say we completed the system. We did that. Now we have come up with programs that are so important. There are roadways in the country that are just as important as the Interstate Highway System. That is why we have a program, the National Highway System. What this talks about is the offshoots of the Interstate System.

I have talked about this on the floor today. To get to my hometown of Searchlight is not easy to do. There are a couple of ways you can get there. But this bill takes into consideration places such as Searchlight, NV. They are entitled to good roads also. You are not entitled to good roads just because you are on the interstate system.

This bill has gone such a long way to making the playing field more level. I commend my friend from Vermont and my friend from Oklahoma. We didn't have to do this. We could have gotten enough votes to pass this legislation without raising it to 95 percent at the end of this bill. But it was believed by the committee we should do that, that we would raise every State to a minimum of 95 percent. We have done that. It was hard to do, but it benefits a lot of States and certainly the American people and makes a system that is easier to explain and understand.

Yes. When I served in the House of Representatives, I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I was dumbfounded. We have all this surplus food and we would take it to other continents, for example, to Africa, and the food would never get where it was supposed to go. Why? Simple. There was no way of hauling it to the places where it was needed. They had an insufficient transportation program in many of these countries. People were starving to death and they couldn't get the food where it was needed.

We don't have anything like that, but it does illustrate why we have to have the ability to move things easier. Each year that goes by, we have to make it easier because we have competition around the world. The more people who are tied up in traffic, in trucks and trains and in personal vehicles, the less competitive we will be. That is what this bill is all about.

For my friend to suggest let's just extend this for a year, come back and look at it again--we have already done that once. The State of Nevada and the other 49 States were grousing when we did that. Why? Because these highway programs, many of them, are multiyear programs. If they can't enter into a multiyear contract, it wastes a lot of money. It wastes money. Something that would have cost $3 million, if we extend this now for an extra year, by the time we finish it could wind up costing $6 million, twice as much as it ordinarily would cost. Without what we have in this bill, we would get a lot less product. Extending this bill for a year's time is not the way to go.

The former majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, the distinguished junior Senator from Mississippi, was on the floor today and that is one of the things he talked about.

We talk about job creation. Here it is actually taking place. This bill will be responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs in this country--millions of jobs. For every $1 billion we spend in infrastructure, we create 47,000 jobs.

In addition to those 47,000 jobs we will create spending $1 billion here, the spinoff of this, according to Senator Frist, the majority leader of the Senate, is $6.2 billion that flows from that. This bill is a win-win for everyone.

I am at a loss as to why my friend from Arizona would come and try to throw this into the same pot as: Boy, we are spending too much money around here. This is like Medicare.

It has nothing to do with that. These moneys come from the highway trust fund with the exception, which we have already acknowledged, that some moneys are coming from the reshuffling of taxes that are already in existence. There are no new taxes.

I hope the ship is not tilted even a little bit from these statements made by my distinguished friend from Arizona because they should be accorded very little weight.

Madam President, I close by saying again I want the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Oklahoma to understand how much I appreciate their work on this legislation. We have to keep our eye on the prize. This is, as Senator Lott said, probably the most important piece of legislation we will pass all year. He said that an hour ago, and he is absolutely right. This could be the most important legislation we pass all year

to stimulate the economy, to create jobs, to help States become and remain competitive, and to ease traffic burdens and congestion which we have throughout our country.

Will the Senator yield?

Through the Chair, I say to the distinguished Democratic leader, as someone who has worked on this highway bill to get it to the point where it is now, I very much appreciate the team work that has been shown with the majority and Democratic leaders. They have both spoken out strongly in favor of this legislation. That means a lot to Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords, and to me, the two chairmen of the committee and subcommittee, and the two ranking members, who have worked to get this bill to the point where it is.

So I want to say again how much we appreciate the Democratic leader and the majority leader coming to the floor often and talking about the importance of this bill and especially acknowledging the fact that 90 percent of this bill is paid for through the trust fund, and a small percentage of it is through other taxes, no new taxes. So I thank the minority leader very much for his help.

If I could just ask one more question. I know how busy the leader is, but as I was reading my news clips today, and as I was listening to the distinguished majority leader talk about what a great bill this Medicare bill is and how that now people, if they are 65 years old, can have a high blood pressure cup placed on their arm and in a few seconds find out what their blood pressure is, I do not think that is very expensive. I, frankly, say that most people who go to doctors have that done automatically anyway. I apologize for this, but it will take only about 3 minutes. I want to read an article that was in Nevada's second largest newspaper, the Reno Gazette-Journal. This is what appeared in my news clips today: ``Seniors Blast Medicare Prescription Plan.'' I am not making any of this up.

Riley Waller is among many Washoe County citizens still

angry over the Medicare prescription plan signed into law in

December, saying it will gouge seniors and the taxpayers

who'll pay for it.

More than 100 senior citizens listened Thursday morning as

Nevada Division of Aging officials explained how the new

prescription drug program will work. Several seniors said

they're unhappy with the new prescription program adopted by

Congress and signed into law by President Bush, with the

backing of the largest group representing older Americans.

``It took away the opportunity for people to get drugs from

Canada at half the price,'' said Waller, 77, of Reno. ``It

will not allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices. That's

ridiculous.''

Robert Chamberlain, 67, a retired Reno lawyer, said he soon

will be among 45,000 seniors to drop their membership in the

American Association of Retired Persons.

``When the AARP came out in favor of the Bush plan, they

did a disservice to the elderly people who are in need of

Medicare,'' Chamberlain said. ``The AARP will profit from

them in selling them insurance.''

Norma Herring, another Reno senior, said she doesn't take

prescription drugs and will not pay a monthly premium to get

them.

``No way am I going to pay a monthly fee.''

The Medicare prescription program begins in January 2006,

while a temporary discount card program starts this June.

``How these programs provided by insurance companies will

intertwine with the state's Senior Rx program has not been

determined,'' said Betty Squires, Nevada Division of Aging

Medicare adviser for seniors.

People must sign up for both programs. Seniors will be

given a six-month window to register for the Medicare drug

program starting November 15, 2005. If they register later,

they'll pay a penalty.

Under the program, each year seniors must pay $420 in

monthly premiums; buy the first $250 of medications; pay 25

percent of medication costs between $250 and $2,250; and all

of the costs from $2,250 to $5,100--the so-called doughnut

hole. After that, Medicare will pay 95 percent of

prescription drug costs.

In providing an example, Squires said a married man whose

prescriptions total $4,850 a year would spend $3,370 to buy

them while Medicare would pick up $1,080 of the cost.

Individuals with annual incomes less than $9,600 and

couples with incomes less than $13,000 would generally pay

between $1 and $5 per prescription with no additional costs.

Other low-income groups with few assets also would get

discounts.

Squires said some employers might drop prescription drug

benefits for their retirees in anticipation of the new

program.

``Teachers in Las Vegas lost the benefit. It's already

happening,'' she said.

But her hope is companies will instead cover the premiums

or provide coverage for the doughnut hole.

In the last few weeks, a national liberal group called

Moveon.org has spent $1 million on television commercials in

Nevada, putting words in President Bush's mouth about the

prescriptive drug program.

The commercials say the Medicare bill has real drug

benefits for the big drug companies, Bush contributors, in

forbidding Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices and

barring people from importing drugs from Canada.

Squires said the drug companies won't be limited in how

much profit they'll make from the new program.

I will not finish the article, and I am sorry to take the leader's time, but this is happening all over America. It is not just in Reno. The prescription drug benefit, no matter how it is painted with chocolate, is a program that is not good for the American people. The American people know this, as indicated by the group that met in Reno yesterday. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Does the leader acknowledge the same thing is happening in South Dakota?

Mr. President, I commend my friend, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, for his steadfastness in attempting to move this most important bill that the Chair just reported. He has worked hard on this for months. This week he has worked hard on it. This has not been an easy week. I said many times before, as I said earlier speaking with the Democratic leader this morning, there is no other legislation we will consider this Congress that will do more for the American worker or have so great an impact on every facet of American life than the bill which was just reported by the Chair, the highway bill.

Since coming to Congress, I have been so impressed with what infrastructure development does for the entire community. It provides jobs, but the social benefits are significant. For every $1 billion invested in infrastructure, it has been established, and we heard it many times, we create more than 47,000 high-paying jobs, skilled jobs that generate more than $6.2 billion of economic activity. Again, for every billion dollars spent on infrastructure development--for example, highway or transit--we create 47,000 jobs. But the spinoff for this $1 billion is $6.2 billion in economic activity. Even by conservative estimates, funding our Nation's infrastructure program at the $311 billion Bond-Reid level will create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs.

I thank the two leaders again, Senators Daschle and Frist, for their support and for their recognition of the importance of this measure. I wholeheartedly agree with the majority leader's statements earlier this week when he urged the Members of this body to focus their full attention on this legislation. I would say, however, that his focus should be on that side of the aisle. We, over here, are marching in lockstep toward completing this legislation. There has been a lot of stumbling taking place on the other side of the aisle. There has been roadblock after roadblock placed before this highway bill by the majority. The majority leader said:

We cannot ask our fellow citizens to join the great

American workforce and then stand idly by while our

roads decay and that commute to work stretches from

minutes into hours. It is a job issue. . . . Our highways,

our bridges, our roads, our ports, and our trains are in

fact very much the physical expression of the very name we

bear, uniting the States of America.

I agree with the majority leader, but we need help. This bill is being held up by the majority. I don't know why, but some on the other side of the aisle have failed to recognize the wisdom of their leader, Senator Frist. These Members continue to impede our progress on this. On the first thing we are doing this year in this session of the Legislature, there is a big roadblock, I repeat, on our highway bill. Progress is being impeded.

During last year's budget debate, 79 Senators--and there would have been more but we had some out running for President even then--79 Members of this body voted to support a $311 billion piece of legislation for highways and transit. Under the leadership of Senator Grassley and Baucus, we have a funding package that meets this goal, enjoys bipartisan support, and meets the President's funding criteria.

I am always amazed at this bipartisan stuff we talk about here. McCain-Feingold is said to be a bipartisan bill, the great legislation done to improve campaign financing. It was bipartisan. OK, we had McCain and Hagel--and there may be a few other Republicans, and I apologize to those; I am sure the Presiding Officer was one of them-- who favored McCain-Feingold. Basically, the Democrats pushed campaign finance reform.

On the highway bill, unless something changes, I don't know where the bipartisanship is. We know Bond and Inhofe support this legislation. But let's have this a truly bipartisan piece of legislation and move forward as we did during the budget process; 79 Senators supported what we are supposed to be doing in this. With the finance package having been completed, every piece of the puzzle is in place.

I remember I was always very bad working jigsaw puzzles. My little bother, he was great, but I, in my little-boy head, was envious of my brother Larry. He could do these puzzles. So, what I would do, I would hide the last couple of pieces of the puzzle so that way he couldn't complete the puzzle. He would come to me for the missing pieces and I would say okay, but I would always get something; he would have to carry the wood or do something to get the last few pieces.

We have the pieces to this puzzle. None of them are hidden. This is an important, complicated piece of legislation. It has very difficult components--highways, rail, mass transit, and the tax portion. Everything is done and everything is paid for. There are no new taxes. With this last piece of the puzzle now in place, we are ready to move forward.

As my friend from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, so passionately communicated last night, now is the time to act. Why would Senator Voinovich know? What basis would this man have to talk about this highway bill? It could be that George Voinovich was mayor of one of the largest cities in America, the mayor of Cleveland, OH. It could be that he was Governor of one of the most populous States in America, Ohio. He knows, from being a

mayor and a Governor, how important this transportation bill is.

I think we should listen to George Voinovich, telling us, let's move on this legislation. It is important to Ohio. It is important to Nevada. It is important to Rhode Island. It is important to Texas. It is important to South Dakota. It is important to Tennessee. Every State in the Union benefits from this. But we have some people saying: Oh, we can't do this, it's pork.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Most of the bill is paid for out of the highway trust fund. Pork? I don't understand that. Is reconstructing a damaged bridge pork? Thirty percent of the bridges in America are in a state of disrepair. As has already been established here on the Senate floor, there are bridges in America where a school bus comes to the bridge, stops, lets the kids out, drives the bus across empty, has the kids walk across the bridge and jump back in the bus, and take off. Why? Because the bridge is dangerous. They can't have a bus full of kids go on a bridge that may collapse at any time.

Is that pork? One-third--almost one-third of all the bridges in America need something done: either be replaced or repaired or renovated in some fashion. The busiest two-lane road in Nevada is from a place called Railroad Pass to Searchlight, my hometown. It is a deathtrap. We are fortunate that half of that--18 miles of the 36 miles--now is a four-lane road. We are in the process of making the rest four lanes.

Is that pork? A busy two-lane road in Nevada, and people are killed and injured on that road all the time. Is that pork? I don't understand what the word means. I don't think so. Try to tell that to the truck drivers who are tied up in traffic, not being able to move their loads across this country because of the traffic on the road from Railroad Pass to Search Light. There are examples all over America that are the same. Is that pork because you want to move people more quickly?

As the majority leader mentioned in his statement, people are stuck in traffic. What does that do? It pollutes the air. There is no worse pollution than a car idling. It prevents people from getting to work so they can be productive. If it is a truck or a bus, it holds up the ability of commerce to move on, costing all of us more money.

Those folks who are talking about this bill having too much money need to reassess what their priorities are for the country. I personally believe this bill doesn't have enough money. It certainly doesn't have too much. A long-time Member of the other body, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the only Congressman from Alaska, believes what we have done here in the Senate isn't enough. He is over there working with the Republican majority in the House trying to get more money. I applaud him for doing that. We need more money for highways and transit--not less. This is a 6-year bill. I support it. If we can get it passed, I will be happy with it.

As Senator Voinovich said last night, we must seize this opportunity to act. I say it today. We must seize this opportunity to act.

According to a study by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the current extension--and we should have done this bill last year--cost $2.1 billion in project delays and caused the loss of almost 100,000 jobs. The extension has interrupted State transportation officials' ability to do long-term planning.

I hope we will not do another 1-year extension. If we do, it would make things even worse. These projects are difficult. You cannot complete a major highway project in a year. You can't do it. The highway projects are multiyear projects. It is the same with transit projects. If you don't have multiyear funding, you can't plan, and it winds up costing more money. A project that costs $100 will wind up costing $300. Multiply that by millions, and we understand.

We now are fast approaching the busiest contracting season in the year. Right now the weather is bad. Look at how things have slowed down outside this Capitol building. This isn't the time contractors' work is done. In the West, you can do it almost every place, but not here in the East, and not in the Midwest. It is too cold.

Much of the major highway construction and contracting is done in the months of March, April, and May. Without a long-term bill and the corresponding guaranteed revenue streams, many vital transportation projects will be put on hold and others delayed, wasting more money and costing thousands more jobs, at a time when millions of willing and able Americans are looking for work. How can we let this happen?

The Democratic leader talked about the fact we created a little over 100,000 jobs this past month. We should be happy about that. But it is really pathetic. It is pathetic. We haven't looked at what happened during the month of December when normally lots of new jobs come on board. People were expecting 175,000 new jobs. This is what we got--a little over 100,000. We will take it. But we will never make up for the loss of 3 million jobs that were lost in the last 3 years with 100,000 jobs a month. It won't work.

People down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should be beating down the doors saying pass this bill. What are they doing? They are carping, saying maybe we ought to take another look at this. They are beating up on Chairman Young on the House side, saying don't even think about more money for highways.

I hope we can continue working on this. We need to do this. When millions of Americans are willing and able to work, shouldn't we provide jobs for them?

We spend a lot of time talking about deficits. But one we don't focus on nearly enough is the infrastructure deficit. Senator Daschle had his copy of the budget here. He talked about this swirling monetary debt we have, and the deficit we are going to have this year. But what we don't talk about very much is the deficit we have in the infrastructure.

When we were in charge of the Senate, I held a hearing and invited mayors from around the country to talk about the infrastructure deficit they have in their cities. I can remember Atlanta, GA. Their mayor said he was looking forward to getting out of office. He said, I am glad to be leaving because it is only a question of time before there will be a collapse of infrastructure such as water and sewer.

That is the way it is all over the country. This country is facing a growing infrastructure deficit. We are not keeping up with the infrastructure needs. That is an understatement. Congestion continues to get worse--forget about water and sewer. Americans will lose an estimated $67 billion in lost time and productivity, and we will waste almost 5.7 billion gallons of gas waiting in traffic this year.

In addition to the personal tragedy associated with traffic accidents, accidents cost $137 billion a year in property losses, losses in market productivity, and medical costs. How many of those accidents could be avoided by better traffic lights and better highways? We know we can do better.

While our transportation infrastructure has an estimated worth of $1.7 billion, much of this system needs an extensive overhaul and a lot of maintenance. Over a quarter of the Nation's bridges, as I have already stated--in fact, it is 29 percent--are functionally deficient or obsolete. I have talked about that a lot. The Federal Highway Administration's 2002 Conditions and Performance Report estimates the Federal deficit in roads and bridges must be at least $35 billion a year just to maintain the current level of system performance. I say that is not very good. New investments to improve system performance will cost a lot more. We have a duty to close this infrastructure deficit.

A well-maintained national surface transportation system is essential to the free flow of people and goods so vital to a healthy and robust economy. We have a duty to the Nation to act now.

Again, I thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Bond for their commitment to move this most important legislation.

I again want to thank Senators Frist and Daschle for their continued commitment and support in our effort to move a fully funded 6-year reauthorization through the Senate before the current short-year extension expires at the end of February. We must act, and we must act quickly.

Mr. President, if I could say before we leave, Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and I want people to know our staffs are going to be available all weekend to work on any problems anyone has regarding the bill. If people have amendments, they can ask to meet with our staffs. We will go over the amendments to see if they are acceptable. The offices are open now. There is no reason not to be able to have the resources they need to go over this bill with our staffs.

The point I am making is we are open for business and we want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to talk to our staffs about any problems they have with the bill and ways it can be made better.

Anyway, please work with our staffs. They will be in their offices this weekend. I hope when Monday morning comes, people will also recognize the offices will be open. At 1 o'clock, we will be open for business. The leader indicated there won't be votes on Monday--will there be?

So there will be no votes, but that doesn't mean we cannot do a lot of work. We hope everyone will cooperate with us. If there are problems, let us know. We want to move this bill as quickly as possible. It is important to everyone.

Yes. I simply say I am confident there will be adequate time to take care of everything. I hope nobody wants to come in on the Sabbath. But, if necessary, we have someone who will work on the Sabbath.

Mr. President, it is called the silent killer.

It doesn't make you sick, does it?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, was this a unanimous consent request?

While the ranking member and the chairman are in the Chamber, I wish to express my appreciation--and I think that of the entire Senate--for the bipartisan bill that is now going to be part of this highway bill. These two men--the senior Senator from Alabama and the senior Senator from Maryland--are legislators. They are experienced. They understand when there is a time to be partisan and when there is a time not to be partisan. They understand when it is important to move forward for the good of this country. And that is what they did.

Without their leadership, we could not be in our present position. We have the highway portion of this bill that has been laid down. We have a few of our little technical things to do before they are joined together perfectly, but the transit portion of the bill--they are both excellent pieces of legislation. The transit portion of the bill affects all of our country.

As the Presiding Officer knows, the city of Las Vegas--and Reno to a lesser extent--is very dependent on transit moneys now. I cannot say enough to express my personal appreciation and that of the Senate for the work done by these two fine men. This is good legislation. I hope we can move forward on it quickly.

I wish to say, after having issued this compliment, with which I want the Record to be spread, that I have worked with Senator Inhofe on this legislation for now more than a year, and Senator Bond, and, of course, my distinguished former chairman and ranking member, Senator Jeffords.

The concern I see at this stage--we have been on this bill for some time now, a matter of days--is that we have not moved far. We started at the goal line, and we are at about the 5-yard line. We have to get to the other goal line, which is 95 yards away.

There is an issue that has been brought up by the distinguished senior Senator from the State of New Hampshire. I was talking to some of my friends earlier today. We have very few people in this legislative body who are as experienced as the senior Senator from New Hampshire--a House of Representatives Member, Governor, now a Senator-- and he has brought forward an amendment he believes in, and he is not going to leave until something happens on this amendment. He may leave physically, but he is going to be around here. We are going to have to dispose of this amendment.

It is obvious now that the majority will not accept a voice vote. We do not have enough votes to table the amendment, and I would not vote to table his amendment anyway. So we have, on this amendment, a filibuster. That is what it is. It is a filibuster by I don't know how many members of the majority, but at least one.

I think we should recognize that it is holding up this bill. This bill is a very important piece of legislation: $255 billion that has been supported by trust fund moneys--all but $30 billion of it. The other $30 billion has been accounted for.

In my opinion, the administration has signed off on this. Any veto threat they have issued has been related to what they are trying to do in the House. So as hard as the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe, has worked, he cannot do anything as long as he has people on his side trying to hold up this bill. I think there has to be a decision made on what we are going to do about this. We have spent a couple of days hoping the senior Senator from New Hampshire would go away. I have had a lot of experience with him and he doesn't go away very easily.

I think we should recognize that we have an amendment that is popular and it has been brought here previously and more than 50 people will support his amendment. Whether 60 people will support it is another question. The leadership should understand that this bill is not going anyplace until we dispose of this amendment. It is extraneous, as the chairman will recognize. On this side, we believe in this bill and we thought, at least during this week, there should be no extraneous amendments offered.

We want to get the bill passed. This is important to the people of this country. If we want to create jobs, this is the way to do it: pass the highway bill. As many as 2 million jobs could be created with this highway bill. So I hope the majority realizes the predicament they are in. We are willing to work with them in any reasonable way to try to move beyond where we are today. Just giving speeches out here on the bill is not going to do the trick. If we want to pass the bill, we are going to have to, in effect, get rid of the Gregg amendment. I have to be careful how I say this. One of my friends told me something the other day. We were in a huddle talking about the bill, and I said: We are going to have to figure out a way to get rid of Judd Gregg.

He said: You better be careful saying stuff like that. In England, the history is very clear that on the occasion when the King said the Archbishop is causing me a lot of problems, a couple days later three people went out and assassinated the Archbishop.

We certainly don't mean to apply that to Judd Gregg. We are talking about his amendment, not him personally. It is a problem with his amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I had to step off the floor, but I did come back and heard part of the Senator's statement regarding Medicare.

It is true, is it not, that the taxpayers of this country are paying for political advertisements to talk about how good the bad Medicare package is? Is that true?

May I ask another question.

So the Senator is saying, not only are taxpayers' dollars being spent to promote a bad Medicare program, but that the advertising is being done by the President's own reelection media team?

Will the Senator yield for one other question?

Is it also true that in the mailings and the television they do not bother to tell what is going to happen after the election that takes place in November with Medicare? Because I believe--and think the Senator from Massachusetts believes--most of the bad stuff happening in this bill comes after the election. Is that true?

What is the matter now before the Senate? Is it the Dorgan amendment or the Gregg amendment?

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think we could probably work this out. Why don't we go ahead and get rid of the Bond amendment--all they want is a time certain--and have them come and talk after that?

I say to Senator Inhofe, through the majority leader--we are anxious to have an amendment on this bill--maybe Senator Bond could lay down his amendment. We could finish the debate on that, and I assume the leader wants a vote on it today. When that vote is completed, they could be recognized.

It is my understanding Senator Warner is not going to be here today.

Maybe we could lay the amendment down and vote on it at some subsequent time.

How much time would the Senator from Florida need?

So there is an hour here being requested. I have an idea what they are going to talk about, and that means there will be time requested on the other side to respond to it.

Mr. Leader, if I could interrupt, I wonder if the majority leader's request could now be granted, the committees meeting and all that.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the statement of the Democratic leader. We have worked hard on this bill. As I have said before, it is an imperfect piece of legislation, but we have done the best we can and we have been as fair to everybody as we could. We will certainly be responsive to requests people have that will improve the bill.

I hope people who want to offer amendments will do so. We are going to have a mad rush next week. We are going to either finish this bill next week or go off the bill next week. It would be a terrible disservice to the country if we don't finish the bill next week. I hope people, even though it is inconvenient and they are not in their offices, would do what they can to offer amendments if they want to change the bill.

Also, I direct this to Senator Inhofe. It is my understanding the statements from the administration yesterday regarding highways did not deal with our bill but, rather, what is contemplated in the House. I believe everyone should understand that the administration has signed off on the bill reported out of the committee. They support what they have done in financing this bill. The tax provisions that make up about $30 billion of the $255 billion have been supported by the administration. My personal feeling--and I have said this before--is I wish we had more money. We are not going to get more. The President said if there is a bigger bill than what we have, he is going to veto it. The reason I asked the chairman to yield is to say it is my understanding the President supports our legislation.

Mr. President, the other thing I wanted to say is, there has been a statement made, and at least two statements made on this floor, about the ``pork'' in this bill. First of all, pork is not a bad term with me. I think the things we do for our States, whether a new bridge or repairing a road, has nothing to do with anything that connotes being bad when it needs to be done in the State. If they are referring to that, there is no pork in a negative sense in this bill.

The vast majority of money in this bill comes from the highway trust fund. People, when they buy gas for their car, pay into a trust fund we use every 5 or 6 years to fund highway projects around the country. That is what we are doing today. People who talk about this bloated bill with too much money--this bill is paid for. There are no new taxes, and the vast majority of the moneys coming out of the highway trust fund is to fund the most important projects around the country.

I hope people understand this bill, as the Democratic leader said, is not a bill for Democrats or Republicans; it is a bipartisan bill that has the foundation of the programs of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He, with a Democratic Congress, passed this legislation. We have to work together to pass this bill. This is important legislation.

I repeat to everyone within the sound of my voice, the majority leader said we are going to finish this bill a week from Friday. Finishing doesn't mean we complete this bill. I hope we do that. It would be a disservice to the people of this country if we did not finish this bill.

We are here waiting to do business. If anyone doesn't like the bill, let them come and try to change it. If they change it, more power to them. But waiting around is not going to help whatever concerns people have with this legislation.

I will be happy to yield to my friend from Missouri.

Yes. I outlined, as the Senator knows, when we took this matter

up Monday, the history of the last 20 years with these highway bills. This bill is so much more fair to all 50 States than the bill in 1982, and the three subsequent bills. Some States prior to 1982 didn't even get 80 cents of every dollar they paid into the trust fund. This bill took a gigantic step, and now every State gets a minimum of 95 cents on every dollar they pay into the fund. This is a very fair program. It is imperfect, as I said before, but we are doing much better.

Mr. President, I respond to my friend, he is exactly right. This bill is not some new invention. We have worked over the last several years to develop different programs. One is interstate maintenance, which is self-explanatory. We have an interstate system that has been completed, and we want to make sure that system is in a good state of repair. It is a never-ending job to keep it up the best we can. A large amount of this $255 billion goes to interstate maintenance. We also have something called the National Highway System. We have to make sure there is funding in the bill to take care of that program. It is what we have done in the past.

We also have other programs, such as the Bridge Maintenance Program, which is so important. One Senator came to the floor and said that 29 percent of the bridges are in a state of disrepair. We know that. That is why we are working in this bill to try to keep up with this never- ending system.

Also in this bill, rather than just building roads and pouring more asphalt--and this is something we focus too much attention on, but certainly everyone in the country is concerned about the environment and the air we breathe--we have a program dealing with congestion mitigation and air quality. This is basically the brainchild of Senator Moynihan and Senator Chafee. Those are programs in this bill that we have found work well.

The directors of the transportation departments in every State like the program we have. We are not, as I said before, sending a new set of blueprints to all the Governors saying: Try to figure this out. They already figured this out, and we are trying the best we can to fund these programs.

Mr. President, 90.5 percent.

Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, I don't carry with me a card that includes what happens to the States that are all Republican, but I am carrying with me during consideration of this bill a card that lists every State that has a Democratic Senator representing it and what they get. It is right here. It is hard to find anything that is wrong with it.

I recognize there are some States that for many years have been getting--I want to say this in a way that I will still be a gentleman-- far more than what they are entitled to under the formula. When you go to the gas pump and you fill your tank, so much money goes into the fund. There are some States getting far more than they are putting in. There are a few States still getting more than they are putting in. We are balancing this out. As the Senator from Oklahoma said, when we did this in the past--this is my fourth highway bill--we put the numbers together, found out where the votes were, and jammed it through. We have not done that this time.

This is a fair bill. You could take this to a high school civics class and explain what we have done and they would say this is fair. We have been as fair as possible. There are some people, who were driving around in a Lincoln they couldn't afford, who are upset because maybe they are going to have to drop back to a Lexus or something such as that.

The point is, we have tried to be fair. You can't have the program going on the way it was in the past and still recognize basic fairness. I repeat, what happened in decades past was we would find out where the votes were and just jam the bill through: If Missouri was getting 77 percent, there are only two Senators from Missouri, we don't need their votes. We haven't done that this time.

I think the American public will see this legislation is fair and reasonable. I am dumbfounded by some of the people who have come to this floor and complained about what they have gotten in the bill because they have really done extremely well.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

If the Senator would withhold offering that for just a few minutes.

I think probably the best thing to do is to have the Senator lay down the amendment. It is my understanding from the majority and minority that there are a couple of Senators with whom we have to clear it, and we should be able to do that shortly.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask my friend if he would be willing to modify this. We have been asking people to come over and offer amendments. Senator Dorgan is here to offer a germane amendment. He only wants 8 minutes to speak to offer his amendment. I ask that the consent request be modified to have the pending amendment set aside and that Senator Dorgan be allowed to offer his amendment and speak for up to 8 minutes, and then we adopt the Senator's consent as indicated.

I would also say that I am not sure anybody is going to use any time on our side on the nomination anyway. I think adequate time will be preserved.

The Dorgan amendment deals with farmers' transportation of hazardous products. I have just glanced at it. It appears there is an inordinate burden placed upon farmers to transfer a load of gas to their farms.

We are just laying what is pending aside. His would be a separate, independent amendment to the substitute that is now pending.

That is right.

Reserving the right to object, I will go along with what the Senator from Missouri requests. It is kind of unfair to the Senator from North Dakota. We have been begging people to offer amendments. He shows up to offer one and now we cannot do it. It doesn't seem very fair. We may be waiting a long time based upon statements by the chairman in the Chamber. I am happy--

Mr. President, when are we going to have the vote? It is past 4 o'clock.

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

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

Mr. President, very briefly, we have just approved the 171st judge during the Bush administration. There have been 171 judges approved. To my knowledge, there have been four he submitted who have not been approved, other than those who are going through the committee process. So the score is 171 to 4. A good average, I think.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I was struck by the statement made by the Senator from Iowa, that this budget includes not a penny for our troops and the other programs we have going on in Iraq. The question I ask the Senator is, Does this kind of remind you of what took place last year? Does the Senator remember that the President came and asked for a supplemental of $69 billion early in the year, and then later came and asked for $87 billion, in 1 year?

Does the Senator from Iowa think for 1 minute we are going to spend no money in Iraq, after last year having had two supplementals in the amount of more than $150 billion?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Does the Senator believe that in the Pentagon and in the bowels of the White House they have already prepared the documents for a supplemental appropriations bill to take care of the funding in Iraq and poor little Afghanistan, about which we seem to have just forgotten?

Because they believe, in my opinion, we will do whatever is necessary to fund the key things that are important. I am sure down there they have taken into consideration the programs they say they are going to cut. I believe this is just a prelude to having these people accomplish indirectly what they can't do directly; that is, decimate and in effect void the Social Security laws that have been in effect for this country for more than 70 years. Those people do not believe in Social Security. They don't believe in Social Security.

I carry this with me, because I want people to know I don't make this up. It is my wallet. It is kind of worn. I am not going to read all of it. But let me just read a couple of statements from Senator Robert Dole, our friend, who is a nice man and does a good job now on television being a commentator. This is a direct quote. He said:

I was there fighting the fight, one of 12 voting against

Medicare because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.

He is one of the patriarchs of the Republican Party who gives advice and counsel to the President of the United States today. He doesn't like Medicare, and most other people at the White House do not like Medicare.

Listen to this one:

Medicare has no place in a free world.

I am not making this up.

The recently departed majority leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Armey.

That is only part of what he said.

Medicare has no place in a free world.

I am not making this up. That is what he said.

Social Security is a rotten trick. I think we are going to

have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out

over time.

These people are doing indirectly what they cannot do directly. They are going to rob this Government of all the moneys they have until they have no choice but to say what we have to do is basically do away with the Social Security program; do away with Medicare. Let the private sector take care of it. If you want some retirement benefits, get it at your job; and if the job doesn't, save it.

Social Security is a rotten trick. That is what they think. But my mother and father who drew Social Security--actually, my dad didn't. He died too early. But my mother did. I don't think it was a rotten trick. I can remember my grandmother. I was a little boy. Every month she got what we called and she called her ``old age pension.'' That was Social Security. That was what gave my grandmother independence from her eight children. She got her check. She didn't have to depend on her children. She was a widow. She got her Social Security check.

I thank my friend very much for talking about this budget, which is as phony as a six-dollar bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in Senator Hillary Clinton's office, Joshua Shank, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of this action.

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

Mr. President, if the Senator from Illinois will yield, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and that there be equal time on the other side to match that, if that is necessary.

I appreciate the counsel of the Presiding Officer. Because of the

events of last night, Senator Graham's time was taken.

Mr. President, I think the time of the Senator from Florida starts at 10 o'clock.

He would have to use his time now?

I ask unanimous consent that the order now before the Senate be modified to allow the Senator from Illinois to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business, and that like time be extended to the Republicans.

And that Senator Graham be given his 30 minutes. I ask that my consent be modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority be given an extra 5 minutes in morning business; 5 minutes for Senator Kyl, 5 minutes for Senator Lott, 5 minutes for Senator Chambliss.