Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, but no later than June 27, the Senate proceed to a bill introduced by Senators Reid and Dorgan on the subject of concurrent receipts, the text of which is at the desk, S. 392. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the bill, and that there be 60 minutes equally divided for debate in the usual form. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, we just got a call from the cloakroom, so I withhold my UC request and yield to the Senator from Utah. He has one.

Mr. President, we also hope to finish at least the amendments we know of that deal with things nuclear on this bill. Senator Dorgan is standing by, ready to offer the next amendment. He has indicated he would agree to a time limit. I believe the amendment has been shown to the other side to see if they would be willing to enter into a reasonable time limit. Last night, he suggested an hour and a half equally divided. We will submit that to staff and see if we can get something worked out and agree to that in a short time, hopefully before the vote takes place.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. President, how long did the last vote take?

Mr. President, if we are going to finish the bill and if Members want to do it in the next day or two, I suggest that we should have some constraint on the time we are voting.

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

Mr. President, how long did that vote take?

We have been approached in the minority on several occasions today asking when could we finish this bill. We are doing our best. We have people who want to offer amendments. We have wasted at least a half hour this morning on people not being here for votes. I personally believe, for Democrats and Republicans, if they are not here at a reasonable time, the vote should be cut off. This is not fair. We have Senator Dorgan who has waited all morning. Senator Collins is here.

I am not going to elaborate further, but this is not good for the Senate. I hope the majority leader will call these votes more quickly. We get the hue and cry to speed things up. If we waste all time during the votes, there is nothing to speed up.

I say to my most distinguished friend, I said in my statement, this applies to Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. President, the problem we have over here is we cannot say the vote is over. The Senator's side can call the votes. I hope they do it more quickly. If people start missing votes, then fewer people will have to wait around in the future.

Mr. President, Senator Dorgan last night said he would agree to 45 minutes. We have a unanimous consent request the distinguished manager of the bill will offer. It is my understanding that prior to his starting, there is going to be 5 minutes for the Senator from Maine on an amendment that has been agreed to.

Of course.

Mr. President, if I may interrupt my friend from Virginia, how much time?

We accept that.

Reserving the right to object, that doesn't mean we are going to have two votes, or does it?

Madam President, it is also my understanding that Senator Lautenberg would be willing to offer an amendment following the statement of the Senator from West Virginia. He also indicated he would agree to a time limit.

I haven't had a chance to talk about the time with him. I just wanted to alert people of that. Shortly after Senator Lautenberg offers his amendment, there would be a vote.

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

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

Madam President, we have spoken to the Senator from West Virginia. He has no objection to the two managers of the bill disposing of the two Nelson amendments.

If I could just be heard briefly? We have several people on our side who want to offer amendments. I hope those people who want to offer amendments would contact the two managers of the bill. We are running out of names of people to offer amendments. Both leaders have indicated they want to complete this bill as quickly as possible. We are not going to be able to work late into the night tonight.

Madam President, this is an excuse so he doesn't have to go to this dinner.

We are not invited.

I would say then there is a possibility we could complete this legislation tonight.

That would be good, if Senator Hutchison could go first before Senator Lautenberg.

How long will she take?

Senator Lautenberg would be 1:45, and he will take one-half hour. He probably will not use the whole one-half hour. I would be happy to ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchison from Texas be allowed to offer her amendment, followed by the Senator from New Jersey.

He is not going to start until quarter to 2.

Following Senator Lautenberg, could I modify my request for him to be next in order?

Madam President, how much time is left on this side on this amendment that is now pending?

Madam President, I ask my friend from Vermont, how much time do you need?

Would that be appropriate?

How much time does the Senator from Nevada need?

Why don't we have the vote at 2:50?

That would be 15 minutes, each having 7\1/2\ minutes.

Madam President, while we are here, the Senator from Virginia has also said he would agree that the next amendment in order is Harkin. That is already the order, but the time on that will be one- half hour evenly divided in the usual form regarding second-degree amendments.

Following that amendment, Senator Bingaman has an amendment on missile defense which Senator Warner has reviewed.

Senator Bingaman has agreed to a 30-minute time agreement on that. That would be under the usual form relating to second-degree amendments. I ask that in the form of a unanimous consent request.

The reason we have done this is there is a briefing at 3 o'clock. We could stack the two votes, the Harkin and Bingaman votes, at around 4 o'clock, thereabouts.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) is necessarily absent.

Under the previous order, what is the next?

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

I appreciate very much the Senator offering this amendment. He and I have worked on this matter through several Congresses. It is an extremely important amendment. It is unfortunate that it is not going to be relevant to this matter. I hope there is some way during this Congress that we can expedite this most important amendment which the Senator is talking about.

Talking about job creation, this is a way to create jobs--get rid of this arbitrary rule that at one time may have had a little bit of reason but now has absolutely no reason to be on the statutes of this country.

Our current MTOPS metric measure which is used to regulate the export of U.S.-made technology hardware is outdated, hurts our high-technology industry, and should be better crafted to address our Nation's specific security concerns.

If U.S. companies are to effectively compete outside the United States in foreign markets, the current MTOPS metric measure must be repealed.

Once repealed, the current MTOPS measure will remain applicable to all export controls until the President, after consultation with the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate has taken into consideration all relevant and necessary security concerns to ensure that U.S.-developed technology cannot be abused for the purposes of tyranny and terrorism.

The President shall also consult with the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and any other relevant national security or intelligence agency under the export administration system affected by the MTOPS provisions.

We must act now to protect our status as world leaders in technology development.

In the interests of national security and economic productivity, we must clear a path to reform the current MTOPS metric measure that is unnecessarily restraining our high-technology industry.

Amendment No. 776 Withdrawn

No objection.

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

Mr. President, I have spoken to the two managers of the bill. They are both in agreement that we could set aside the Bingaman amendment and move to the next amendment which would be offered, and that is by Senator Dayton. Senator Dayton is offering an amendment on buy America. He has agreed to 30 minutes equally divided. We would, of course, have the normal agreement that no second-degree amendments will be offered.

So I ask unanimous consent that we set aside Bingaman and move now to the Dayton amendment, and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote on the matter.

It would be in the usual form in relation to any language that might be stricken.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. President, Senator Warner, who has been so heavily engaged in this legislation, allowed me to go forward with a unanimous consent request. However, it was brought to our attention that there is a Senator who wishes to offer a second-degree amendment, or might want to offer a second-degree amendment to this matter. I have consent that we go forward with the Dayton amendment but we would remove the time agreement.

That is right. If that does not come to be, we will worry about a time agreement at a subsequent time. The agreement is we are setting aside Bingaman and moving to Dayton.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Minnesota.

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

Madam President, following the disposition of the matter pending before the Senate--that is the Dayton amendment and the second- degree amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona--I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be recognized to offer an amendment and make a statement and withdraw the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I ask the Senator to modify his amendment so we would have a vote on the McCain amendment; regardless of the outcome of the McCain amendment, that will be followed by a vote on the Dayton amendment; that the McCain amendment be 15 minutes in length and the Dayton amendment be 10 minutes in length.

That may come later. At this stage, the Senator from Minnesota wishes a recorded vote.

Yes. The arrangement we worked out--and that is why we modified the unanimous consent request of the distinguished Senator from Virginia. Regardless of the outcome of the McCain amendment, we have asked for a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.

That is right.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall on the Dayton amendment be vitiated.

Mr. President, under the order, the Senator from Washington is to be recognized.

I ask if my understanding is correct, that there will be no more rollcall votes tonight? Senator Warner and Senator Levin are going to work to see how much of the bill can be completed tonight--maybe all of it.

No. The minority has not offered all the amendments which they intend to offer. I have kept in very close touch with the two managers of the bill. They know which amendments we now have.

Senator Schumer is near ready to offer his amendment. That will require a vote tomorrow for sure. There are a couple of other amendments we are working on.

She has indicated that she will not be ready to vote tonight. We are going to have to work on that in the morning. The Senator from California has been working with our manager. We hope to be able to work something out on that. We don't have that finished yet.

We also have explained to the Senator from Virginia that Senator Byrd has a problem, and we are going to try to work that out.

Until we get Senator Byrd's problem resolved, we can't have time for final passage.

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

Mr. President, Senator Murray is waiting for a ruling from the Chair on her parliamentary inquiry.

In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carper be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes, and that following his speech, the Senator from Washington be recognized.

Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the Senator from Washington. She would be willing to enter into a reasonable time agreement. She would want to complete that debate tomorrow, however, in that the hour is late and she has spent so much time here already. I would be happy to work with the two managers of the bill to come up with a reasonable time she can debate this in the morning and have a vote on it in the morning.

We would be willing to enter into a time agreement if we saw the amendments and they were reasonable and we thought we could do that. But not having them, we can't do that. The Senator from Washington, if there would have been an up-or-down amendment, would have agreed to a 40-minute time limit evenly divided.

That is right. I would note we have very few amendments. Senator Dodd has one. Senator Daschle has one. Senator Boxer has one we have already discussed, and Senator Biden has one. We have very few amendments. Some of these may be worked out by the managers. The Daschle amendment, as we have indicated, would be 20 minutes evenly divided. The Schumer amendment has been declared not relevant so we can't take that up. The Boxer amendment, we agreed to a one-hour time agreement on that. Both managers know what that amendment is. Senator Biden has agreed to 30 minutes on his amendment if it is not agreed to.

Well, she was showing it to anybody who wanted to look at it.

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

Mr. President, I have conferred with the two managers--I was going to say more than I wanted to, but I will not say that, but I conferred with the two managers often tonight, and it appears the Senate will be best served by clearing a number of amendments that the two managers have worked on for several days now. They have approximately a dozen amendments. They would do that tonight.

I put this in the form of a unanimous consent request: that tomorrow morning, when the Senate convenes, after the prayer and the pledge, we would move to the Boxer amendment, which is a post-Iraq war contracting matter, and that there would be 45 minutes of debate on that amendment--30 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, 15 minutes under the control of Senator Warner--and in keeping with the usual unanimous consent request for second-degree amendments that we have done throughout the day; and that following that, we could move to perhaps the Daschle amendment, perhaps the Dodd amendment.

We are really getting few amendments over here. We all recognize we have to dispose of the relevant amendment that Senator Murray filed this afternoon. And Senator Brownback, Senator Warner, and others will work on that tonight to see what is contemplated regarding that tomorrow.

So the only unanimous consent request I make tonight is that in the morning we go to the Boxer amendment in keeping with the request I just made.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what this unanimous consent agreement says is, in the morning we will come in, do the prayer and the pledge, then we will move to the Daschle amendment. When that is disposed of, Senator Brownback will be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment to the Murray amendment. This is a right the majority would have.

What we are doing here is making sure that Senator Frist, who may not be available at that time in the morning, will have his rights protected.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with the junior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, entitled ``Securing Judicial Independence Act of 2003.'' This legislation is desperately needed to increase the compensation for members of the Federal bench. Before I came to work in the United States Congress in 1982, I practiced law in my home State of Nevada. I am proud to be a lawyer, and I have great respect and appreciation for the practice of law and those involved in the judicial process. The very reason there has been such a great deal of debate on the Senate floor regarding Federal judicial nominations is precisely because these positions are so important to the administration of a fair and effective legal system. The individuals chosen to serve on our Federal bench make lifetime commitments to public service. However, at the same time we have vacancies on the bench, the real pay for these jobs has declined drastically. The compensation for Federal judges has diminished by 25 percent in the past three decades. How can we continue to attract the ``best of the best'' when low salaries are offered for lifetime tenures?

The answer is simple. In order to continue to attract and retain the most talented men and women to the Federal bench the salaries must be raised. Our forefathers recognized that judicial compensation was intricately tied to judicial independence. In 1989, Congress linked the salaries of its own members to senior executives and Federal judges. As a result, Federal judges did not receive cost of living increases for several years in the 1990s. Additionally, even the Justices of our highest court, the United States Supreme Court, make far less than leaders of educational institutions and not-for-profit organizations. Thus, in raising Federal judicial salaries by 25 percent and eliminating the annual Congressional authorization of cost of living adjustments for Federal judges, this bill helps to secure judicial independence. It restores both fairness and the appeal of public service to the Federal judiciary by improving compensation. Better compensation means better quality judges, and quality judges instill greater public confidence in the Federal courts. Our Constitution creates lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, and the men and women who accept these positions are giving up far more lucrative careers. They do this based on a calling to public service and a devotion to the administration and adherence of Federal laws. While the salaries are not of the level these individuals could demand in the private sector, it is only fair they be adequately compensated. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with the junior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, entitled ``Securing Judicial Independence Act of 2003.'' This legislation is desperately needed to increase the compensation for members of the Federal bench. Before I came to work in the United States Congress in 1982, I practiced law in my home State of Nevada. I am proud to be a lawyer, and I have great respect and appreciation for the practice of law and those involved in the judicial process. The very reason there has been such a great deal of debate on the Senate floor regarding Federal judicial nominations is precisely because these positions are so important to the administration of a fair and effective legal system. The individuals chosen to serve on our Federal bench make lifetime commitments to public service. However, at the same time we have vacancies on the bench, the real pay for these jobs has declined drastically. The compensation for Federal judges has diminished by 25 percent in the past three decades. How can we continue to attract the ``best of the best'' when low salaries are offered for lifetime tenures?

The answer is simple. In order to continue to attract and retain the most talented men and women to the Federal bench the salaries must be raised. Our forefathers recognized that judicial compensation was intricately tied to judicial independence. In 1989, Congress linked the salaries of its own members to senior executives and Federal judges. As a result, Federal judges did not receive cost of living increases for several years in the 1990s. Additionally, even the Justices of our highest court, the United States Supreme Court, make far less than leaders of educational institutions and not-for-profit organizations. Thus, in raising Federal judicial salaries by 25 percent and eliminating the annual Congressional authorization of cost of living adjustments for Federal judges, this bill helps to secure judicial independence. It restores both fairness and the appeal of public service to the Federal judiciary by improving compensation. Better compensation means better quality judges, and quality judges instill greater public confidence in the Federal courts. Our Constitution creates lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, and the men and women who accept these positions are giving up far more lucrative careers. They do this based on a calling to public service and a devotion to the administration and adherence of Federal laws. While the salaries are not of the level these individuals could demand in the private sector, it is only fair they be adequately compensated. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Would the Chair announce morning business. Has that been done?

Mr. President, I know the junior Senator from Texas is in the Chamber and wishes to speak.

I am wondering how long he wishes to speak. I direct the question through the Chair to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I have some remarks I wish to give while the majority leader is on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 10:10, and that the extra time be equally divided.

Mr. President, the subject of Medicare is extremely important. Medicare is not a perfect program, but it is a good program. It has done so much to help the American people.

I am glad to see we are going to address the issue. I hope we address it with the intent of doing more than just calling it Medicare reform. It has to be real Medicare reform. I hope that can be accomplished.

(The remarks of Mr. REID pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 146 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

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

What is the business before the Senate?

Will the Senator from Michigan yield?

On this side, we are ready for a vote on the Graham of South Carolina amendment. We ask that vote occur around 11:30 today, if at all possible.

We would not be willing to do that. We want a rollcall vote on that amendment.

The time would be 11:30 to have a vote.

I think we will probably only need one vote. We would accept Daschle by voice if, in fact, the Graham of South Carolina amendment passes, which I have an indication that it will. In the meantime, staff will work toward that goal with the two leaders and other people can come to the floor and offer amendments, which are certainly waiting to be offered.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator is aware, is he not, that on our side we have very competent staff, Marty Paone, Lula Davis, who help us with parliamentary issues that come before this body; the Senator is aware of that, of course?

Is the Senator aware that we have been told by them that the rulings that have been made on this bill have been a surprise to even them, in the many, many years they have served in the Senate? The new--I am talking about new in the last few days--determination of what is relevant has surprised even our very competent floor staff. Is the Senator aware of that?

Is the Senator aware that, generally speaking, relevance is not germaneness? They are two totally different concepts; is that correct?

I was surprised, flabbergasted, disappointed last night when the amendment that you and I and Senator McCain--I didn't mention his name last night and I apologize for not doing that because I was so taken aback by the ruling of the Chair--that our concurrent receipt amendment was ruled nonrelevant. That is an amendment to allow the military to receive their disability pay and their retirement pay.

I would have to think this huge bill we have here--there are copies on the desk, here it is right here--in this huge bill here, I would have to think there is something about pay for the military, about retirement pay, about disability. But the Chair ruled that was not the case.

I accept the ruling of the Chair. I do not like it, but I certainly support the statement made by the Senator from Michigan last night. I thought that was a very fair statement. We have to go along with what the Chair rules. There is no other alternative, but that does not take away that this has been a tremendous surprise, disappointment to me, and I would think to the Senator from North Dakota. Is that a fair statement?

Here is a situation that has arisen that is totally against what we have learned has been the rule of relevance. This is not some magical concept that just came out of the sky, but in the

last few hours there is a new determination of what relevance is. Is this a fair statement, I say to the Senator from North Dakota?

Madam President, will my friend yield?

I have the greatest affection for my friend from Virginia. If there were ever a southern gentleman, he is it. But this question will not do the trick. It is like asking Al Capone if he is a criminal. I am not saying that the Parliamentarian is a criminal, but you can't ask him to defend himself. That is what this amounts to. That is what is happening, especially here in the Senate. This is not the way to do it. I say to those on that side of the aisle that I have the greatest confidence in our floor staff, as they do theirs. They are not Johnny- come-lately. They have been here a long time. They knew when this unanimous consent agreement was entered into what it was. They knew what the standard basic definition was. They are dumbfounded as to the rulings of the Chair. Marty Paone and Lula Davis--who I lived with on this floor, and spend days and weeks and months of my life, I depend on for advice and counsel every day, are dumbfounded.

I say to my friend from Virginia that to ask the Chair to determine a change in the definition in the last 2 days is not the way to go.

It has not.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I would like the Record to reflect, following the statement of the Chair, a big smile and a laugh from the Senator from Nevada based on that decision by the Chair.

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

Is the Republican manager of the bill ready to move forward on any unanimous consent requests?

That would be certainly fine.

Before we go into the quorum call, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, over the past year and a half I have spoken on many occasions of including women in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Since then we have seen the inclusion of two women cabinet members give hope to the women of Afghanistan. We have also learned the inclusion of only two women is certainly not enough. Greater representation of women is necessary in Afghanistan. Likewise, Iraqi women should play some part, and I believe an important one, in the rebuilding of their country. Iraqi

women should be an effective force for peace, for democracy, and for human rights. Women must be included, and not just symbolically but substantively, in the charting of the future of these two nations. So today I urge the Bush administration to, No. 1, ensure women are included as full participants in the new government of Iraq and, No. 2, that there be an improvement and expansion of our security mission in Afghanistan so that women are free to fully participate all over that country.

The first U.S.-sponsored planning meetings for Iraq give me concern. In a meeting of Iraqi expatriates in London, 3 out of 65 participants were women. Women at this meeting urged greater representation in subsequent meetings, but at the next meeting in Iraq in April there were still only 4 women out of 80 participants. In fact, women were losing, not gaining, representation in Iraq. Women must be included in leadership roles in the planning of the new interim government as well as in cabinet positions in the interim government itself.

In spite of Saddam Hussein's impression, women in Iraq have a proud history and involvement in the workforce in public service. We can't let this history be lost.

In recent history women have held 20 percent of Iraq's parliamentary seats which is significantly more than the 3.5 percent average among Arab states. Let me repeat that: In the Iraq parliament, 20 percent of the seats were held by women and in the rest of the Middle East Arab states 3.5 percent women are in the parliamentary seats. Even though many of these parliaments--in fact, I think I could say all of them, are really not without a lot of power--I am sorry, they are without a lot of power--it still says a great deal as to the makeup of these parliamentary bodies--3.5 percent as the average among Arab states.

We need to do better in Iraq. We need to do better in Afghanistan. Iraqi women prior to the war held professional jobs. They were well represented in medicine, engineering, academia, and in civil service. In 2002, 38 percent of Iraqi doctors were women.

Women in Iraq are well educated. Last year, almost 35 percent of university and polytechnic students in Iraq were women.

We also cannot allow a lack of security to destroy women's rights in Iraq as they have done and continue to do in Afghanistan. Frightened by the chaos and lawlessness on the streets of Baghdad, many Iraqi women are prisoners in their own homes. Few, if any, women are seen in public. The markets and the gas stations are occupied almost entirely by men. This is a grim picture for a country whose women have enjoyed a level of independence that is unusual in most Arab countries.

Security problems are eroding the hope of many Afghan women, as well, and it is a concern. In light of this situation, I was pleased to see that Germany's Chancellor, who is the head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), has called for an expansion of this international peace-keeping mission in Afghanistan. This request is supported by UN officials, Afghan women leaders, humanitarian organizations and women's rights groups and even by Congress.

Last year, we passed the Afghan Freedom Support Act, a bi-partisan initiative--which called for expansion of peace-keeping forces. The President signed this legislation into law, but still, we have no expansion of ISAF, International Security Assistance Force, in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan cannot wait much longer for improvements in security. In some areas, warlords are imposing Taliban-like restrictions on women and girls. Girls schools have been bombed. Humanitarian aid workers have been killed. Security in the southern part of the country is so bad that UN workers now have to be accompanied by armed guards.

This fall, Afghans will assemble to adopt a Constitution. One year from now, elections will be held--we hope. Only if security is dramatically improved throughout the country will it be possible for people who advocate women's rights and human rights to participate in deliberations about their constitution. Fair and democratic voter registration and elections will not happen without improvements in the security situation. Without proper security, without the full inclusion of women in the constitution, and without the ability for women to participate in elections as voters and candidates, women's rights will have no chance in Afghanistan.

We have won the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan--the military has certainly triumphed--but we are in jeopardy of losing the peace. Women in Afghanistan and Iraq--indeed the citizens of these nations, and the world community will not be able to sustain this loss.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

We have no objection.

Also, Mr. President, there are some arrangements being made to have some disposition of the Reed of Rhode Island amendment sometime this afternoon.

It is my understanding Senator Kennedy will be here early this afternoon to offer his amendment or amendments.