Floor Statements

Mr. President, to help move things along and to notify Democrats as to whose amendment would come, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic amendments--and Senator Stevens may want to intersperse these with Republican amendments, and that is his privilege, but I ask unanimous consent that the next Democrat amendment be that of Senator Kennedy, No. 123; Senator Clinton, No. 89; Senator Bingaman, Nos. 126 and 138, and Senator Cantwell, No. 108.

Mr. President, I also would say on each of these our members have agreed to time. But until the majority has seen the amendments, I am not going to ask time limits be established, even though we have established what our people have asked for in the way of time.

Mr. President, how much time do the Democrats have left?

Mr. President, all we are trying to do is move things along. We have a right to have our amendments in the order we want. If we want to move this bill along, as the two leaders want, we cannot have these foolish--I know someone told the Senator to object. I am not calling the Senator foolish--these foolish objections. I know there is nothing that can be done because there is an objection that has been raised, but it is too bad.

Democratic Senators should be aware this is the order we are going to offer amendments.

I am happy to yield.

Yes, I have talked to Senator Stevens. I talked to him this morning in the presence of the majority leader.

Absolutely right. We have a number of Senators who have been waiting since yesterday or the day before to offer amendments. This is done so they are not standing around here waiting, so there is some kind of order in the Chamber rather than people trying to get recognized.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have conferred with the manager of the bill on what the Democrats would like to do in offering their amendments. I understand there will be Republican amendments interspersed. Our first amendment with Senator Kennedy, there has been a 30-minute time agreement on that; that has been agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that that be approved. Senator Clinton, amendment No. 89, a time agreement of 30 minutes, evenly divided; Senator Bingaman, amendment No. 138, I have no time agreement on that; Senator Cantwell, amendment No. 108, a 30-minute time agreement; Senator Nelson, amendment No. 178, a 10-minute time agreement equally divided; Senator Corzine, amendment No. 233, I have no time agreement on that.

The only thing I would ask, Mr. President, is that there would be no amendments except as I have already talked about to the manager of the bill. The Nelson amendment----

Then eliminate the time on the amendment. I ask that the--

Should we eliminate the time though?

Why don't we have the time applicable unless you decide to offer a second-degree.

I did mention that.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, 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 ask unanimous consent that on the Clinton amendment numbered 89 the time be equally divided and limited to 30 minutes, and that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mr. President, on amendment No. 138 offered by Senator Bingaman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be limited to 30 minutes and that there be no second-degree amendment prior to the vote.

I have included the Clinton amendment numbered 89 with 30 minutes equally divided; the Bingaman amendment numbered 138 with 30 minutes equally divided, and I would like to do the same on the Cantwell amendment.

Those two will be fine.

Mr. President, staff has indicated that we were perhaps not clear on the Kennedy amendment. There would be no second-degree amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding what we are planning on trying to do--Senator Clinton is in the Chamber, and she is willing to offer her amendment. There is 30 minutes on that which would take us until about 12:30. I understand Senator McCain is available.

My only statement here, in reserving my right to object, is that it is good we are stacking these votes. I have no problem with that. But I would rather we did it when the debate on the third one ends.

Let's do that. Let's have Clinton. Let's have McCain.

There are two McCains? OK, fine. We would do those and then have three stacked votes.

I think that is appropriate.

We are going to have a series of votes starting at approximately 1:15, 1:30.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, controls the time; is that right?

I ask for 30 seconds.

Yes.

I say to everyone on that side of the aisle, we are going to have a vote on this amendment one way or the other. It is not that hard to do. So I think rather than having two votes, we should have one. I suggest that as the votes have gone in the last week or so, they have not been too favorable for us, and I do not know what the fear is of having a vote. We are going to have a vote sometime today. I thank the Senator very much for the 30 seconds.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Dayton for 10 minutes, Senator McCain for 2 minutes, and following that the debate on this be ended.

Mr. President, no objection.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to say a couple things to the manager. First of all, the Clinton amendment-- have you moved to table that?

There is a question as to whether or not she is going to be able to modify. Senator Nickles is not in the Chamber.

I also say that we have been through this and we are trying to limit the votes to 10 minutes. We hope the majority leader will condense the votes to 10 minutes; otherwise, we are going to be here really late tonight.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii Inouye), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Leiberman) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How long did that vote take?

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, Senator Mikulski offered an amendment earlier in the proceedings. There was some hope we could work that out. We have not been able to do that.

The question is, Should we dispose of that after this vote?

I also say, because there are a lot of Members in the Chamber now, we have scrubbed our side quite well. I have amendments still by Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Nelson, Lautenberg, Durbin, Dodd, Landrieu, and Wyden. They know the numbers of those amendments. I think that is all we have. I hope that is all we have. That is eight. Even if we have 10 minutes a side--my colleagues can add it up themselves--it is going to be quite a long night. I hope this is all. If it is not, we need to know right away.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

Is the Senator wishing to move forward on the first block at this time?

Amendments Nos. 165, 23, 70, 96, 113, 190, and 174

Every amendment is fine, except No. 166; we need to look at that, the second amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 191, As Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

I have spoken to the managers of the bill. In an effort to save time, we ask that we move to the Bingaman amendment No. 138 and there be 20 minutes equally divided.

And prior to the vote, that there be no second-degree amendment filed.

Mr. President, Senator Cantwell has agreed to bring up amendment No. 104 with 20 minutes equally divided.

Cantwell for 20 minutes.

One minute prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask Democratic Senators Lautenberg, Dodd, Wyden, and Kohl to come to the floor. We have amendments that need to be offered, and we have now an hour. If we don't do that, it will be an extra hour or more we will have to work later tonight.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment that was offered by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden.

I want to begin with a USA Today article from February 27, 2002 entitled

``Bush Cheney Champion Privacy--for themselves'' by Tony Mauro.

The article describes how the administration is very concerned about protecting privacy when it comes to protecting their meetings to develop an energy policy for our Nation. As Mr. Mauro writes, ``Cheney and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone else's.''

This article also sheds light on how the administration places a premium on privacy. Unfortunately, its leaders seem to value secrecy mainly to protect themselves from embarrassing revelations or to protect their corporate cronies from public scrutiny.

And yet while the White House was fighting vigorously to prevent the American people from getting access to government records, the administration was working arduously to ensure that government would have unprecedented access into the personal lives of the American people through electronic records.

Today, my colleague from Oregon is offering an amendment to ensure that such a program does not go forward unless the privacy of the American people is assured.

This week, many of my colleagues have joined me in speaking on civil rights and civil liberties. I feel strongly that we must defend the civil liberties of Nevadans and all Americans, including their fundamental right to privacy.

After September 11, our Nation was forced to reflect on the freedoms we so often take for granted.

Americans have accepted many restrictions on those freedoms, because they recognized some limits were necessary to provide security against terrorists and other realistic threats, and because they believed these restrictions would be administered justly.

So we tolerate waiting several hours to board airplanes, because we know it necessary to check our luggage more rigorously than ever before.

But the program my distinguished colleague from Oregon is describing concerns me, and I have heard from many Nevadans expressing their opposition to the White House plan unless we have greater assurances that it will not infringe upon our precious privacy.

Senator Wyden's amendment aims to curtail the Total Information Awareness program being funded at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is an effort to develop a digital description of each and every one of us, available in nanoseconds.

This digital ``you'' will be made up of every credit card purchase, every bank transaction, every driver's license application, every court record, and every library book loan you ever borrowed.

The Federal Government will store all this information--ready to be processed in a moment's notice.

Sound like a good idea?

I don't think so for a very simple reason: No one has figured out how this information is going to be protected, so that you don't become the victim of an overzealous Government snoop.

The Total Information Awareness program is doing nothing to protect that privacy. Instead of being an electronic Fort Knox, TIA is going to be a gold mine for privacy violations.

In fact, the White House decided to pick a John Poindexter to run the project. He may be a brilliant man, but he was also convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal.

How are we supposed to believe a man who lied to Congress when he tells us that your privacy is safe--that this clearinghouse of confidential computer records won't be used improperly?

There other problems. Just look at the way this agency will work.

All the research to build this computer web will be done by contractors--businesses who are allowed to market, sell and distribute their work for commercial development.

That means the same technology the government is developing to snoop on your video rentals could be used by the video rental companies to peek on your publicly available government records.

You can bet the companies who buy this technological peeping tom won't be using it to protect the public good, but merely to pad their corporate profits.

Your privacy is not a privilege but a principle that must be protected.

Senator Wyden's amendment is an important and necessary step to prevent the Federal Government from trampling your privacy while still allowing the Federal Government to protect us against terrorists.

amendment no. 59

I urge approval of the amendments en bloc.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are not doing this en bloc, that this is standing alone?

We have no objection to the amendment.

No objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Parliamentary inquiry.

The group of amendments on defense and--energy and water have been adopted; is that right?

Except for 34.

I say to my friend from Alaska that amendment No. 158 has been cleared on this side. It is in the next batch on Interior.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, it is my understanding that the matter that recurs now is Mikulski?

I say, then, for the benefit of Senators, we have Mikulski, Bingaman, and Cantwell that are now pending, and we are going to dispose of Cantwell now. What would be the parliamentary order after that?

Reserving the right to object, we need consent that the Mikulski amendment, the order with respect to that, be vitiated first. There is an order already in effect in that regard.

That will be fine.

Yes. I say to the Senator, one of them was approved by voice vote, so this is the third vote.

This is to set up the order of debate on the Mikulski amendment which is going to be second-degreed by Senator Thomas. This is something we have worked on almost all day. So there will be two votes on the Mikulski amendment, one on Thomas and one on Mikulski.

Reserving the right to object, is there any way--if I can get the attention of the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Maryland--is there any way we could save 10 minutes by having 15 minutes between each of them rather than 20?

We have 40 minutes. I am asking if we can reduce that to 15 on each rather than 20, for a total of 30.

I ask that that be agreed to: Rather than 20 minutes on each, it be 15 on each of the amendments for debate.

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

I renew the Stevens request, as amended by me.

The time.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

I ask to be made a cosponsor.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii, (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

No. On our side, prior to third reading, we have Senator Stabenow who wants to make a brief statement on her sense-of-the-Senate amendment. And Senator Dayton is going to ask for up to 5 minutes before final passage.

Mr. President, 112 has not been cleared on this side.

Mr. President, what is the consent request?

Mr. President, before they are agreed to, I have to work out a situation on amendment No. 112.

Mr. President, if the Senator wants to call up amendment No. 112 now, he can.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, there are still two amendments. On one we are waiting for the papers, and on the other we are waiting for clearance. One is amendment No. 207; the other is amendment No. 143. It is my understanding we worked out language so that these two are acceptable, but I do not have the language yet. We should have it momentarily.

I ask if the four Senators can speak after the vote. The reason I say that is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee and present chairman of the Banking Committee are scheduled to leave on a plane immediately. They both have very important speeches to give. If they do not leave quickly, the speeches will not be given.

I am wondering if it is possible to do those speeches after third reading, but that does not work because we have amendment No. 143 and amendment No. 207 still awaiting action.

Senator Stabenow has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that has to be part of the package, so I ask that she be allowed to do hers right now.

Five minutes is what she has agreed to.

It has been cleared on both sides.

No objection.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

That is my understanding. Would you please explain further?

That is very helpful. Is it possible that there will be near-term niche markets such as hospitals, aircraft control centers, or other buildings that cannot tolerate power failure?

Yes, and what does the Senator recommend be done?

Do other funding communities support an acceleration of these technologies?

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rhonda Sinkfield of the Finance Committee staff be accorded floor privileges during the duration of debate on H.J. Res. 2.

If the majority leader will yield, this morning, on the Ridge speeches, people who have designated time should be here or they will lose their time because the time will run. It is my understanding that the majority may not use all their time so I suggest to those on this side of the aisle they should be here; otherwise, they will lose their time.

Mr. Leader, if I could, the manager of the bill, the President pro tempore of the Senate, has done outstanding work last night and was able to get rid of 116 amendments. If we give him a few more hours, maybe he can do better than that. I have great faith in the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from West Virginia.

I would say--and this is not the time for debate--people contend we did not do the work of last year, and we should have, we acknowledge that, but it was not the fault of the Senate. It was the fault of the House.

We are going, as I told the leader yesterday, to do everything we can to move this bill as quickly as we can. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone if we did move it.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessary absent.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes of the time set aside for Senator Lieberman be allotted to me.

Madam President, Tom Ridge and I came together to Washington in 1982. We were new Members of Congress 20-plus years ago. He was a fine Member of Congress. He had the ability to work across party lines. When he became Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, I was excited for him. From all reports I have been able to obtain, he did a good job as Governor of the State of Pennsylvania.

When President Bush suggested he be head of the program to protect the American people from terrorists, I told the President I thought it was a good appointment, and I told Governor Ridge I thought it was important he make the change from becoming Governor to becoming the head of the new Department of Homeland Security.

His job has now been created as a Cabinet-level office, and I think Tom Ridge has earned his stripes. There are things he has done I have not totally agreed with, but most everything he has done I have agreed.

When he became head of this Department, I told Tom Ridge I would sit back and not cry out for a Cabinet-level office, but the determination was made by him, the President, and many others that there needed to be a Cabinet-level office created. I am glad that has happened. Tom Ridge will be a fine Secretary. He is a good man. He will have awesome responsibilities. This will not be an easy task. Secretary Ridge has the difficult job of merging the many departments, agencies and offices that now comprise the Department of Homeland Security.

I stand ready to help him as he seeks to complete this monumental undertaking.

We simply must not rest because we passed legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. This law provides the framework for the new department, but only the new Secretary can take the pieces of the new department and make them function as a single, committed agency.

In Nevada, we still have daunting challenges and unfulfilled opportunities. I look forward to working with Governor Ridge to address these.

In particular, Nevada is faced with diminishing Federal resources and increasing State budget deficits at the same time that it must address new homeland security responsibilities. In fact, Nevada ranks near the bottom in the country in terms of funding for State homeland security efforts. With millions of tourists each year, this places an extra burden on Nevada. Most funding for emergency responders is based on population. But population alone does not determine the vulnerability of a city like Las Vegas.

At the Nevada Test Site, Nevada also has one of the Nation's premier centers for training emergency responders and other special counter- terrorism forces. Last February, Governor Ridge accepted my invitation and came to Nevada to observe the excellent training and counter- terrorism facilities at the Nevada Test Site. In the coming year, I look forward to having Governor Ridge

return and putting the full resources of the administration behind his project.

Protecting our nation from a future terrorist attacks will not be an easy task. Having a Secretary for the Homeland Security Department in place will ensure that the process of building the new Department begins soon.

As we continue to develop this new department, I look forward to working with Governor Ridge to ensure our Nation is secure.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally against both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I would add we are moving action along quite well. We have a number of amendments pending after we dispose of the Reed of Rhode Island amendment. We are working with Senator Stevens to get a number of votes lined up for later this afternoon. We are going to go to the agriculture amendment soon. That is in the previous order.

I have had a number of inquiries made. We will probably be in late tonight; that means later than 7 p.m. or so. People will have to cooperate if they have amendments to offer. I hope they will limit the time on these amendments. The two leaders have spoken at some length today about trying to move this along. I hope people will cooperate.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), 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''.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

If I may ask my friend from Alaska, the manager of this bill, is there any way we could cut the time down on this 2 hours? We have not had a 2-hour amendment in 2 days. I cannot understand why the amendment would take 2 hours.

Did I hear the Senator say the Specter amendment will be an hour on each side?

Fine.

I apologize to my friend. I was on the telephone.

I would say to my friend, we have done good work over here. We have set an example for the majority. We have about eight or nine amendments, and the folks over here have agreed to time limits. And 30 minutes is the longest we have on any of them.

Will the distinguished manager yield for another comment?

The reason I gave the Senator the outline of what we have been able to do is, we are going to try to stick to these times that we have. But when you talk to your folks, have them understand that these times are contingent on your times also being agreeable.

At this time we cannot do that. I say to my friend from Washington, we have a schedule. I have already told Senators what the order would be.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

That is going to be fine, but we would like to see the amendment. Why don't we start the debate, give us the amendment, and let us look at it.

Reserving the right to object.

What is the number of the amendment?

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 80, As Modified

Mr. President, is amendment No. 80 pending?

On behalf of Senator Dayton, I ask unanimous consent the Dayton amendment be modified with the changes that are now at desk, the amendment as modified be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

If the Senator will yield? The Senator from Connecticut wishes to make a short statement. We have a unanimous consent agreement we wish to enter into.

Mr. President, reserving right to object, I ask the Senator to complete the request. Let us get it finished.

Mr. President, Senator Feingold has graciously consented to limit his time to 20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the manager of the bill, it is my understanding that the majority leader has said there will be no more rollcall votes tonight.

Mr. President, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, the two managers of the bill and all these amendments, have allowed the participants to have a minute on each side. I am sure that will happen tomorrow.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Erica Pagel, a fellow in the office of Senator Clinton, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on this bill.

Reserving the right to object, this appears to be in order. I wanted the opportunity to say we have made great progress today. Both leaders have indicated they want to finish this bill tomorrow. That is possible, but it is not going to be easy. I note to those on my side of the aisle that we have a number of amendments to be offered tomorrow. We have amendments by Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Bingaman, Cantwell, and Senator Boxer may offer an amendment.

If there are other Democrats who want to offer amendments, they should contact me. Some of them have worked with the managers, but if they don't let me know they are interested in offering amendments, the day is going to go by quickly and they will not have that opportunity. Some wanted these amendments listed tonight to be it. I thought in fairness to Senators that this may have been misunderstood. We were close to saying the amendments in order were just those I listed tonight.

I hope tomorrow we can move through the amendments. If we just do these, plus whatever Senator Stevens has--he has 60 or 70 amendments he is going to try to clear tomorrow morning, and it is going to call for a long day. I ask that everybody continue to move forward. From our side, I can say that we appreciate the new leader allowing us to offer amendments, not immediately filing cloture as we believe has happened in the past quite a bit. So we are very satisfied with the opportunity we have had to offer amendments, and we hope this is the wave of the future.

Mr. President, if I could direct a couple of questions to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, we have a number of people, as on my colleague's side I am sure, who are catching planes and getting back after the Martin Luther King holiday. Does the leader have any idea how late he wants to stay in today?

We have one Senator coming to offer an amendment at 10:30. We have another Senator coming at 11:30 or quarter to 12. We are going to try to move as many amendments as we can today, and hopefully the Senators will agree on both sides that we could have votes on those matters this evening. So

we will do the best we can to keep things moving.

If the Senator can give us some idea as to how late the Senate leader wants to go this evening, it would be appreciated.

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

I ask that the time be charged equally against both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last night my wife and I watched the replaying of the speech of Dr. Martin Luther King on CNN. The speech lasted 17 minutes. No matter how many times I watch the speech, I am so impressed with the message this man delivered. That is why I was stunned today, in getting the Congressional News Briefing, to see what the present President, President Bush, has done to undermine the unity and harmony of our society.

I quote:

Bush Revives House Participation in Confederate Memorial

Ceremony. Last Memorial Day, for the second year in a row,

Bush's White House sent a floral wreath to the Confederate

Memorial. . . . Bush has quietly reinstated a tradition

dating back to Woodrow Wilson that his father had halted in

1990. . . . The current Bush White House denies any change in

policy. Time adds that one of the organizations connected to

the ceremony is the Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose Chief

Aide-de-Camp is Richard T. Hines, a politically active

lobbyist from South Carolina. In that State's brutal 2000

Republican primary, Hines reportedly helped finance tens of

thousands of letters blasting Bush rival Senator John McCain

for failing to support the flying of the Confederate flag

over the state capitol.

This repayment of political debt that the President has in South Carolina is certainly something that flies in the face of what America is all about. It certainly flies in the face of what leaders of the administration says they are trying to do.

Yesterday we celebrated a national holiday, the birthday of a great American, Dr. King. This year in particular, with controversy over remarks and votes related to issues of race having affected the Senate itself, it is important that we reflect on the life, legacy, and message of Dr. King and that we assess the Nation's progress in achieving the goals he articulated. Dr. King shared with us his dream for American society, that Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and other minorities would have equal opportunity to achieve and to contribute.

We are closer to that place in time because of the efforts and accomplishments of Dr. King and others who made sacrifices and confronted enormous obstacles to make life better, not only for African Americans but all Americans.

America has made strides in improving the status of ethnic and racial minorities, but I am concerned that the policies that the current administration is pursuing would set us back.

Dr. King is one of the main reasons that little girls, young ladies, teenagers, and women in college can participate in athletics. Title IX is civil rights legislation and a direct result of the activities of Dr. King. Is Title IX an affirmative action program? Of course it is. Young women should have the opportunity to participate in athletics just as young men have had. Until we passed a Federal law, an affirmative action law, that was not possible. Now, tens of millions of young women participate in athletics. They have opportunities to build their character as young men have had for hundreds of years. Now women can participate in athletics.

I was disappointed we had to work this week because I was looking forward to watching my granddaughter Savannah play basketball this week. She is good. She leads her team in scoring. I have not been able to watch her play. She is 10 years old, and in her first game she scored 12 of the 22 points her team scored. I was looking forward to watching her play. I am told she is really good. In just a couple of years this little girl will be able to participate in high school athletics, which did not happen in my generation. The only athletics my granddaughters could participate in, if they were my age, and even younger than I, would be cheerleadering. Now she can be a basketball player, soccer player, and participate in track events. That is the way it should be.

We have made great strides in improving the status of minorities, as well as women. That is the way it should be. We must continue to move forward to build on the foundation Dr. King helped establish.

But unfortunately the administration is blocking progress by pursuing policies that limit opportunity. One example is this administration's filing a brief in the Supreme Court opposing the ability of the University of Michigan to have a diverse class of students.

The University of Michigan admissions system is not about quotas. It is about improving the educational experience for all students. This takes into account not only race and ethnic background but many other factors. Athletes and others with talents the school finds desirable are given extra points in the admission process. The administration did not oppose Michigan and other university programs where they give bonuses to alumni, where they give bonuses to athletics. No one opposes that. If you are trying to develop and establish a diverse class of students at a university, they oppose it. This is wrong. Diversity is a good thing, and it does not happen automatically but requires progressive policies. The administration is flat-out wrong to oppose this.

The administration is also wrong in continuing to nominate judges whose records reveal a pattern of insensitivity to racial issues. I have encouraged the President, as have many others, to protect the environment. Apparently though, the only recycling he favors is recycling of rejected and flawed judicial nominees.

What about DC statehood? We have young men and women who live in the District of Columbia, who are now in the Persian Gulf getting ready to go to war--people are being called up, being called upon to put their life on the line for their country--but they cannot vote for a Member of Congress, they do not have their own Senators. We should have statehood. If you are part of a sovereign nation--for example, the Pyramid Lake Piute Tribe in Nevada, they can vote for me, against me, but the District of Columbia does not have that opportunity. Residents of the District of Columbia pay taxes, they serve our country, but they do not have representation in Congress by a Member who has a right to vote on a substantive issue. They have a Member of Congress who only can sit in committees. If this administration feels so strongly about affirmative action, about fairness, diversity, let them come forward and support DC statehood.

And consider the quality of education that children receive. Most minority students in America still attend schools that are predominantly minority. On average, they are in large classes, have older books, receive less challenging lessons, and their teachers

have less training. To continue to improve the quality of education for all Americans, we should raise the standards in our schools. We need the administration to step forward on Leave No Child Behind, and do it by helping to fund the program mandated for schools all over America. Not to take care of unfunded mandates is wrong; the administration should fund those mandates.

Our Nation's efforts to recover from September 11 remind us that we become a stronger America by working together. So we must join together and continue fighting to make sure all Americans enjoy equal opportunities for justice, quality education, and economic prosperity.

In 2003, it is not enough to quote Dr. Martin Luther King, or to say the right thing, or avoid saying the wrong thing. Actions speak louder than words, even words as powerful as Dr. King's. We remember him as an articulate speaker. It was his actions, his nonviolent actions of organizing, educating, motivating, and demonstrating, that achieved results. If we are truly to honor Dr. King, and, more importantly, if we are fully motivated to improve race relations in our great country, if we want America to live up to its democratic ideals and all our people to have equal opportunity, freedom, justice, prosperity, and peace, we must pass civil rights legislation and fund programs that help level the playing field and appoint judges whose records show a commitment to tolerance and fairness.

The record of the Democratic Party is one we can be proud of. It shows a longstanding commitment to civil rights, to fairness. Democrats recognize we must take additional steps to advance civil rights for all Americans. That is why we Democrats in the Senate have a package of civil rights, known as Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans. Our comprehensive legislation includes measures to expand hate crimes protections. Let the Republicans come forward and stop barring us from passing that. We have legislation to strengthen enforcement of existing civil rights laws. Let them move across the aisle and help.

We must support legislation giving legal representation to indigent Americans. We must stop racial profiling. That is what our legislation does. It addresses pay inequities between men and women, protecting individuals against discrimination; it prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation; and our legislation prohibits military and civilian personnel from collecting information about U.S. citizens. We must fully fund election reforms that we passed last year. This is an agenda that is important, it is good, and it should pass.

We ask the Republicans to step forward and help repudiate, condemn, and oppose something as racially motivated, obviously, as that reported in Time magazine, the President's reinstatement of something that his father stopped because it was wrong--laying a wreath at the Confederate Memorial. It is wrong. We need to speak out against it because it is wrong.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Senator Edwards is here and has an amendment to offer. We told the majority leader on Friday we would be here at 10:30 to offer the amendment. Senator Edwards will not offer the amendment until we have someone who is here from the other side, but he is going to start talking about his amendment. We hope that is OK with everyone.

What is the business now before the Senate?

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, with the Senator's permission--and I know he has the floor--I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think we are headed in the right direction. I wanted to state to my friend that Senator Dodd is offering his amendment. He is going to speak for a while. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock. We hope we will get permission then to set aside the Dodd amendment so we can consider the Dayton amendment, which is on corporate expatriation. He should not take too long.

I hope the majority will give us consideration to set aside the Dodd amendment then because, if we are going to work through all of these amendments, we are going to have to have cooperation on both sides. I have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to this important amendment.

I say to my friend from Connecticut, his speech said it all. In addition to the speech he gave today, he has been a vocal advocate for change for many years. He is to be complimented and applauded for his work.

I hope this amendment passes. Every amendment we have offered on this side has been very important. We have not done very well with the amendments because they have been straight party-line votes. In this instance, I hope the children Senator Dodd has talked about would be taken into consideration.

As indicated, it would be so important to the State of Nevada. It is a modest increase but it would certainly take care of a lot of problems that the school districts have in Nevada.

Again, I congratulate my friend from Connecticut and hope very much this amendment will pass.

Will the Senator yield?

It is my understanding you will offer an amendment in a different form than the Dodd amendment, and there would be two side-by- side amendments; is that right?

We are working on that. I spoke to Senator Dodd and he feels we would have 30 minutes equally divided prior to the vote.

The two leaders have to work out what the sequence of votes is going to be. We have the Dodd amendment which has been laid down. We have the Edwards amendment which is pending. We have Senator Reed of Rhode Island offering an amendment on LIHEAP, cosponsored with Senator Collins. We have Senator Dayton coming in a few minutes to offer one on corporate expatriation. They have to figure out the sequencing of votes. We are trying to do as we have been told--to offer as many amendments as possible. I suggest this can be worked out between the Senators from New Hampshire and Connecticut, but we would like to get to this.

If my friend will withhold, my only point is that we have been trying to do as your leader wants us to do and line up a bunch of amendments. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock, and I have announced that previously. He is not going to take too long. But I am happy to go along with what the Senator suggested. We will get the Reed amendment laid down and come back to the Dodd amendment.

I think the Senator's original suggestion is the better of the two. I ask unanimous consent the Dodd amendment be set aside and Senator Reed be recognized to offer his amendment, speak up to 15 minutes, and then we will return to the Dodd amendment and try to work out something.

There will be ample time later for her to do that.

Yes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we know the Senator is acting in good faith. We don't have a copy of this amendment. We have a pretty good idea of what it is. We are confident that we have a general understanding of the amendment. We believe this would be appropriate.

We hope, when this debate is completed, that Senator Dayton will have an opportunity to offer his amendment. He is scheduled to be here at 1 o'clock. Senator Inhofe is also here. But let us take one step at a time. Therefore, we have no objection. Let me also say that debate on this may not all be completed this afternoon. Senator Dodd would reserve whatever time is left of his 30 minutes.

Mr. President, this has been cleared with the majority. I ask unanimous consent that the consent request with respect to the Edwards amendment be modified to the Senate resuming consideration of the amendment at 2:15 p.m., with the previous provision still applicable.

Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut has reserved his time, as has the Senator from New Hampshire. I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum and, shortly thereafter, call it off with hopes we can move to the Dayton amendment and set aside the pending amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd have remaining be preserved and the quorum call, which I will make immediately, not be charged to their time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming is here and wishes to speak on the Edwards amendment. Under the order we just entered, that is not to recur until 2:15 p.m. If the Senator wishes to speak, we can take him out of order, if Senator Dayton is willing to wait 10 minutes while the Senator from Wyoming speaks.

Mr. President, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside; that Senator Dayton be recognized to offer an amendment on corporate expatriation; and that following his recognition, Senator Thomas be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on the Edwards amendment.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he will simply seek recognition and send his amendment to the desk, then Senator Thomas will be recognized to speak for 10 minutes.

Amendment No. 80

I would like to ask the Senator a question. I personally appreciate the Senator stepping forward. It should come from the State of Minnesota. Senator Wellstone believed in this strongly.

I remember the Senator advocating this. When I think of our friend Paul and his untimely death in the terrible airplane crash, I feel badly. I feel good about your moving forward with this amendment that Paul and I worked on together in the Senate. It is a modest amendment.

The Senator recognizes, does he not, that this amendment does not apply to nonhomeland security or defense contracts? Maybe we will do something about these companies later. I don't believe they should be able to have a contract with Health and Human Services, with the Department of the Interior, or any of the Federal agencies. However, we have limited this amendment to homeland security and defense. Does the Senator acknowledge that?

The Senator would also acknowledge, would he not, that this is not a permanent ban. All they have to do is say let me do what I should have done in the first place, just pay American taxes.

There are all kinds of reincorporations that take place every day in corporate America. They could simply reincorporate in Delaware or Nevada or Minnesota or any place they felt appropriate and they would be right back, being able to get all the contracts they want.

My third inquiry to the Senator from Minnesota: I know some of our friends who are lobbyists, as you have indicated, public relations representatives--I think, with a straight face they really would have trouble advocating for this. Would the Senator acknowledge that?

I appreciate the Senator's attention.

Mr. President, tax loopholes allow dozens of U.S. corporations to move their headquarters, but they move them on paper only, to tax haven countries to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. It was just a short time ago that Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment to bar the Department of Homeland Security from awarding Government contracts to these corporate tax runaways. The Senate adopted that amendment unanimously. But in the homeland security bill that passed the last little bit that we were here last year, they cut this amendment.

It is a sad reality that these corporate expatriations are technically legal under current law. But legal or not, there is no reason U.S. Government contracts should be awarded to these tax runaways. These are lucrative Government contracts and we should not reward these companies for doing what they have done.

Senator Wellstone and I believed these corporations, if they want Federal contracts so badly, they should simply come home, come back to the United States and be eligible to bid on homeland security contracts. If they didn't want to do that, then they should go lobby, for example, the Government of Canada or Bermuda or the Cayman Islands for contracts there.

Some of these companies have indicated: We have been in business in America for a long time. They should stay in business in America. These corporations are shams. We have companies that file paperwork, set up not one but sometimes more than one corporation. One company has three British employees in a little office in Hamilton, Bermuda, but by having these three individuals in Hamilton, Bermuda, they can avoid paying up to $40 million every year in U.S. income taxes.

This bill would forbid foreign corporations involved in these transactions from holding Government contracts with the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security. It would not restrict major corporations operating in the United States

from winning millions of dollars from the Government in contracts.

I am not going to pinpoint companies. I have read on the Senate floor just a few months ago the names of these companies that are doing these things. This amendment will finally correct the record and accomplish what Senator Wellstone worked for last year. It should have been a priority in the legislation to guarantee the Department of Homeland Security booked its business with corporations that do their share of bearing the burdens of protecting this country. What they have done is they are bearing the burden to protect their own companies, not their own country. The homeland security law is more concerned with window dressing on this issue because what is in the homeland security bill still allows these companies to have huge Government contracts, homeland security contracts.

One contract I have here, $144,844,000 is what they are getting, even though they have incorporated in Bermuda.

Another company, not as large as the first, but almost $5 million. We have another company, $6 million; $17 million; another company, $249 million; another company, $2 million; $248 million--it is on and on with these what I would think would be embarrassing to them. Apparently it is not embarrassing enough that they pay corporate taxes in the United States like other companies.

I again extend my appreciation to the Senator from Minnesota for this amendment and I hope the many people who are in favor of this legislation will speak in favor of the legislation and we can have a resounding vote like we did when it passed unanimously last year. This would be one way to honor the dignity of Paul Wellstone.

I would answer my friend by saying Senator Wellstone, as we know, stood for the small guy. He was concerned about those people who did not have the large lobbying contracts. I think the Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right. The senior Senator from Minnesota is right in that this amendment would help a lot of the small people-- small in stature, big in character, like Paul Wellstone--the people Paul Wellstone would try to protect. That is because people who are not paying these taxes prevent us from providing more money for LIHEAP, for which he advocated all the time. It would allow us to provide more money for education, which he talked about, and he could do that because he was a college professor. It would allow more money for the global AIDS epidemic that he talked about.

This money that these corporations are not paying is more money that other taxpayers have to come up with. We have expenses that have to be met. We have programs that have to be funded. This amendment would force some of these unpatriotic companies into being more patriotic. They would be more patriotic because they would be forced to be more patriotic. If they want to have Government contracts with the Homeland Security Department and Homeland Defense Department, they would have to be patriotic.

So I answer the question with a resounding yes. This would mean a lot to Paul Wellstone, that his legacy is not forgotten, nor the things for which he fought.

A lot of these things he fought for alone. I can remember this issue that he was beaten up on pretty good on the Senate floor--until he was able to talk and explain. Like many of the things that Paul Wellstone brought out of the dark into the light, in the light of day it all looked better. I hope we all support this the way we did before.

This is an important amendment and I repeat, it would honor one of the most courageous people I have ever known--physically and intellectually--Paul Wellstone.

If I could respond to my colleague through the Chair, let me say the defense of this previously was that these are just good lawyers, good tax men. This is the way the law is written so why shouldn't they take advantage of it?

What the Senator from Minnesota and I are trying to do is change the law so that this is not this tax loophole. We know and people know that there are lots of tax loopholes. They are hard to plug because of the huge lobby which they have. We try to plug them. The ones that benefit are some of the largest corporations in America--I am sorry to say-- avoiding billions of dollars in taxes. It is not fair. They reply by saying, well, these people have good lawyers and good accountants. That doesn't justify what they are doing. In fact, it even signifies that we need to do this as quickly as possible to stop these people from doing this and make it easier for the rest of the people in America who are paying their fair share.

Mr. President, we are waiting now until 2:30 when Senator Inhofe is to appear. We understand he will close with the Edwards amendment.

We want the Record to be spread with the fact that we have done everything we can to move this legislation along. We were ready to go early this morning. We had to wait until the other side was ready to move on the bill. We have done our best to plug all the timeslots that have been in existence this morning. I want the Record to reflect that we are doing nothing to slow this down.

I see Senator Inhofe is here now. If he is ready to speak, we could move the 2:30 time up to whatever time is appropriate for the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Senator was scheduled for 2:30. We are ready now.

I am to be corrected. I was told by the floor staff that I was wrong and the Senator is right. It is 2:15. We don't need to change anything. We ask unanimous consent to return to the Edwards amendment. I think that is the order.

Mr. President, if my friend will withhold, I have a couple comments I would like to make.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the second-degree amendment of my friend, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The amendment offered by Senator Edwards, and cosponsored by Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Daschle, and Senator Reid of Nevada, really is a very modest amendment.

This administration has gone ahead with the most radical rewriting of the clean air rules in 30 years. Let me repeat that. The administration, administratively, has caused the most radical rewriting of the clean air rules in 30 years. They have not studied what the effects of these rules will be for people's health and the environment. I think Senators on both sides of the gaisle have asked for this study. They have refused to do it.

This amendment simply says, let's wait 6 months--just 6 months--and get a real study of how this amendment will affect people. Our amendment says, because these rules have the potential to be harmful, we should study them first to make sure we know how they will affect people's health. The amendment says, let's wait until we get that settled--6 months, a half a year--before letting the rules become final.

The second-degree amendment says: Yes, we need to study those rules, but let's have the study after the rules go into effect; that is, let the rules go into effect first; and, second, we will study the effects. That means you are rolling the dice with people's health.

What this second-degree amendment says is, we will take our chances with the health of your children, with the health of your parents. What we say is, let the amendment go into effect after we have studied the issue.

What are we going to do a year from now if this study shows--and I am confident it will--that these radical changes will have made people's health worse? What are we going to say to senior citizens who are suffering from respiratory illnesses, as a great deal do?

It was less than a year ago that one of the weekly magazines--I believe it was Newsweek; ran a front-page article that talked about the asthma epidemic sweeping this country afflicting our children. Although they do not determinatively know why, one of the conclusions they arrive at is because of the bad air. However, I don't think we need scientific studies to show that.

By allowing the administration to go forward with this rule, what we are really saying is we do not care. We want these companies to go ahead and be able to continue their polluting--yet we only studied two companies.

We hear that the Environmental Protection Agency today has actually

done the environmental analysis and it shows that these radical rule changes would protect the environment. That is foolishness. It is not true.

The EPA gave us hundreds of pages of old, irrelevant reports.

They said their assessment was qualitative and not quantitative. That is a buzzword for ``we have done nothing.'' It means they didn't do real hard research in how these changes would affect people, children with asthma, and seniors with respiratory illness.

One group did the real hard research. The Environmental Integrity Project looked at two factories and found that just with these two factories, the administration rules would increase pollution by more than 120 tons a year. One of these EPA studies done by the current Environmental Protection Agency points to Delaware as a model. Companies in Delaware have taken some good measures to reduce pollution. That is true. But as industries in Delaware have pointed out and as Senator Biden has pointed out, this administration is not following the Delaware model. They are following a different and anti- environmental model.

The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina does not discourage energy efficiency. All of us support more energy efficiency. We support reform of the New Source Review. We want to reduce pollution at the same time as we reform. We don't want reform being an excuse to increase pollution. The new rules would increase pollution.

Again, the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is a modest amendment. It says: Look before you leap. However, what we are being told to do with the second-degree amendment is look after you leap. That is not the same.

Look before you leap; that is what we should do. The second-degree amendment is misguided, misdirected. It takes away from the importance and the dignity of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which simply says, the President wants to move forward with radical changes in the Clean Air Act, an act which has been in effect for some 30 years, so before we do this, let's first wait 6 months to see if the changes the administration suggested will hurt the environment.

I certainly hope the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina passes in its form before the Senate and that the second-degree amendment does not pass. I say that because if you look at the track record of the administration, you are looking at a track record that is not good.

We know the administration came out initially with an effort to change the arsenic standards in water. We were able to turn that back. We know the administration has worked very hard to make sure that the rules relating to testing children to find out if lead in their environment is bad--they tried to eliminate that. We were able to stop that.

Clean water: The administration proposed earlier this month changes for managing waterways under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rules would affect enforcement of the Clean Water Act by defining protected and unprotected lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. This rule would remove 20 million acres of wetlands from protection.

On January 3--just a few weeks ago--the administration issued categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act for certain timber projects. As a result, the agency will be able to approve logging in burned, diseased, and insect-infested forests without completing individual environmental reviews.

On December 31, the administration proposed regulations that would allow tuna caught by encircling dolphins to be labeled ``dolphin safe.'' For the last 5 years, tuna caught using dolphins as targets were barred from bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label.

Two days after Christmas, the administration came up with a Christmas present when they issued new guidelines that would allow more development of wetlands and additional mitigation. However, the existence of wetlands is important because they filter drinking water, retain flood waters, and support wildlife.

The administration on December 23--2 days before Christmas--issued a final rule that would allow States to claim ownership of roads in national parks, forests, wilderness areas, and other public lands. Under this rule, States could assert claims to thousands of miles of dirt roads, trails, and wagon tracks--many of which are in wilderness areas and other public lands.

On December 19, the administration issued a cost-benefit report calling for more than 300 rules to be revised and eliminated, or expanded. These changes affect food safety standards, arsenic in drinking water, energy conservation standards, and logging in national forests.

Again dealing with clean water, on December 16 they issued final regulations under a court-ordered deadline that would weaken clean water protections concerning concentrated animal feeding operations. The new rule will affect 15,000 large and medium size U.S. corporate farms.

On salmon protection, the administration proposed new regulations to weaken salmon protections and to allow increased logging in the Pacific.

On November 22 of last year, the administration issued final regulations that would weaken the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program. The administration has issued standards relating to drilling in national parks. They approved natural gas drilling in Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, the Nation's longest stretch of undeveloped beach. They are going to take care of that and allow drilling there.

On climate change, on November 20 the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality said: ``Climate change is a technology issue.'' He believes technological innovations, not curbs on emissions of greenhouse gases, are the solution to global climate change.

Snowmobiles, something on which I have worked hard: The administration proposed to increase the number of snowmobiles allowed in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks by more than 35 percent, even though the rangers there must use respirators and masks because the air is so bad because of the snowmobiles.

Should we not, with a record like this, take 6 months to see if the rules are going to be bad? I didn't read all of them, but you get the idea why I am a little suspect about the rules and why we should not leap before we look. Let's look, have a study done to find out if the rules are as bad as the environmental community says they are.

I hope the second-degree amendment of my friend from Oklahoma is defeated and we have an up-or-down vote on the amendment to call for a study before we enact the very extreme radical rule changes with the Clean Air Act.

The Senator from Rhode Island will offer a very important amendment on unemployment insurance. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota be recognized to speak for 15 minutes; following that, the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to offer an amendment.

I have spoken to the manager of the bill and have indicated to him that we were going to offer this amendment. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that when Senator Reed offers his amendment the pending amendment be set aside. If there is a problem with that, that would give time to someone on the other side to be available to object having that set aside.

My friend, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, has come to this Chamber on other occasions with his chart and talked about the Democratic amendments. What he has not talked about is the fact that a year ago, we had a huge surplus. There are estimates that it was as much as $7.2 trillion--some say it was only $6 trillion--over a 10-year period. As a result of what has taken place with this administration, that is gone. We are now spending in the red and using Social Security surpluses to pay for the Bush economic plan.

I was on a TV program with Senator Nickles, who was my counterpart. The person doing the interviewing showed Senator Nickles a chart. From the time that Harry Truman was President until today, going through every President, every President of the United

States has created jobs, without exception, except the current President Bush. In fact, he has done so poorly in job creation that he has lost over 2 million jobs.

I hope the American people understand we are offering these amendments because we believe the American people deserve more than tax cuts for the rich.

The present administration's tax cut plan will increase the deficit by almost $1 trillion over 10 years. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania would vote against that if he is concerned about deficits, because that is a huge deficit builder.

Every time my friend, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, comes to the Chamber with his chart, we are going to also talk about what this administration has done that has adversely affected the American people.

The amendments offered by the Democrats--which are said to be ``outrageous things''--fund school districts around America to take care of handicapped children. I know that is somewhat radical that we want to pay for handicapped children to be educated, but that is what we have decided we would like to do, that we would fully fund the IDEA program. There is not a school district in America that opposes that.

Some of the other amendments funded the unfunded mandates that have taken place with our passing the homeland security bill. I know the State of Nevada badly needs that money because we have been forced to do things that the Federal Government has passed on to us that we cannot afford to do. The State of Nevada needs help. That is why today States have deficits of about $100 billion.

The deficit of the State of California alone is $35 or $40 billion, but of course it has 15 percent of the population of this country.

So they can bring out all the charts they want to talk about these amendments the Democrats are offering. The reason we have voted nearly unanimously for every one of these amendments is because it is the right thing to do for the people who are not represented by the Gucci shoe crowd, the big limousine crowd.

My friend from Rhode Island is going to offer an amendment to take care of about a million people who have no unemployment insurance. The unemployment rate has increased by millions under this President. It has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent. Job losses, as I have indicated, are over 2 million. The private sector has lost 2.4 million jobs since President Bush took office. Unemployment is staggering. A total of almost 9 million people were unemployed in December. The length of unemployment, which is more than 26 weeks, increased by 122,000 in December alone, the biggest 1-month increase in a long time.

There are a great deal of problems with this economy. We believe there should be a tax plan to stimulate the economy. What we believe should take place is an immediate tax cut. It should be directed toward the middle class. It should have no long-term impact on the deficit in this country.

I talked earlier about the Bush economic record. It is the only administration to lose private jobs in more than 50 years. We have had no other administration that has not created jobs. His dad came close. He almost was in the negative. He was the lowest we had since Eisenhower. But it is topped by this President. Eisenhower created increased employment by one-half of 1 percent, Kennedy by 2 percent, Johnson by 3.6 percent, Nixon by 2.1 percent, Ford by .18 percent, Carter by 3.3 percent, Reagan by 2.3 percent, George H.W. Bush by .4 percent, Clinton by 2.6 percent; George W. Bush has lost jobs. He is the only president whose job creation is in the negative.

We do not need people to lecture us on how bad the Democratic amendments are. Our amendments are targeted toward American people, not targeted toward the rich.

I am happy to maintain the floor and yield to my friend from Delaware.

If I could respond to my friend, the distinguished Senator, formally chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee, the only place the Senator has misspoken is that the tax cut will be near $1 trillion when interest is included, near $1 trillion.

And I say to my friend, the Senator is absolutely right.

We have to have a secure nation. The amendments we have supported and were offered by Senator Byrd are amendments that would give the State of Delaware, the State of North Dakota, and the State of Nevada, a little bit of relief from the unfunded mandates we passed on.

I also remind my friend from Pennsylvania who was talking about how bad the amendments were; he talked a lot about the deficit. We are not talking as ``pie in the sky.'' We, as Democrats, have a ledger you can look to of success. For the first time in modern history, during the Clinton years, we were spending less money than we were taking in. The last year of the Clinton administration, they were coming to us saying: Better not retire that debt so quickly because you could have an adverse effect on the economy. I guess someone in the Bush administration heard that because they listened clearly. Instead of having a surplus, as we had, they have gone gang busters.

I have a unanimous consent request, if my friend will yield.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Clinton, Bingaman, Johnson, and Schumer be added as cosponsors to the Dodd amendment No. 71.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have spoken to the floor staff. Following the statement of Senator Voinovich, Senator Durbin wishes to speak on the amendment that Senator Reed is going to offer.

I think that will be just fine. We will have no objection.

I have spoken to the majority. They recognize that the next amendment we want to offer is by the Senator from Florida. We understand that Senator Inhofe will be ready to go also. I am sure we will get that consent as soon as the debate on unemployment insurance is completed.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, would it not be better, rather than having the rule going into effect and having all the people, from our perspective, start polluting while the study is taking place, to find out which side is right? We are saying to have the NAS study the issue, hold this off for 6 months, and then there should be a determination made as to whether the rule as proposed by the administration affects people.

I don't see--and I ask my friend from Ohio, the distinguished junior Senator--what harm can be done in holding off for 6 months this rule going into effect when, if we don't hold off, our reasoning would be, as indicated in the study I talked about earlier today, where just 2 months--2 plans would put into the environment 120 tons of bad things every year.

Would it not be better to wait and see what the study of the National Academy of Sciences comes up with before the rule went into effect?

Mr. President, I will respond simply to my friend that the environmental community has a different view. They believe this radical rule change would simply allow pollution to take place that is not allowed now.

We hear that the rules the administration has made are the same as rules made in the Clinton administration. This simply isn't true. Here is what Carol Browner has said:

Some have suggested that the administration's announced

changes are changes the Clinton administration supported.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamental to

everything we did was a commitment to ongoing air quality

improvements. There is no guarantee, and more importantly, no

evidence or disclosure demonstrating that the

administration's announced final or proposed changes will

make the air cleaner. In fact, they will allow the air to

become dirtier.

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

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

Mr. President, I renew my request to vitiate the quorum call.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the leaders set a time for the budget waiver I am going to be suggesting in just a second. That is part of the unanimous consent request.

Therefore, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I move to waive the Budget Act under the requisite rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, we have some business here to conduct.

No objection. Mr. President, I ask the record reflect I do not waive any of my rights under the motion that the Senator from Oklahoma offered, and I would renew my motion to waive at a subsequent time.

I also made a request. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I want to make sure the record is reflective that I do not waive any of my rights on the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. President, while I still have the floor, we have a few minutes until 5 o'clock when debate on the AMBER Alert matter takes place. We have two matters. We have the Senator from West Virginia to be heard--I did see him here. He wanted to speak on the Ridge nomination, which is going to come up. He wanted to get that debate out of the way.

We also have Senator Nelson here, who has been patiently waiting, who wishes to offer an amendment on his behalf and that of Senator Inhofe. We would need consent to set aside the pending amendment to allow him to do that.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside for the Senator from Florida to offer his amendment. He said he would need 25 or 30 minutes to speak, but he said that he could do that this afternoon in 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reed amendment on unemployment insurance which is before the body be recalled, and I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act for the consideration of the Reed amendment. Senator Nickles also raised a point of order. I just want to move to waive it. Such time as we vote on it will be the decision of the body.

I asked that the Reed amendment be recalled. I ask for regular order and renew my unanimous consent request to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act for consideration of the Reed amendment.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I ask unanimous consent that we return to the Nelson amendment.