Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns and fellows from the Finance Committee be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the energy bill: Mick Wiedrick, Constantine Tujios, Matt Linstroth, Jeff Klein, Stephanie Beck, Renee Johnson, Mark Kirbabas, Alisa Blum, and Rhonda Sinkfield.

I also ask that the following staff from the Joint Committee on Taxation be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate: George Yin, Thomas Barthold, Ray Beeman, John Bloyer, Nikole Flax, Roger Colinvaux, Harold Hirsch, Deirdre James, Lauralee Matthews, Patricia McDermott, Brian Meighan, John Navratil, Joseph Nega, David Noren, Cecily Rock, Carol Sayegh, Gretchen Sierra, Ron Schultz, Mary Schmitt, Allison Wielobob, Barry Wold, and Tara Zimmerman.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I just received a phone call from a Senator, and the Senator is on an airplane. Therefore, I will have to protect her rights. She has indicated she does not wish us to move off the amendment that is now before the Senate, so there will be no way to offer other amendments until

we have this matter resolved. I am not able to speak to her at this stage, but I will attempt to do so.

She simply will not allow anything to be set aside until we dispose of the amendment that is before us.

The other thing I want to say is, if the distinguished acting majority leader would be generous, the Senator from Florida is here and wishes to speak for up to 3 minutes as in morning business prior to our getting on to the legislation. I would ask if that would be OK with the acting majority leader.

We would not need unanimous consent to do that anyway, so that would be fine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida be recognized to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Madam President, I am not going to speak at any great length regarding the statement made by my

friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, regarding this particular judge, Judge Pryor. I don't know much about him, but I am sure in the near future we will learn more about him because, as indicated by my distinguished friend from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the nomination, at the time of the hearing, was very disputed and it took a long time. So I am sure I will learn more about this man.

But the one statement I want to comment on, made by my friend from Utah, is that the Democrats are looking for ways to oppose President Bush's judicial appointments.

Madam President, there is an order in effect that on Monday night we will vote on two judges, a man by the name of Earl Leroy Yeakel of Texas and a woman by the name of Kathleen Cardone of Texas, both to be Federal District Judges for the United States. Both of those judges will be approved by large margins.

These 2 judges will bring the total to 140 judges who will have been approved by this Senate during the administration of this President-- 140. How many have we turned down? How many have the Democrats--who, as my friend indicated, are looking for ways to oppose President Bush's judicial nominees--turned down? We have turned down two. The count on Monday night will be 140 to 2.

Does it mean that it has to be every judge he gives us? I think not. Any reasonable person, looking at these numbers, would acknowledge there has been no witch hunt by the Democrats. Madam President, 140 to 2 is a pretty good average.

Madam President, today, this afternoon, here in the Senate, I stand, for lack of a better description, with a sad heart. I am sorrowful.

Almost every day we see news reports about casualties sustained by our brave men and women in Iraq. In the last 2 days we have lost five soldiers. These reports are always troubling, but when they involve another young person from my State, they really hit home.

Josh Byers of Sparks, NV, was the kind of young man any of us would be proud to call son. He graduated from Reed High School in Sparks/ Reno, NV. Kids come from both Sparks and Reno to go to Reed High School.

For many years, the Nevada congressional delegation has been holding an event that was first started by Senator Hecht, who was a Senator from Nevada. And this Senator--we started holding what we call Academy Night where we have a meeting in Reno and one in Las Vegas. We bring young men and young women from Nevada who are now in the academies back to Nevada. We have music, and we have presentations made by all the academies, including the Merchant Marine Academy, about what there is at the academies for these high school students.

They draw large crowds. Hundreds and hundreds of people come to these events in Reno and Las Vegas. And now Senator Hecht and I don't do it alone; now the entire congressional delegation joins us: Senator Ensign and I, Congressman Gibbons, Congressman Porter, and Congresswoman Berkley. These are wonderful occasions.

Josh Byers of Sparks, NV, came more than 1 year. He loved Academy Night. He wanted to go to one of our military academies. He worked hard. He was student body president at Reed High School. He was nominated to the Naval Academy by me. He was nominated to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point by Senator Bryan.

Josh's best friend, Beau Elsfelder, in being interviewed by the press last night, referred to Josh as ``The Man.'' That is how he referred to him. He was an A student. As I indicated, he was president of the student body. They had a military cadet unit there. He was the leader of that unit.

He always told his friends he wanted to be an officer in the Army or the Navy. The entire Nevada delegation was supportive of this dream.

As I indicated, I nominated him to the Naval Academy. Senator Bryan nominated him to West Point where he graduated. He went on to become a company commander in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. This past April he was shipped off to Iraq to defend our country and our interests in that part of the world. A little more than 24 hours ago he was riding in a vehicle. Two men hiding beside the road triggered an explosive device, killing him and injuring seven other comrades of Josh's.

Tragically, Josh's mother, on this same date he was killed, was observing her birthday. But mothers, as they are, seem to know. Even before the tragic news about her son she had worried about him a lot, was extremely worried this day. His parents are wonderful people. His father came to Nevada to set up a church. They left northern Nevada and went back to South Carolina to set up a church. His parents just arrived back in this country on the day he was killed, coming back from Guam where they are missionaries.

To show you the outstanding young man Josh was, you only need to look at what his high school counselor Bob White said. He said:

He's the second one we have lost in Iraq.

White, who kept a picture of Josh on his office bulletin board, remembered his second day on the job at Reed High School as a new counselor, during the 1990-91 school year when he met a junior who wanted to attend a military academy. It was Josh Byers. White said:

He came into the office and introduced himself. He said,

``My goal is to go to an academy. I'm a junior. I need your

help.''

White said Josh Byers, as a senior, was accepted into all three major military academies, Army, Navy, and Air Force. I don't know who nominated him to the Air Force. Back then it could have been Senator Ensign when he was in the House. I really don't know who it was. We know who nominated him to the Army and Navy.

White said Josh Byers selected West Point because he thought its rules of conduct were the strictest. White said:

He said, ``Even though I want to go into the Navy, I'm

going into the Army. Their honor code is better.''

Before he left to go to Iraq and after he was there, Josh tried to comfort his mother by telling her the worst fighting was over and it would be finished by the time he got to Iraq. But as she learned, as we learn almost every day from the news, the worst is not over. In fact, Josh kept saying:

Mom, the worst will be over when I get there. We will be

doing peacekeeping, setting up the government and providing

aid to the people of Iraq.

Our young men and women in Iraq are still dying almost every day. My office spoke to Mrs. Byers today. I called and the phone was tied up. I was not able to do that. I wanted to give these remarks prior to the Senate recessing. I left a message for the parents saying I was going to give a speech on the Senate floor today. There is nothing I can do, that we can do, to erase the loss of the parents, but the one thing we can do is never forget the sacrifice made by Josh Byers. I know everyone in the Senate family, whether it is our Chaplain or the individual Senators, offers our condolences for Josh's widow, his parents, and the entire family.

I know we all join in hoping for the safe return of the other 150,000 men and women from America who serve in Iraq today. We wish their safe return, and offer our condolences once again to the Byers family.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Is this the Rudman report?

I ask my friend if he would agree with the statement I am going to make.

I had the pleasure of serving in the Senate with Warren Rudman. I want the Record to reflect that Warren Rudman is not some person who just came upon the scene. He is a distinguished American. He is a combat veteran from Korea, a marine, a veteran. He is very proud of that. When he served in the Senate, he did a lot of very distinguished things, not the least of which as chairman and as ranking member of the Ethics Committee for a long period of time. He went into the private sector. He retired from partisan politics and decided not to run for reelection.

No one I know has ever in my presence criticized the former Senator from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, for being anything other than a straight shooter. Any concern that people may have had was that sometimes he was a little too direct.

Will the Senator agree with me that the distinguished American who led this panel and affixed his name to it is a person who, for lack of a better description, is a very patriotic American, who is, by the way, a card-carrying proud Republican, and who has devoted a great deal of his life to public service and has told us we need to do something to protect the people in the States we represent?

Will the Senator yield?

I hesitated because I think the final statements you have made here have so dramatically painted a picture of why we need to do something, not next Congress but now. I say to my two friends, the sponsors of this amendment, I personally very much appreciate the offering of this amendment. I appreciate it because we have had some other good amendments that have been defeated. But you have taken the approach that there are a lot of things that need to be done, that rifle shots won't work. We need to take into consideration the full impact of the Rudman report and do something about it.

I am convinced, as the Senator has indicated, the amount the Senators have suggested is really too small. But I say to everyone within the sound of my voice, let's say the distinguished Americans who wrote that report are 10 percent off and they are asking for 10 percent more than is really needed. What harm will be done from that because we have too much protection? We all know what can happen if we do not have enough protection.

I know the people of the State of Nevada are scrambling. On any given day in Las Vegas there are 300,000 tourists. People who are firefighters, police officers, medical personnel, when something goes wrong, have to take care of those tourists just as they do with someone born there. I was born in the State of Nevada. But they have as much responsibility to take care of the tourists from Connecticut as I do. I want this Record to be spread with my admiration and respect for the courage the Senators have shown in calling this really what it is. We need more money. That is what it takes to make sure this country is safe. Right now, according to some of the finest people in all America, we are not safe.

Mr. President, we have submitted to the manager of the bill a list of amendments that we have remaining on the bill. This has been cleared with Senator Byrd. At any time the majority is ready to enter an agreement that there would be only a certain number of amendments in order, we are certainly ready to do that.

We have one Senator who can't offer an amendment because there is a Senator on the other side who is unavailable to do that right now. So we have people ready to offer other amendments. If the Senator from Mississippi has completed debate on the last amendment, we are ready to go on another amendment within a short period of time.

Will the Senator from Mississippi yield?

I have spoken to the two sponsors of this amendment and they feel exactly as Senator Byrd does. They have spent all morning debating their amendment, and they are not going to allow us to go to another amendment until we vote on theirs. I suggest we vote on their amendment. Otherwise, we are not going to go forward on this bill. We asked them to come to the floor early this morning. They have been here. The debate has taken more than 2 hours. I think it has been one of the finest debates we have had in some time. I join with them, and I will object to proceeding to another amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

If you have clearance on your side, I think it is appropriate to propound the unanimous consent agreement.

I ask the Senator to modify that to allow any possible managers' amendments cleared by both managers.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is absent attending a funeral.

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

Mr. President, I have conferred with the two managers of the bill. They have agreed that Senator Feinstein will offer the next amendment. If the two leaders agree, then that amendment would be set aside and Senator Byrd would offer the next amendment. We will have two votes around 2 o'clock, give or take a little bit. I think all will work out well in that regard. Senator Feinstein is outside the corridor, and she will bring her amendment in within a matter of a few minutes. Until she arrives, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw amendment No. 1318.

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 also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), is absent attending a funeral.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Senators Specter and Schumer are now going to offer an amendment. They have agreed to take 30 minutes for the two of them. I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of debate evenly divided between the proponents and opponents of this amendment; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to any vote on or in relation to the amendment.

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 also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is absent attending a funeral.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, Senators Specter and Schumer have an amendment. They can complete the debate in 10 minutes. That would be in time to have the moment of silence for the two slain officers.

Following that, Senator Reed of Rhode Island will offer an amendment and we will arrange with the leadership when the votes will take place.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree amendments with respect to the Specter-Schumer amendment and there be a vote on or in relation to that amendment.

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 also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is absent attending a funeral.

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

I have spoken to the two managers. The next amendment that we will offer will be the Reed of Rhode Island amendment. The Senator from Rhode Island has agreed to 30 minutes on his side. Following that amendment, Senator Byrd wishes to offer an amendment. Following the debating on those two amendments, I ask that there be a vote on those two amendments with Senator Byrd's vote coming first and the vote on Senator Reed coming next. Those votes would be on or in relation to those two amendments with no second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent agreement be amended to allow the Senator from Mississippi whatever time he shall consume in opposition to the Reed amendment.

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

I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is absent attending a funeral.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is absent attending a funeral.

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

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

I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is absent attending a funeral.

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

Reserving the right to object, I have spoken to Senator Campbell earlier this evening. We have, now--however many weeks it has been since we were on this bill. The Senator on our side we said would be here to offer the next amendment is Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin is ready whenever the Senator yields the floor.

He is ready to offer that right now, whenever the Senator desires.

If I can respond to the Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Illinois intends to lay down the amendment tonight and that is all.

Mr. President, I would love to hear the Senator from Texas, but Senator Durbin is going to take less than a minute to do his.

Mr. President, we are very close to a point where we could offer the leader the ability to modify his unanimous consent request. Senator Feinstein, we would ask, would offer an amendment which would be a substitute. Senator Murray would offer one on domestic relations, and another Senator would offer one that deals with intent. We think there may be one other amendment, maybe two, that we would be able to enter into. Maybe later today, or probably tomorrow, would be the best time to again renew the request of the majority leader.

At this time we cannot agree; therefore, I object.

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

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

I yield back that time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have checked this with Senator Byrd. He has no objection. Therefore we have no objection.

I announce that 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 ``aye.''

I announce that 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 ``aye.''

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, the Senator from Maine wishes to speak for 10 minutes on the bill. Following her statement, Senator Dayton will be ready to offer an amendment.

I announce that 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''.

Mr. President, I came to Washington in 1982 as a Member of Congress. That class of Democrats in the House of Representatives was one of the largest we had in the history of the country, second or third largest class ever. A number of my colleagues in that class are now Members of the Senate, including the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. Senator Durbin and I have been friends now for 21 years. He was an outstanding Member of the House of Representatives. He did many things so well.

One of the means set up for Members of the House of Representatives to express themselves is what they call 1-minute speeches. Every morning Senators can speak for up to 1 minute on any subject they want. Senator Durbin gave some really classic 1-minute speeches. One that people will always remember was one dealing with baseball bats, Louisville sluggers. It was a dramatic speech and interesting, funny.

People may not always agree with what Senator Durbin says on the Senate floor but I have always believed and always will believe that he is a man of the highest caliber as far as integrity goes. I have served in government for many years. There is no one I would put above Senator Durbin for basic morality.

Having said that, what I want to do this afternoon for just a short period of time is defend not only Senator Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, who is, in my opinion, an exemplary Senator, exemplary in the fact that he is someone who speaks out for issues he believes in, speaks out against issues he does not believe in, and he does it very well. He is a hard worker. He covers his State extremely well.

I never believed that someone could replace the great Paul Simon, a person with whom I served. He was lieutenant governor of Illinois; I was lieutenant governor of Nevada. We served in the House and Senate together, a person who we all cared about a great deal, a great deal of affection for Paul Simon because of his tremendous abilities and his being a person of great sensitivity.

I have to say that as good as Paul Simon was, Dick Durbin is as good as Paul Simon. I rise today not only to defend the senior Senator from Illinois but I think to defend every Member of this body. Yesterday the Senator from Illinois took the floor of this Chamber to address allegations that have been made about him by others. Unknown people have been spreading rumors and innuendos that Senator Durbin, a member of the very prestigious and important Intelligence Committee, No. 1, disclosed classified information; that is, the name of an individual in the NSC or disclosed sites in Iraq. Of course, that is simply not true. Everyone knows it is not true.

When it was shown that there was absolutely no basis to it factually, then people started saying: Well, even though the matters discussed in the very important Intelligence Committee are not secret, when a matter is discussed in the Intelligence Committee is not secret, you still can't talk about it outside the Intelligence Committee hearing room. I think having said that, it pretty well determines that that is an impossible standard to uphold.

Senator Durbin didn't leak this information. There is no question about

that. I, as every Member serving in the Senate, take an oath upon assuming this office to uphold the Constitution. Every Senator takes that responsibility very seriously. Senator Durbin takes that responsibility very seriously. It is part of our job, as we represent the citizens of 50 different States, 270 million people. We are Senators from our respective States but we are also United States Senators. We discuss issues and debate differences of opinion. That is what makes this country so great. But also what makes this country so unique is the understanding that the common good of our country is more important than the political differences, the realization that we all respect one another enough to tell the truth even when we disagree on an issue.

No one should ever suggest that Senator Durbin doesn't always tell the truth. I believe this very sincerely and very certainly. I again repeat, underscore, and underline the integrity of this friend that I have had for 21 years who has served this country extremely well as a Member of Congress for that entire time. So I don't want to speculate as to why someone would be spreading rumors to the contrary.

Senator Durbin has political opinions, and he is very willing to discuss them. I hope that someone who disagrees with his political opinions would not spread rumors that are without any fact. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, let them come forward.

But during the time this issue has been fermenting and people have been leaking information, it simply is without foundation. There has been no factual evidence coming forward. We cannot have sneak attacks on the character of a Member of the Senate. They should stop immediately.

Mr. President, tomorrow the President will travel to Philadelphia to hold a press conference to say that the Treasury Department will start mailing the child tax credit checks tomorrow to millions of Americans families. We, of course, are glad these checks are going out.

Everyone on this side of the aisle feels that way because in this economy working families need all the help they can get. Unemployment rates are at a staggering number. They have gone up, now, in successive months. Unemployment rates around the country are the highest they have been in many years--13 years, I believe, is the number.

Not only are working families in need of help, but there are 12 million children who are still being left behind. Mr. President, 49 days ago this body passed a bill to correct this problem. The bill passed by an overwhelming 94-to-2 vote. The administration said they supported the Senate bill and urged the House to pass it quickly. The House passed its own bill but then turned around and voted to instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate bill.

It sounds simple: The House, the Senate, White House, have all signaled support for the Senate bill. This is a conference, then, that should have taken 5 minutes. Instead, it has been more than 40 days and the conferees have not even met yet.

The day before yesterday, Senator Lincoln proposed a new bill to break the logjam. It includes the original Senate bill that passed, 94 Senators for, only 2 against--a bill that helps 12 million children without adding a dime to the national debt. In addition, in a bow to the House, Senator Lincoln even included the military tax bill that passed the Senate previously 98 to nothing. It includes many important provisions, including a new deduction for expenses paid by members of the National Guard and the Reserves. Every provision of the Lincoln bill has passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.

We need to pass it today, again, to send a strong message to the House, again, before they leave for their recess in a couple of days for the entire month of August plus what is left of July.

This legislation will help 12 million children whose parents work hard and are struggling to provide for their families. It also delivers tax reductions to our men and women in uniform who are serving and defending our country. It sounds like a good combination to me.

As a result of that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1434, a bill to accelerate the increase in refundability of the child tax credit, that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from New York. I walked up to her desk to talk to her about what we were doing and I just failed to do so. It is my fault, not hers. We have a vote in 2 minutes. The manager of the bill is not here.

I am happy to yield.

I think after this vote would be perfect. We have two votes.

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 ``yea.''

I announce that 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.''

Reserving the right to object--and Senator Clinton is standing next to me--based on the colloquy on the amendment that has taken place in the last 40 minutes, Senator Clinton has indicated she will withdraw her amendment.

Amendment No. 1348 Withdrawn

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Clinton, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment.

Mr. President, I have no objection to the unanimous consent request propounded by the Senator from Mississippi.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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.''

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 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''.

The leader should be aware that we are going to run a hotline to find out what amendments we have on Homeland Security. Senator Byrd's amendment is a large amendment, and he has a speech that will take close to an hour to talk about. As soon as that is completed, I am sure we will be able to arrive at an end of the debate on that issue and a vote can be scheduled at the pleasure of the leader.

I would ask, through the Chair: We are this morning going to be in morning business until 11. Senator Byrd is preoccupied on other matters until 11:30. The leader has indicated there will be no votes this morning. The party caucuses usually run until 2:15, and we are always jammed for time in ours. I wonder if it would be in the best interest of the Senate that the party caucuses be extended an additional 15

minutes from 2:15 to 2:30. I think we should be in recess when Mr. Bremer is here.

The point is, if the leader intends to put us in recess until 3:30, could we extend the caucuses another 15 minutes?

Will the Senator yield?

To put this in proper perspective, the distinguished Democratic leader is aware, to complete this bill in 5 days, would require us to handle 77\1/2\ amendments a day. That has never happened in the Senate and never will happen in the Senate. If we go to a 4-day week, which we usually do here, coming late Monday nights, that would mean 95 amendments a day.

I say to the distinguished Democratic leader, if we were fortunate enough to be able to get Senators not to offer half of those amendments, and worked a 5-day week, we would still have to do 38 amendments a day, which never has happened and never will happen.

I know this bill, to me, is very important in the sense it has in it an alternative section that I think is quite good. I would like to finish the bill. But it is not going to be finished when we have 382 amendments pending, and we only have 4 or 5 days to complete this bill. It just is humanly impossible under any sense of one's ability to understand the Senate or even one's imagination.

So I very much appreciate the Senator being here for those of us who want an Energy bill. We want one with some debate or we will not have an Energy bill. We have too many important issues that simply have to be debated. So I extend my appreciation to the Senator for recognizing we cannot do approximately 77 amendments a day.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished majority leader's time is not part of morning business. Is that right?

I am sure, if the Republican leader were here, he would acknowledge that morning business should be divided fairly. The Democratic leader's time has been calculated as in the Democrats' half of the morning business; is that right?

I ask unanimous consent that for fairness, the Republican leader's time be calculated as in morning business, along with that of the Democratic leader. That way the time will be divided fairly.

Mr. President, Senator Byrd has said, as the distinguished manager of the bill has noted, that he has no objection to moving to another amendment. The only caveat would be that at 3:30, or whenever we reconvene after the caucuses, that he be recognized and his amendment recur. That would give someone at least an hour and a half or thereabouts to work on their amendment.

As I indicated to the distinguished majority leader, we are in the process of hotlining. We do have a list of amendments. I am going to step off the Senate floor now and make some calls and see if we can get someone to come over.

There was some understanding that Senator Byrd would have the floor this morning, but that is not the case now. So maybe someone could come over when there is a relative quiet time, before the rush at the end of this bill takes place sometime later this week.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd amendment be set aside, and that Senator Byrd's amendment recur when we come back after our caucus recess today.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment deals with our efforts to secure hometowns. First, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee for their efforts to bring a responsible bill to the Senate floor. As I have said to both the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, I think the bill's biggest problem is simply a lack of money. They did not have an easy task. The subcommittee did not have an easy task. The full Appropriations Committee did not have an easy task with this new subcommittee, created as a result of the 9/11 terror act.

The subcommittee allocations this year have made it a challenge for each subcommittee. Unfortunately, the budget that Congress passed this year has made it nearly impossible to address all the needs of our Nation's emergency responders.

A recent report, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, and directed by Warren Rudman, who, of course, we know is a longtime Senator from the State of New Hampshire, found that our Nation will need an additional--let's round it off to $100 billion--basically what he said is more than $98 billion over the next 5 years to meet all of our hometown safety needs, an additional $20 billion each year.

Because of this fact, I am on the floor today to offer an amendment that will attempt to address one of the areas that I believe we have not sufficiently addressed; namely, the tourists that come to many of our Nation's cities.

The United States is home to some of the most visited and cherished cities in the world. I applaud my friend, the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for coming up, in the supplemental bill we just passed, with $50 million to promote tourism for the United States. The State and local governments in our country will make far more than what we spend by advertising, by promoting places in America for people to visit.

I am always stunned when Senator Ensign and I have our ``Welcome to Washington'' meetings every Thursday morning. People come to Washington from all over Nevada, and a large number of them say: I have never been to our Nation's Capital before. They have been other places. I am always amazed when someone says: Yes, I have been to

London. I have been to Paris or Mexico City but never Washington, DC. Washington, DC, is a beautiful city. It is our Nation's Capital. Certainly we should be proud.

Not only do we have landmarks, such as the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Capitol, the White House, the beautiful Mall, but things are being built all the time to entice people to come here. It is too bad we do not do a better job of promoting tourism for our country because people who come to Washington, DC, see amazing things. If they have been here before, they see new things when they come back.

Now under construction is the American Indian Museum. It is going to be a beautiful place on our Mall. In recent years, of course, we have added places to visit, i.e., the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial, which is a tremendous piece of work. They did a wonderful job in laying out the four terms this man served as President of the United States--the four times he was elected as President of the United States.

One of the most moving items on that Mall is a memorial that was relatively recently constructed, the Korean Memorial, especially at nighttime. Those soldiers are lined up in their ponchos, with their rifles on their shoulders. You can just see them in the ``coldest war,'' as the Korean war is referred to.

There are lots of places to visit in America. We should do everything we can to get more people to come here.

Again, I commend the Senator from Alaska for working it out so we could have this money to promote the United States.

Whether you visit the Nation's Capital, go to Disney World or Disneyland, or go to Chicago, the so-called windy city that is really not as windy as some might think--it is an extremely pleasant place, if you are not there in the wintertime. Chicago is a wonderful place. I was so impressed when we went to the National Democratic Convention there. I really didn't look forward to going to Chicago. I had been there basically in the wintertime at the airport, and those are not pleasant experiences. One of the nicest times my wife and I ever had was at that convention. Chicago is a beautiful city, with many places to see. And it is a place for visitors, for tourists.

America's tourist destinations are a source of pride for our country, as well they should be. Our national parks are places that are the envy of the rest of the world.

But in our cities, emergency responders take just as much pride in protecting those temporary residents, those tourists who make their homes in hotel rooms rather than apartments and houses. So we should make sure these emergency responders have the resources to protect us when we travel, just as they would protect us in a permanent residence.

This may not seem like a major issue, but let's look at some of the facts. Tourists account for a sizable number of people in many of our larger cities. There are 15 cities with more than 45,000--45,000--hotel rooms, based on a study by Smith Travel Research. Each hotel room accounts for several visitors every day. That means just the hotel rooms in each of these cities is responsible for at least 100,000 new people, additional people each day. That is the size of a small city.

In Nevada, we have cities that have a lot of people in them: Reno, Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas; and then there are places that are pretty small by most standards.

Las Vegas has about 130,000 hotel rooms. We have been very fortunate. The occupancy has been good even after September 11. In fact, in Las Vegas an average of about a quarter of a million people stay in our hotels each day. During most weekends, it approaches 350,000 or 400,000. That tourist population of only 250,000 on a weekday in Las Vegas represents a city the size of Savannah, GA, or Tallahassee, FL.

This amendment would correct that deficiency. It would correct it in Orlando, Las Vegas, New York, Dallas, and other places where we have a lot of tourists on a daily basis. This amendment would set aside a relatively small amount. This bill is more than $25 billion but not $30 billion, so this is $20 million for these areas where there are a lot of tourists. This amendment would not take away from any other worthwhile program. My amendment would simply add $20 million to the money we are already spending for homeland security. The Rudman report told us we need to give our emergency responders almost $100 billion in the next 5 years. So this means unless we do something we are giving our emergency responders $100 billion less than what they need. This amendment is a start to addressing the shortfall.

We have a long way to go, but we have to start somewhere. It is quite clear this amendment is direct. It provides an additional $20 million to be distributed to cities with large tourist populations. The amendment has no offset. I have indicated that. There are very few opportunities for offsets in this bill since almost all programs are underfunded. So trying to take money from one place and putting it someplace else in this bill certainly would not be fair.

I repeat, according to a task force chaired by Senator Rudman, current homeland security funding levels will fall $98 billion short of the needs of our Nation over the next 5 years. From the standpoint of simply directing a message to the American people, it makes sense that we take care of people no matter where they are or why they are there. We have to make sure people who are emergency responders--police, fire, emergency medical personnel--have the money to take care of people, whether they are tourists or permanent residents.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

How much is set aside in this bill for these discretionary grants?

I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from Mississippi. I am one of Secretary Ridge's fans. I came to Washington with him in 1982. Under very trying circumstances, I think he has done a very good job.

I also want to elaborate on some of the problems we have in Nevada. We have about 2.4 million people who come from overseas to Las Vegas. So on any given day there are 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 people from other countries in Las Vegas. I misspoke before when I said there were 130,000 hotel rooms; it is really closer to 150,000 hotel rooms in Las Vegas. It goes without saying that in those hotel rooms, which average about 90 percent occupancy, there are a lot of extra people.

I do appreciate not only what the Senator from Mississippi said but how he said it. Probably $750 million for discretionary grants isn't enough, but it is certainly a lot of money. I hope those who work with Secretary Ridge will do what they can to protect people in destinations no matter how they got there or why they are there. Whether you are a resident of Georgia and you are in Nevada or a resident of Nevada and you are in Georgia doing a little tourist work, you still have to be protected; and whether you are from England or Memphis and you are in Las Vegas, there is still a requirement to take good care of the people who are there, make sure they have police and fire protection and emergency medical personnel.

So I appreciate the work of the subcommittee, as I stated when I started my remarks. We have a problem in America today with security needs, and we in Congress have an obligation to do what we can to help State and local governments with problems that are national in scope. This is one area where we need help.

At an appropriate time, after further discussion with the chairman and ranking member of the committee, I will make a determination as to whether this amendment should require a vote or whether I want to work on the basis of the colloquy with the Senator from Mississippi and withdraw the amendment. That decision will be made at a subsequent time.

Reserving the right to object, I wonder if it would not be to the benefit of especially the Senator and myself, but the Senate generally, if as soon as the Senator completes these unanimous consent requests we go into recess at that time rather than wait until 12:30?

Mr. President, I know we have been notified that one Senator is on the way over here to speak on this amendment before the Senator makes his point of order. We have at least one, maybe two Senators who wish to speak on this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from New York. Senator Byrd and I were talking earlier. No State has suffered as did New York as a result of the September 11 incident. We all know that. But I bring to the Senator's attention that I offered an amendment earlier today saying that one of the facts that should be taken into consideration is how many tourists are in the community within any given time. Of course, New York is a tourist-oriented community. People are there all the time for various reasons-- conventions, just wanting to see the Big Apple. Even today that is in fact the case.

One of the facts I brought to the attention of the Senate the other day is that in Las Vegas, on any given day, there are about 300,000 tourists, and the Senator would agree, I am sure, that the people of Las Vegas--law enforcement, fire, emergency medical responders, first- line responders generally--have as much of an obligation to take care of someone visiting Las Vegas from New York as they do someone who lives there on a full-time basis. The Senator would agree with that, would she not?

I also ask the Senator this: One of the other considerations I brought to the attention of the Senate is that on any given day in Las Vegas there are about 75,000 people from foreign countries. But in looking at some of the statistics I have, even though we have almost 2\1/2\ million people who visit Las Vegas yearly who come from other countries, New York City--not the State of New York but New York City--has 5\1/2\ million people who come from foreign countries to visit. So on any given day in New York City, instead of the 75,000 we have in Las Vegas, the Senator has 150,000, approximately.

Now, would the Senator agree that someone who is visiting New York City from Turkey, Germany, or Japan, the first-line responders have an obligation to make sure they are taken care of in the event of an emergency just as someone who is a New York resident?

I hope there is some consideration given to people who are in New York City, Las Vegas, all of the States--Orlando, FL, where we have Disney World--that have these large numbers of tourists come from various parts of our country and around the world, and I hope the American people understand that. I compliment the Senator from New York for her outstanding statement in bringing to the attention of the people of this country and the Senate the information that only can come from someone who represents the State of New York.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Mississippi has been very patient today. We have one additional Senator who says he is on his way. I am confident he is. So if the Senator from Mississippi would be patient, he should be here shortly.

I note the absence of a quorum.

I am happy to withhold. Of course I will.

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

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for his work on this important Homeland Security appropriations bill. As the Senator knows, I am pleased that the bill we are discussing today includes within the Transportation Security Administration ``$13 million for the hazardous materials permit program and truck tracking system to provide for nationwide coverage.'' As you are aware, the Federal Government has issued warnings that terrorists may exploit the 800,000 daily hazardous waste and dangerous goods shipments in new attacks on the U.S.--either as weapons of mass destruction or in the manufacture of such weapons. So the funding you and Chairman Cochran have included in this bill is very timely and important.

I want to ask the Senator if he is aware that the University of Nevada Las Vegas is working to initiate development of a National Hazardous Materials Transportation Monitoring and Response Center that would build upon existing commercially available satellite based nationwide truck monitoring and communications technology. The center would ensure a secure location for nationwide hazardous material truck monitoring. It would also link, for the first time, the ability to remotely identify an incident anywhere in the country with the ability to immediately alert the appropriate emergency responders and law enforcement officials.

I thank my colleague from West Virginia and the Chairman Cochran for their support of those efforts and look forward to working with the committee on this important issue.