Floor Statements

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I see the chairman of the committee is here. I will speak for a minute while he is getting affairs in order to respond briefly to the Senator from Kentucky about the Healthy Forests initiative.

The statement has been made that hundreds of thousands of acres have burned in the last few years. But we have had millions of acres burned. We understand what it means to have wildfires. As a neighbor to California, Nevada sent 500 firefighters and dozens of pieces of equipment to help fight the fires in California. We in Nevada understand what fires are all about. I think most everyone in the country understands how devastating these fires have been. But for anyone to come to the floor and suggest we are fiddling while Rome burns, that is simply untrue.

Here is what we are concerned about. We have a situation where we have been eliminated from the conference process. Remember that the Senate is 49 to 51. It is not as if there is a huge majority. We have been eliminated from conferences. People are saying, Isn't it nice that the Medicare conference is allowing two Democrats in on the conference. But for any other Democrats to come, the conference is closed. For most conferences, we don't have anybody.

What we have suggested on this bill and on the CARE Act and a number of other matters is that we go ahead and send what has been passed in the Senate to the House. If the House doesn't like it, they can send it back with amendments. We have done that many times. This is not an unusual procedure. We need only look at what we did last night with the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act. That is how that happened. There was no big cry of concern about that.

We haven't had the opportunity to do complete research. H.R. 1584, the Clean Diamond Trade Act; H.R. 1298, AIDS Assistance Bill; H.R. 733, McLaughlin House National Historic Site Act; H.R. 13, Museum Library Services Act; H.R. 3146, TANF Extension; and H.R. 659, Mortgage Insurance Act--these are just a few of the pieces of legislation we have handled in this manner.

If the majority wants this act to pass--and I am sure they do--the best thing to do would be to take what has taken place here in the Senate and send it across the hall to the House. If there is something they do not like about it, send it back to us with an amendment. It happens all the time. It is not unusual. In fact, in years past that is how it was done. Conferences were not used as much as they are used now.

The way we have been treated with conferences, they are going to have a lot less because you can't have conferences where there is no conference. Basically, the majority meets in secret, and when they complete their secret meetings, they bring the conference report and say take it or leave it. That is the wrong way to do things.

That is what this is all about. We want the Healthy Forests initiative to pass. We wanted it to pass yesterday--not tomorrow but yesterday. It is an important piece of legislation. That is indicated by the vote that came out of the Senate.

Therefore, take what we passed, send it to the House, and if they don't like it, they can send it back with amendments.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Idaho.

Yes. It is absolutely true. That is the point I tried to make last night dealing with the CARE Act and today. I apologize; I was in a meeting with Senator Daschle and I was unable to listen to your speech. But the answer is absolutely yes. That is the point I was making.

No. I say to my friend the bill is not moving because the majority has decided to harp on the fact that there is not a conference named----

Please. I have the floor. The fact of the matter is conferences have been held around here. What I am saying is the majority has a choice. If they want the healthy initiative bill--which we badly want--then I think what we should do is take what has been passed and send it to the House. If they don't like it, let them bring it back with amendments.

There are two ways of doing it. One way is the way the Senator from Idaho suggests. The conferees could be appointed and take it over to the House, and we meet someplace else. That is the normal way.

Frankly, since we have lost control of the majority, we haven't held conferences. I have talked about that at some length on previous occasions. I touched on it briefly here today.

We want a bill passed.

The Senator from Idaho is absolutely right. The Democratic leader, in representing the Democratic caucus, has said let us not do a conference because it is meaningless, anyway. Let us take our bill we have passed and work on it. We had a big vote here. Send it to the House, and they can come within a matter of hours with something they don't like about it, and we will be happy to review that when it comes back in a matter of hours.

I want to tell my friend from Alabama how much I appreciate his patience while we finished this little scrum on the floor today.

I look forward to this most important piece of legislation. This is brought to the floor on a bipartisan basis. We have spent time speaking with the Senator from Alabama at some length in getting the bill here, dealing with the same problem we are having in the conferences.

I wish that all Senators had the sense of what legislation is all about as does the Senator from Alabama. He, in my mind, is truly a legislator. I have enjoyed working with him in the House and in the Senate. There is no question that this bill is here as a result of his reaching out to the Democrats on the committee. They have told me that. There are Democratic amendments in the mark now before the Senate. On behalf of those in the minority, through the Chair, we express our appreciation to the Senator from Alabama, the chairman of the Banking Committee.

Mr. President, under the order, the Senator from California has the floor. If I may propound a unanimous consent request, the Senator from California is going to speak for approximately another half hour or thereabouts. Following that, Senator Durbin and Senator McCain wish to speak on matters unrelated to the matter now before the Senate. To save a lot of confusion, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from California, Senator Nelson of Florida be recognized for up to 3 minutes; following that, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized for up to 15 minutes; following that, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

The Senator from Arizona wishes to go before Senator Durbin?

That is fine. I thought it was the reverse order. I ask that the unanimous consent request be modified so that Senator McCain be recognized prior to Senator Durbin.

That is in the unanimous consent order. It is up to the leadership. However, after Senator Feinstein completes her statement and Senator Nelson completes his statement, I rather doubt they could do that, but somebody could move for a vote prior to that time. I don't suggest anyone doing so. It could happen.

Will the distinguished Senator from Maryland yield for a question?

My concern with this legislation is not as much the legislation itself as it is that Thanksgiving is coming soon. We don't have the luxury of waiting for days. This legislation could take days with the order that is now in effect in the Senate. We have more than 20 amendments. If we take several hours on each amendment, we are not going to finish this week. I ask that those people--Senator Feinstein was here and she has indicated on her next two amendments she would take a half hour on each.

I ask the floor staff, when they have an opportunity, we probably should probably get two amendments locked in so we have at least time limits on those two. I know Senator Boxer has some amendments. If we could ask those Senators to come forward and agree to time limits on them, that makes it much easier for the two managers to manage the bill. I am quite confident that if the two leaders see the work on this bill is not going very quickly, it will be an awfully late night tonight because I know there are many things the two leaders want to finish on Thursday and Friday. I think there was some expectation and hope the bill would be completed by tomorrow.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), 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 ``nay.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2060

Mr. President, I know the two managers are on the floor. I want to bring to their attention that Senator Cantwell has been waiting to speak for some time on an amendment which was adopted. If you could work them into the order, I would appreciate it.

Madam President, has that amendment been disposed of?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I have spoken to the two managers of the bill, and at this stage it appears we have two amendments left, both from the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold. He has agreed, with the permission of the managers, to offer one amendment, then offer the next amendment, and debate both those amendments at the same time; and then we would vote on both amendments following his debate on both amendments and, of course, the adequate response from the managers of the bill.

Senator Feingold is here and he is in agreement with that, so we do not need a unanimous consent agreement, but

people should understand what he intends to do at this time, and what we intend to do.

Following that, it is my understanding, from speaking to the two managers, there are no other amendments. I think there may be a statement or two that Senators wish to give on the bill, but other than that, I know of no substantive amendments.

Madam President, I have a statement that will take about 3 or 4 minutes that I will give at some time.

Madam President, this is my opportunity to say a word or two about the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act.

We always hear about how divided the Senate is and how divided we are politically, that there is so much partisanship. My experience indicates that when there is something that really is extremely important that needs to get done, we do it.

As I look back, there was the terrorism insurance, which was difficult to do, but in a bipartisan method we stepped forward and did that. We had significant problems after 9/11 with the airline industry. It was difficult to do, but we stepped forward with legislation that in fact allowed the airline industry as we know it in America to continue.

Fair credit reporting is an important issue, and the two sides have joined together. I think one reason we were able to do this was the experience and the abilities of the two managers of this bill. The Senator from Maryland has heard me brag about him on many occasions. He is a person of great intellect, a Rhodes scholar, someone who is very quiet. But whenever Senator Sarbanes speaks, everyone should listen because he does not speak impulsively. He is aware of every word he says. His being the ranking member on this Banking Committee every day gives me comfort because it is an area of the law that I do not fully understand.

I have never been on the committees of jurisdiction that deal with these most important issues. This committee has wide-ranging jurisdiction. It deals with certainly much more than banking--housing, mass transit.

I also say, as I said this morning earlier about my friend from Alabama, the distinguished chairman of the committee, he is a fine legislator. We on this side of the aisle always look forward to the senior Senator from Alabama being part of legislation. Everyone in the Senate is a person of their word. I do not know anyone in the Senate, of the 99 other Senators, whose word we cannot trust.

The Senator from Alabama certainly is a man of his word, but the reason I have such great admiration for him is that he is willing to listen. He is willing to listen to someone who disagrees with him.

That this legislation arrived at the point it has, is the result of two fine legislators working through the committee system and reporting a bill to the Senate. This bill is proof that with enough hard work and commitment, we can move substantive, quality legislation through the Senate. Again, I applaud and commend the two managers of this legislation.

I have personally spent some time on this legislation, working with Members trying to work out an arrangement to allow us to have the bill on the floor today. We have been able to do that. We have worked to limit the number of amendments. The majority leader originally said he would not accept the agreement that we had. There were more amendments, so we went back and worked and whittled down the amendments. As a result of that, we were able to bring this to the floor.

I am very happy to see us moving this bill forward. It is very close to passage. It is an excellent example of what we can accomplish when Members make a dedicated effort to pursue a reasonable compromise. This legislation is not what Senator Sarbanes wants, it is not what Senator Shelby wants; it is what the committee wanted. They had to work with their Members. It is a compromise. Legislation is the art of compromise. That is not a bad word. That is the only way we can get legislation passed--consensus building--and they have done that.

This legislation will help safeguard the security of consumers' credit data

at the same time it guarantees those consumers rapid, widely available, and inexpensive credit.

It is a win for the people all over Nevada. It's a win for a family in Elko who receives a better mortgage rate because a mortgage bank can be confident about the information in the parents' credit history. The family pays a lower rate for their mortgage and, as a consequence, will pay thousands less over the lifetime of the loan, and that money can be redirected toward childcare, college, a family vacation.

It is a win for the used car dealer in Reno, or anyplace else in Nevada, who receives more complete and reliable information about prospective buyers. He can review an applicant's credit history and feel greater confidence about the degree of risk he is assuming when he extends credit to his customers.

It is a win for the public who will receive better protection than ever before against identity theft.

The United States has the lowest cost, most effective consumer credit market in the entire world, due in part to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This bill will preserve and extend the best elements of this law and add important new provisions and make it even better.

In closing, I am glad to see that our hard work negotiating this legislation has paid off with a solid bill, and I look forward to seeing consumers and business reaping the benefit of this legislation for years to come.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Delaware.

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

Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk the last few days and different offers by the majority to go to conference on the Healthy Forests initiative and a number of other pieces of legislation. For the majority to say that going to conference is the only way to legislate between the two Houses is really, for lack of a better description, a bogus argument. Almost every day both Houses pass legislation for which a conference is not appointed. As I mentioned earlier today, just last night the Senate passed H.R. 3365, the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act. We amended it and sent it back to the House without asking for conference.

On other measures, we have done the same thing--H.R. 1584, H.R. 1298, H.R. 733, H.R. 13, H.R. 4146, and H.R. 659 just to name a few.

If there is any concern about holding up legislation, we believe the shoe fits the majority. The Healthy Forests initiative is something that needs to be done. We cannot understand on this side why the leadership has refused to send the bill to the House; that is, H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests initiative, which passed here overwhelmingly just a few days ago. The House may not want to go to conference. They may like our legislation or they may want to amend it and send it back. But at least we ought to give the House this opportunity rather than holding the bill hostage. That is what is happening now. By refusing to send it to the House, the majority is holding the bill hostage.

I ask unanimous consent that the enrolling clerk be directed to immediately send H.R. 1904, which is the Healthy Forests initiative, as amended by the Senate, to the House of Representatives.

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

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

Mr. President, what is the regular order at this time?

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

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

Mr. President, there is no objection. The persuasiveness of the chairman of the committee allays any fears Senator Daschle and I had of proceeding to this appropriations bill. We look forward to having as few amendments as possible. We hope to find out how many amendments we have even tonight. It would be good to get them to the cloakroom. We will be on this probably around 10:30 tomorrow morning.

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

I object. To say going to a conference is the only way to legislate between the House and the Senate is not a valid argument. I personally favor this legislation. I voted for it and I think it is something that is needed. As everyone knows, I am not a cheerleader for the budget but I think this legislation is important for our country. I commend the President for moving forward on it.

As I indicated, saying that a conference is the only way to legislate between the House and the Senate is not a valid argument. Almost every day, both Houses pass legislation for which a conference is not appointed.

Last night, the Senate passed the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act. We amended this piece of legislation, then sent it back to the House without asking for a conference.

We have done this lots of times. Here are bills that are now public laws. These pieces of legislation are now public laws. That is how they became public laws. We bundled them up, sent them to the House. On some of the occasions they accepted them, other times they sent them back with an amendment with which we dealt. H.R. 1584, H.R. 1298, H.R. 733, H.R. 13, H.R. 3146, H.R. 659 are extremely important pieces of legislation that we thought at the time were important. They are now law.

It is my understanding that the Senate, because of the majority, is not willing to deal with the CARE Act, as has been so forcibly announced here today by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

I suggest and, in the form of a unanimous consent, request that we treat this legislation as we treat lots of legislation: Send it to the House; they might accept it. If they do not, they can send it back with an amendment or amendments on it. They may like our bill. They may want to amend our bill. They may want to send it back. At least we should give the House this opportunity rather than holding the bill hostage.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, which is at the desk; that all after the enacting clause be stricken; the Snowe amendment and the Grassley- Baucus amendment be agreed to en bloc; that the substitute amendment, which is the text of S. 476, as passed by the Senate and amended by the Snowe and Grassley-Baucus amendments, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, as my friend has said, we do not want to prolong this, but I make another suggestion that may work. That would be that the two amendments, the Snowe amendment which deals with the child tax credit and the other amendment that deals with tax extenders, really have nothing to do with charitable choice. I suggest those be taken from the bill and the pure bill that passed the Senate be sent to the House forthwith. That may make it easier for the House to deal with--I would hope so--and the other issues which I know are very important, we could deal with at a later time.

That is just a suggestion. I am not asking unanimous consent; I am just saying to my friend who has devoted so much of his time to this bill, which I know he believes in very sincerely, that might be a suggestion that is taken up with the majority leader and

others who have some persuasive powers in their ability to move this matter.

For clarification with respect to my colloguy with the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, we are ready to send to the House all three components of the Senate amendment to H.R. 7, the version of S. 476, as passed the Senate, the Snowe-Lincoln child tax credit piece, and the Grassley-Baucus tax extenders piece. We are supportive of all these items. In order to help the Senator from Pennsylvania, we are ready to send all of them over separately, and of course, we are ready to go forward sending them over bundled just without the necessity of a conference.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce this bill, which will address important public land issues in central Nevada. As you might know, the Federal Government controls over 87 percent of the State of Nevada. Many of our colleagues from other States may not understand the challenge this presents for communities in Nevada. With such large tracts of land controlled by Federal agencies, it can be difficult to acquire land for vital efforts in both the public and private sectors.

This bill will convey two cemeteries in central Nevada from the Federal Government back to the local communities. Kingston is a small town in southern Lander County, and Beowawe is a small community located in Eureka County. The original communities were home to pioneers and immigrants who settled the isolated high desert valleys of the central Great Basin. In the late 1800s, the pioneers established and managed the cemeteries to provide a final resting place for friends and family. Much of the original Kingston Cemetery is on land now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Beowawe is on land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Under current law, these agencies must sell the cemeteries back to the communities at fair market value. However, these historic cemeteries were established prior to the designation of the Federal agencies that now manage them. For over 2 years, Lander County has been required to lease much of the Kingston Cemetery from the Forest Service. The Forest Service recently sold approximately 1 acre to the Town of Kingston, but this conveyance did not allow for the protection of uncharted graves, nor for the implementation of the community's original site plan.

It is wrong that Beowawe and Kingston should have to buy or lease cemeteries from Federal agencies that did not even exist at the time that the cemeteries were established. Our bill simply provides for the conveyance of the Maiden's Grave Cemetery to Eureka County and the balance of the original location of the Kingston Cemetery to Lander County, Nevada.

The conveyances provided by this bill will benefit our Federal land managers as well as our rural communities. The disposal of these small parcels of land for no consideration will benefit the United States because they represent isolated tracts that prove difficult to manage for public use. I sincerely hope that my colleagues recognize the benefit that the conveyances would provide to the local communities and support passage of this legislation.

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 this bill, which will address important public land issues in central Nevada. As you might know, the Federal Government controls over 87 percent of the State of Nevada. Many of our colleagues from other States may not understand the challenge this presents for communities in Nevada. With such large tracts of land controlled by Federal agencies, it can be difficult to acquire land for vital efforts in both the public and private sectors.

This bill will convey two cemeteries in central Nevada from the Federal Government back to the local communities. Kingston is a small town in southern Lander County, and Beowawe is a small community located in Eureka County. The original communities were home to pioneers and immigrants who settled the isolated high desert valleys of the central Great Basin. In the late 1800s, the pioneers established and managed the cemeteries to provide a final resting place for friends and family. Much of the original Kingston Cemetery is on land now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Beowawe is on land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Under current law, these agencies must sell the cemeteries back to the communities at fair market value. However, these historic cemeteries were established prior to the designation of the Federal agencies that now manage them. For over 2 years, Lander County has been required to lease much of the Kingston Cemetery from the Forest Service. The Forest Service recently sold approximately 1 acre to the Town of Kingston, but this conveyance did not allow for the protection of uncharted graves, nor for the implementation of the community's original site plan.

It is wrong that Beowawe and Kingston should have to buy or lease cemeteries from Federal agencies that did not even exist at the time that the cemeteries were established. Our bill simply provides for the conveyance of the Maiden's Grave Cemetery to Eureka County and the balance of the original location of the Kingston Cemetery to Lander County, Nevada.

The conveyances provided by this bill will benefit our Federal land managers as well as our rural communities. The disposal of these small parcels of land for no consideration will benefit the United States because they represent isolated tracts that prove difficult to manage for public use. I sincerely hope that my colleagues recognize the benefit that the conveyances would provide to the local communities and support passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I would say to my friend, and the entire Senate, we have already spoken on this. There has been a vote to invoke cloture. That failed. I am confident if this comes up again, the vote will be the same. So I think that actually we are just wasting the time of the Senate, with all the many important things we have to do, and it would just be a repeat of the prior effort to invoke cloture, which failed.

So I object to my friend's request.

Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I certainly have no problem with the Senator speaking. But we are on limited time. I ask that the time the Senator from Virginia is going to use apply to the 3 hours that are available under the control of the majority.

Mr. President, could you go over that time again, please?

That is fine. I was told we were going to be finished at 5.

Yes.

I ask the Chair how the 10 minutes got lost in the last 2 or 3 minutes, just out of curiosity.

Mr. Byrd has not yielded back his time as yet, has he?

Mr. President, I briefly say this. I voted----

Yes.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me the time.

Mr. President, I voted for the first gulf war. In fact, I was the first Democrat to announce publicly that I would do that. I voted for the second gulf war. I have no problems with having done that.

I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Alaska. I know what a fine chairman he is on the Appropriations Committee. But I do say this: That for anyone now to say the war is over, it is not over. The war is going on as we speak. One need only go to the families of the 16 people who were killed when the helicopter was shot down just a few hours ago.

Having said that, we still have a long hard row ahead of us in this war in which we are engaged.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express admiration for the hundreds of Nevadans who risked their lives last week to help our neighbors in California battle the deadly wildfires that swept that State. Approximately 500 people came from Nevada to California to help fight the fires. Firefighters from every part of the State--Las Vegas, Henderson and Pahrump in the south, Reno, Carson City and other communities in the north--traveled over the border to help fight the fires. Firefighting units from the Nevada Test Site, the naval air station at Fallon, and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area were sent over the border to help Californians. We even sent 240 Nevada forestry conservation inmates who had been trained to fight fires.

I am very happy and proud that Nevadans responded in this way. We believe in helping our neighbors in the West. So I wasn't surprised that we lent a helping hand.

As one firefighter told the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, the decision to go to California was a no-brainer. He said:

We didn't even have to think twice about it. We wanted to

help our fellow firefighters.

As these Nevada firefighters began returning home over the weekend, they described the gratitude of the Californians whose houses had been saved. They believed they contributed to saving those homes. Unfortunately, they also warned that our State could be next in line for devastating fires.

The California fires raged through forests that had been decimated by drought and disease, leaving dead trees that were dry as tinder. Similar conditions are present in Nevada and other Western States. That is why I supported the forest management act the Senate passed last week.

We have heard the grim toll of the California fires: 20 lives loss, 1 firefighter's life lost, almost 3,500 family homes destroyed, as much as $2 billion in damage. But these fires have also had a direct impact on air quality and water quality. The forest management act is part of the solution but it is not the whole solution.

We have to work together with State and local agencies, and with private groups, to monitor and manage the conditions in our public forests and rangeland. In our State, we have a great example of this kind of cooperation, the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition.

Hundreds of brave Nevadans did their part to control the deadly fires in California last week. We must all do our part to prevent similar fires in the future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, is there time still on the bill?

If the majority is willing to yield back their time, we can vote.

Senator Burns said he will yield back his time.

He will speak after the vote.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I say to my friend that I have the greatest admiration and respect for the Senator from Iowa. I don't say that lightly. No one I know of has ever questioned his ability to be a legislator in the truest sense of the word.

Let me also say--and I speak for myself and I hope I speak for everyone on this side--that I don't hate President Bush. I disagree with him on certain issues. I certainly don't hate him. I don't dislike President Bush. I like him. In all of our meetings, on a personal basis, he has been very cordial. He seems to be a very nice man, and he is President of the United States; I recognize that. But on some issues, I disagree.

This matter of how we should proceed has nothing to do with the integrity of the chairman of the Finance Committee. It has everything to do with what has happened with the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate as to what happened with the bills that need to go to conference. We, of course, over here are very concerned--and it is almost to a point of frightening--with these nonconferences that take place.

I object, and I will put forward my own unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, as reported by the Senate Finance Committee; that there be only two amendments in order, which are at the desk; that those amendments be agreed to; that the act, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without any intervening action or debate.

I think that will move this very important piece of legislation forward, and we can resolve it within a matter of days.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we have had a difficult time with conference committees. A perfect example is the very important Medicare conference. With that matter, we have had the majority say you can have two Democrats attend, but they are the only ones. If anybody else comes into the room who should not be on the conference, we will terminate that session of the conference.

Conferences have not been as we believe they should, where you have Democrats representing the minority and Republicans representing the majority meeting and trying to work out issues. These matters are simply resolved behind closed doors with Democrats having no input. Regarding the very important supplemental, which was completed and voted on and passed today, Senator Stevens specifically said on the floor he would have a full participation of all conferees. We did that. The conference took 2 days. It was tough and grueling. We won very few issues, but at least we had a conference.

Healthy Forests is a bill I support wholeheartedly. As I indicated with the votes taken by the Senate on this issue, most Democrats support this issue. But we want a conference. We are not going to get one. What we suggest is we take our bill and merge it with the House bill and send it back to the House. If they don't like something, they can send it back with amendments. That is what we recommend and that is how we are going to stand on the issue.

Respectfully, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, if I may be recognized to respond to my friend.

Mr. President, the fires in California were disastrous. But what happened in California is not going to be changed by virtue of a conference. We believe if the majority really wants a bill--and I believe they do--they should take our suggestion. It is not anything unique. It has been done many times in the past. We have done it this year; that is, just take what we have passed in the Senate and send it to the House. If there is something they don't like, they can send it back to us with an amendment. That would be my suggestion.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and this Senator just had a discussion on this same issue.

We are concerned about going to conference because there will wind up being no conference. What we want to do is merge the Senate bill with the House bill, send it back to the House, and if they have a problem, they can send it back to us. Therefore, I object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object then.

I withdraw my objection.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Kentucky has the floor, but I just want to say a couple of things. I will be very brief. The Healthy Forests Act and CARE Act are extremely important and we understand that. But to think that what we are suggesting is abnormal is simply not the case. This happens all the time. This is not something unique that we have developed, to send the bill over and have them send it back with amendments. My friend from Kentucky used the term it wasn't normal Senate procedure. Quite to the contrary, it is, Mr. President. We do this all the time and we believe it is certainly appropriate with the experiences we have had with the conferences.