Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, October 9, for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted; that following the pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, October 13; that following the prayer and pledge on that day, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2847, the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. Finally, I ask that the filing deadline for first- degree amendments be at 3 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. President, the cloture vote on the substitute amendment to CJS will occur at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday. That will be the first vote of the day. We are still hopeful and confident Senators Shelby and Mikulski can work out a finite list of amendments to be voted on, and we will start voting on those Tuesday. I hope we can do that. If not, we will have to go forward. We worked all afternoon trying to come up with something, but the amendments kept coming. There was a time we had to draw the line. The number of amendments we received had nothing to do with this legislation, so it was determined to be the time to file cloture.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The majority will control the first 30 minutes, and the Republicans will control the second 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled during today's session.

Mr. President, the Senate is nothing if not a temple to tradition. We debate and we deliberate according to the same rules where Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun considered the future of this young Nation. We vote without the help of modern electronics, as the first Senators did. We refer to each other in the third person during even the most heated discussions.

Senators take pride in the desks they occupy. Senator Ted Kennedy surrendered his rights as a senior member of the body at one time to move closer to the front so he could share the same desk in which his two brothers' names are inscribed.

On the top of those desks, we still keep the same inkwell. Mine has paper clips in it now. But this is an inkwell. It has been there since we moved to this Chamber and even before.

Also, we have something from the past. There is a spittoon. Most all Senators chewed tobacco and did a lot of spitting. But we still have these here. I use mine to throw a few pieces of wastepaper in it. But it is traditional. That is the Senate.

There are other things that can be referred to if Senator Byrd were here. He is an expert. In fact, he is the custodian of Senate traditions. He can add countless more examples. I could add a few more, but Senator Byrd could add an endless list.

Last week, the Republican leader and I spoke here about the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. When we first came to the Senate--Senator McConnell and this Senator--there was no Pledge of Allegiance before we started our sessions.

So today I will speak of one of our new traditions which we have observed daily for more than a decade and, again, just a few minutes ago when we recited the pledge. It has not always been this way.

The sentence itself, barely more than 30 words long, is not even 120 years old. The pledge was born like many American rituals, out of capitalism. It was written by a children's magazine trying to sell American flags on the 400th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the Americas.

The magazine sought to sell flags to every school in the country, and a minister and author named Francis Bellamy penned the pledge to promote unity among schoolchildren as the Nation reeled from the recent Civil War.

Almost a half century later, at the end of World War II, Congress formerly recognized the pledge, but it was not yet a Senate staple, not until 10 years ago, when a New Hampshire schoolgirl wrote to Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire and asked why the Senate did not recite the pledge every morning. She noted the House of Representatives recited it and her school did but not the Senate. Francis Bellamy would have been proud. The line he wrote to instill allegiance in schoolchildren ultimately became part of the Senate procedure at the behest of a student from New Hampshire.

We now recite the Pledge of Allegiance before any Senate business begins, and we are reminded of our common procedures and our shared loyalty, despite our often opposing outlooks politically.

The first day the pledge was recited in public schools across the country was Columbus Day in 1892. So ahead of this Columbus Day, which will fall this coming Monday, I take a brief moment to remind my fellow Senators and all those who are watching and listening to the Senate of one of our newest and proudest traditions, the salute to our flag.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will turn to executive session to consider the nomination of Thomas Perez to be an assistant attorney general, with the time until 12:15 equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions, the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

At 12:15 the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the nomination. Under a previous order entered, if cloture is invoked, all postcloture debate time will be yielded back and the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination.

We are working out now whether we will need a rollcall vote on confirmation of the nomination if cloture is invoked. Upon disposition of the nomination, the Senate will proceed to the weekly caucus luncheons which will last until 2:15 p.m. today.

After the recess, there will be a period of morning business until 3:15 p.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 3:15 the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations bill and begin a series of up to 14 rollcall votes in relation to the remaining amendments and passage of the bill.

Mr. President, S. 1751 is at the desk. It is my understanding it is due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill at this time.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if I can have the attention of the Senate, I had a chance to go to Montana with Senator Baucus. I had never been there. Nevada is a huge State area-wise, but Montana is twice as big as Nevada. We are the seventh largest State and Montana is the fourth largest. I can remember flying in that airplane and thinking it is unbelievable how big that State is. Well, that is kind of like Max Baucus. He always does things in the form of a marathon. As I have indicated, Montana is the fourth largest State in the Union. It is called Big Sky Country, and it is. It is such a beautiful State.

The first time Max ran statewide, he walked the State of Montana--820 miles he walked. I was always very satisfied that I was a marathoner, but I talked to Baucus, and, of course, he has run more of them than I have and faster than I have. I dropped the subject quickly when I learned he isn't satisfied with a marathon that is 26\1/4\ miles. He runs 50 miles. That shows the grit this man has. During one of his 50- milers, at 8 miles he fell very hard. He hit his head. There was blood all over. But he got up and ran another 42 miles in that race. He had hurt himself. A few weeks later, he had to be hospitalized as a result of that injury he suffered falling down. So it is pretty easy to understand why this marathon he has been involved in with health care has been fairly simple compared to some in which he has been involved.

I am here to congratulate Max Baucus on the next vote, which will be his 11,000th vote in the Senate. He has had a distinguished career in the House and in the Senate. He has been chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and is now chairman of the Finance Committee.

I have such great respect for Senator Baucus. There are a lot of career highlights, and I could list a lot of them. But for me, the most significant thing he did is not a bill you will see in the archives; it is his having stepped forward at a time when nobody thought it could be done, and in the face such opposition, he helped stop the privatization of Social Security. That was done by a lot of people, but it could never have been done without Max Baucus.

The people of Montana love Max Baucus because they know he is a marathoner, he is a man of strength and courage, and he understands the State of Montana.

It is hard for me to articulate the relationship I have with Senator Baucus. It is a relationship I prize. He is my friend and my confidant. He has a very tough job running the Finance Committee. Every big issue that comes before the Senate winds up in the Finance Committee because we have to figure out a way to pay for it. He runs that committee with an iron hand. We all know how tough he can be on that committee, but we also know how fair he can be. I learned that working on the Children's Health Insurance Program. That was a bipartisan piece of legislation. As a result of the work he did on that committee, we have more than 14 million children now who are able to participate in that program who would not have been able to do so otherwise. It was done on a bipartisan basis.

I join with everybody here in congratulating Max Baucus, who is, to me, what a Senator should be. He understands the significance of being a Senator, the significance of representing his State, and in the process he has become a great U.S. Senator.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of H.R. 3326, the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill.

The legislation before us will fund critical priorities in the Department of Defense designed to protect our Nation from current threats and develop cutting-edge warfighting technologies for the future. It will provide the essential resources, equipment, and support for the nearly 200,000 military servicemembers now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will fund more than $89 million in projects to create jobs in Nevada and help support Nevada's role in keeping our country safe.

During the course of the Senate's debate on this bill, we considered an amendment relating to U.S. operations in Afghanistan. The Obama administration is currently in the midst of an extremely important examination of our strategy in Afghanistan.

Getting that strategy right is critical. To make sure we have the right strategy, the President has rightly undertaken consultation with a wide range of military, civilian, and intelligence community officials, as well as with Members of Congress.

The amendment we considered was an attempt to cut off those discussions, to force the President's hand. This amendment was the wrong approach at the wrong time.

Right now, there are hundreds of servicemembers and civilians from my home State of Nevada serving courageously in Afghanistan. Many of these troops have been serving in the military since the 9-11 terrorist attacks on our country.

These troops have, in many cases, been deployed overseas three, four, and sometimes even five times. That means 3, 4, or more years that they have been taken away from their families and loved ones during the last 8 years.

Many of them have missed the births of their children, or their babies' first steps. Many have been pulled away from their civilian jobs, and have taken significant pay cuts. And, unfortunately, many troops in Nevada and throughout the Nation have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our mission in Afghanistan.

We owe these troops a rigorous and deliberative debate on the proper strategy in Afghanistan. We owe it to them to make sure we have examined every possible option so that we give them the best chance to win and to stay out of harm's way. To rush this process is to undercut the President's effort to protect to accomplish these objectives.

Unfortunately, a number of Senators have sought to do just that. They have called for military commanders to begin testifying about our strategy in Afghanistan before that strategy is set by the Commander in Chief. That approach is a blatant attempt to force the President's hand, to circumvent the rigorous, deliberative review that a decision of this magnitude demands. It would short-circuit the administration's review of our Afghanistan strategy, and it would cut many important voices out of the picture. Our troops and our national security cannot afford such a rash step.

Now, I agree that GEN Stanley McChrystal, Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, should testify to Congress about our strategy in Afghanistan. But, as his counterpart, GEN David Petraeus, did when this Chamber was debating our strategy in Iraq, I think it is appropriate for that testimony to occur after his Commander in Chief has arrived at a decision.

In the last several days, I have had the opportunity to meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and GEN Jim Jones, the President's National Security Adviser, to discuss the questions now facing us on Afghanistan. Today, I had the opportunity, along with several of my colleagues, to have a similar discussion with the President.

All three of these officials have made it clear that they are in the midst of a vigorous, healthy discussion in which military commanders, including General Petraeus and General McChrystal, have key seats at the table. They are working through a disciplined and deliberate process in which they will determine a strategy that will best advance the security interests of the United States and then determine the appropriate resources to allocate in implementing that strategy.

Talking about changes in troop levels or other resources before we have worked out the right strategy simply puts the cart before the horse. Now is not the time for such an irresponsible approach. Now is the time for all the best minds on the administration's national security team to take a hard look at our policy in Afghanistan, free from politics and other interference, and make sure we get it right.

As we move forward in this debate, my foremost priority will be to ensure that, no matter what the strategy, the brave servicemembers from Nevada and across America who are serving in Afghanistan have the support and resources they need to succeed in their mission. I am confident that the bill before us today takes an important step toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 4 o'clock today, with Senators during that time able to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2847, the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. Today will be for debate only. There will be no amendments today or rollcall votes today.

We have two of our experienced managers, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby from Alabama, my dear friend. He and I came to the Senate together. We had our offices next door to one another in the Longworth House Office Building. So we have two extremely fine managers. We hope to move through this bill as quickly as possible. It is a very important piece of legislation. We would have moved more quickly, but Senator Mikulski had an accident and was in the hospital and had surgery. But she is up strong and ready to take this on and get on it as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, President Reagan once said that the status quo is Latin for ``the mess we're in.'' ``A mess'' is unquestionably an accurate way to describe America's unhealthy health care system. The cost of staying healthy is rising too fast, much faster than families' incomes. Insurance companies are not cutting costs; instead, they are cutting benefits, often at the very time people need them the most. When costs go up as wages go down, when the sick are singled out and robbed of their health care, something has to give. Unfortunately, the ``give'' in this case is hard-working families,

more and more of whom file for bankruptcy and foreclosure every day because they cannot pay their medical bills. The casualties are the patients who put off a needed doctor's visit or do not get a medical procedure they need because it costs too much. The casualties are the people who cannot afford an important prescription, who use an expired prescription, who skip a dose of medicine or even take some pills and split them. You can even buy now, in a drugstore, a little plastic device that has a little blade in it that can cut your pills in half. Especially seniors are buying this now. They do this because they can't afford to stay healthy in the richest country in the world.

Every day, more and more families know what I am talking about. It is not just happening to a handful or a hundred, it is not just threatening thousands. The fact is, one in five Nevadans can't afford health insurance and those who do have it are at great risk of losing it. If we do not act today, 10 years from now health care costs will more than double and the number of Nevadans who can't afford health insurance will nearly double as well. It is the same in the States of Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Utah, California, and New Mexico. It does not matter where you are. That is a mess. It is not right. And it is what Democrats have been working so hard to turn around.

You have all heard a lot about our plan over the past months. I hope you know we are fighting to protect what works about the system, fix what does not, and help the middle class get ahead. You know we are fighting to stabilize health insurance for those who have it and help secure it for those who do not. We are fighting to keep the insurance industry honest and protect Medicare. We are fighting to lower costs for every family so every American can afford good, quality care that can never be taken away. And we are doing it all without adding a dime to the deficit.

That plan sounds pretty good to me, but some Republicans do not seem too fond of that plan. We have heard much about what their opposition has been in recent weeks and months. But what you have not heard a lot about is what the Republicans do think is the best way to fix our broken health care system.

Well, here are the basics. Under the Republican plan, insurance companies can deny you coverage when you need it the most, because they want the status quo. That is the status quo. Under the Republican plan, that is the status quo. Insurance companies can deny you coverage because you have high cholesterol, hay fever, or heart disease. They can raise your rates because you are getting older, because your dad had prostate cancer, or simply because you are a woman. That is the status quo. That is what they want. Under the Republican plan, if you do have health insurance, your family has to pay more than $1,000 a year extra to cover all of those who have no health insurance. If that plan sounds familiar, if it sounds like a mess, that is because it is exactly the same mess we are already in. As Ronald Reagan would say, that plan already goes by another name--I repeat--the status quo, the ``mess'' described by President Reagan.

Some might ask: Why would they be supporting the status quo? Why would they refuse to fix such a central part of our economy when it is so clearly and so badly broken?

Paul Krugman has a theory. Krugman, of course, won the Nobel Prize for economics last year. He teaches at Princeton, one of our finest universities, and writes a widely respected column in the New York Times. In his column today, he blames what he called ``the politics of spite.'' He noticed that most Republicans who resist health insurance are fighting it for the sake of fighting it. He observed that while we are fighting for hard-working families, Republicans are busy fighting us. He pointed out that there is no Republican plan to help people, only a plan to hurt the President. These politics are simply out of touch. The majority of Americans know our recovering economy needs health insurance reform now more than ever. The majority of Americans support the idea that health insurance companies should be required to cover every family. And the majority of Americans support creating more competition in the marketplace to drive down the cost of health insurance.

There are those who reflexively and recklessly stand in the way of what we all know needs to be done. Although their megaphone is very loud, they constitute a small minority. This is the minority--this is very hard to comprehend--the same minority who happily pumped one fist when America lost its bid to host the Olympics. They were cheering--we saw it on television--because we lost the Olympics. But they shake the other fist at those who slander us as unpatriotic. This is the same minority who disputes indisputable evidence about how our health care plan will help seniors or disputes undisputable evidence about our President's birth records. This is the same minority who relies on distortions, distractions, and deception to change the subject away from health care rather than debate the facts in good faith. Paul Krugman was right to call it the ``politics of spite,'' and he was right to conclude that such blind malice has no role in the legislative process.

Just as the majority of Americans yearn for the day when they can afford to live a healthy life without fear of living just one accident, one illness, or one pink slip away from losing everything, a majority of Americans also are hopeful about reform. They are optimistic. All of the polls indicate there should be reform.

I had the good fortune of serving in the Senate with Bill Frist. Bill Frist, when he came to the Senate, was a famous transplant surgeon. I can remember him telling me about, as a young surgeon, traveling to places in a small airplane to pick up a heart so he could take it and give it to someone else to give them life. He did that himself, he carried it himself, a very famous surgeon.

In the book I wrote, an autobiography, I talk about Bill Frist. Here on the Senate floor, whenever in a private conversation the subject of health care came up, his eyes lit. He was so into medicine. That was who he was. He was Dr. Bill Frist. He was a Republican. As I have indicated, he was a physician, and a good one. But here is what he said last Friday, a couple of days ago: If he still served in this body, he would vote for health insurance that will soon come to the floor. That is Bill Frist.

Former Senate Republican Leaders Bob Dole and Howard Baker, both famous men, have similarly supported reform--not specific reform, but they say reform should come to be. They didn't have the benefit of seeing this legislation as did Bill Frist.

All three--Frist, Dole, and Baker--have come out because they know it is necessary, it is overdue, and it is right. This is not a partisan issue. All three have recognized that the status quo is not an option. All three have done so in the spirit of service, not a sense of spite. How did they reach this conclusion when so many of the Republican colleagues in this body and elsewhere have not?

I will quote Bill Frist directly, Dr. Frist. He said:

I would take heat for it. . . . That's what leadership is

all about.

I encourage all my Republican colleagues to consider the words of two men on opposite sides of the political spectrum--Krugman, a real progressive, and Frist, a real conservative--who disagree on much about a lot of things. But both know that leadership, courage, and honesty will improve the lives of the people we represent. I encourage them to heed the words of a hero of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, who knew that anytime one defends a broken status quo, it only makes a bad situation worse and, in Reagan's words, ``a mess.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the conversation coming from the other side of the aisle this morning. A couple of things I have been watching make it very clear to me, and it is probably very clear to the American people: One side stands for changing the health care delivery system and the other side stands for keeping things the way they are.

We need to do something to keep our broken health care system from running off the tracks completely. It is already headed off the tracks. There is a wide range of ideas out there--a range as diverse as the people of this Nation--and that is the way it should be. I am confident those details will be worked out in the legislative process, and we are in the midst of that.

We Democrats fundamentally agree on one bottom line: We must act and we must act now to make it easier for people in America to live a healthy life.

I can't blame the American people for feeling somewhat frustrated because we have all these fake controversies, such as death panels--a way to divert attention from what we are trying to do. There are no death panels. The only thing that has been suggested is that people have an examination every year and sit down with their physician and find out what the future holds in the way of treatment. Death panels is a diversion.

The abortion issue is a diversion. We want to keep things the same way they have been in this country for a long time: Use the so-called Hyde amendment, which is now the so-called Capps amendment, which, in effect, just carries that over.

One of their real diversions in this is a bill to help undocumented, illegal aliens. All these are diversions. They have nothing to do with what we are trying to do: to improve the health care delivery system.

There are so many examples. A woman from Las Vegas came to see me yesterday. She was raised in Reno, now from Las Vegas, living a wonderful life. She gets sick. She has breast cancer at age 29. It changed her life dramatically. Because why? Her health insurance was so terribly inadequate. I am from Searchlight, NV. A woman whom I have known for many years, she is the assistant postmistress. She helps me at my home. I give her a few dollars every month. Her husband is retired. They have a 23-year-old son. Of course, he goes off their insurance when he is 23. He is young. He is healthy. Within 6 weeks of turning 23, he no longer has health insurance, he is diagnosed as having testicular cancer. He has no insurance. What does that do to that family?

What we are doing is we are trying to change that so that 29-year-old woman with breast cancer, the 23-year-old with testicular cancer has some coverage, insurance coverage. That is what we are trying to do.

We were here yesterday talking about four States: Oregon, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Nevada, four States that have been hit so hard by this recession--I mean, so hard. Nevada has led the Nation in foreclosures for 31 months in a row. People on the other side of the aisle are complaining because, in the Finance Committee, they are trying to help Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Michigan. Does that mean those are the only States they are going to try to help? Of course not.

Every day in Nevada, 220 people lose their health insurance. People woke up this morning with insurance and they will go to bed tonight without it. That is 7 days a week they are losing their insurance in Nevada. Do we want to change that? Of course, we want to change that.

Thirteen percent of Nevadans are employed. More than 18 percent are uninsured. A lot of people have insurance that is inadequate. They are underinsured. It is not good insurance. We have had some come from the other side of the aisle over the last few days saying they don't care about Nevadans hurting. They think the status quo is just fine, and they refuse to help their fellow citizens who are suffering. They seem to want me to apologize for helping my constituents who are struggling. I am never going to apologize for trying to help the people of Nevada. I was born there. I am going to do everything I can to help the people in the State of Nevada.

Let me tell everyone within the sound of my voice something else. I was talking to one of my Republican colleagues recently. He is from the State of Georgia, a wonderful man, Johnny Isakson. I said: How about those rains? He said: Well, I have a rain gauge in my home. In 24 hours, it rained 18 inches. I can't comprehend that. In Las Vegas, the average rain fall per year is 4 inches, but he got 18 inches in 24 hours, and the next day I think he told me they got 8 inches. That torrential rain they had in Georgia has created problems the State can't handle, and they are asking for Federal emergency help. I want to help them. I am a Senator of the United States. I am not a Nevada Senator; I am a Senator of the United States. My first obligation is to help my people in Nevada, but if there is a problem in Georgia because of the rains or the fires in California, I am going to do everything I can to help them, just as I am going to do everything I can to help the people of Michigan, Oregon, and Rhode Island, as I spoke yesterday.

So we have to look out for each other. We have mutual responsibilities. I am disappointed that people would complain about the fact that we have situations in our States that we need help for. We have a lot of poor people and a lot of people getting poorer real quick.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans simply don't have any ideas for helping the American people as it relates to health care, even people in their own States who are suffering

so desperately. It is another excuse. It is more of the same. It is more evidence that some on the other side think it will never be a good time--never be a good time--to reform the health care system.

For the latest episode on that, look what is going on in the Finance Committee. Are there constructive amendments offered? No. Just nitpicking, just a way to slow things down. It is more proof they want to defend the status quo, refuse to take care of their suffering and struggling constituents, and ignore the will of the American people--at any cost. We know that cost is great.

Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, President Obama told me on a telephone call 6 weeks ago to make sure when we finish this health care legislation it is not a program for only the poor but that it is a program for the American people; that in the process the poor and middle class will be taken care of. I agree with the President.

What the Senator has said is true. The majority of the people who file bankruptcy do so because of health care costs. That says it all.

Mr. President, I have looked forward for the last half-hour or so to this occasion, recognizing that Orrin was going to be making his 12,000th vote the next vote.

The people of Utah are proud of Senator Hatch for a lot of reasons. His name is synonymous with Utah. Even though he spent a lot of his growing up in Pennsylvania, the name ``Hatch'' is a prominent name throughout Utah. They even have a town named Hatch. His great- grandfather, Jeremiah Hatch, helped found the town of Vernal. Orrin, I have to say this: My staff preparing this said the beautiful town of Vernal. I had to change it to say the interesting town of Vernal. But it is an indication of the roots of the Hatch family in Utah. That town of Vernal, UT, was founded more than 130 years ago by Jeremiah, and the heart of every Hatch since then was been part of the State of Utah.

Senator Hatch has chaired the Judiciary Committee on more than one occasion. He spent 7 years at the helm of that panel during some of the most difficult times we have had in the Senate dealing with judicial appointments. He served as chairman of the HELP Committee. In that post, he sat alongside his friend, Ted Kennedy, for almost two decades. Senator Hatch has a lot to be proud of in his legislative record. One of the things that is a hallmark of Senator Hatch: He is the reason we have a Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packages and advertisements. That is because of Senator Hatch.

He has not only been a good Senator, he is also a terrific lawyer. He excelled in his younger days as a basketball player, has fought in the ring, and as we have heard from the Republican leader, he is an accomplished musician, and he really is. He recently wrote a song in honor of Senator Kennedy. It is not the first song he has written about his friend.

Orrin Hatch has dedicated his life to people, period. As a young man, he took 2 years out of his life to serve as a Mormon missionary in the States of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. That is, as some say, similar to going into the Army and not having a gun to carry. It is a very strict 2 years. They have very strict assignments and a routine they go through, and it prepared him well for what we do in the Senate. But during his heavy load in the Senate, he has rarely not been a Sunday school teacher or doing other things with the church.

I think we on this side would agree that Orrin Hatch on occasion can be fairly partisan, but I would also say that is not always the case. He has almost, nearly alone on a number of occasions, broken away and been responsible for important legislation in recent years, including the Children's Health Insurance Program. Many educational issues, including Leave No Child Behind, have been as a result of his stepping out.

Orrin and I are not political soulmates, but we are soulmates. He is a wonderful man and a good friend. As we have heard, he is the father of 6, the grandfather of 23, and a great-grandfather. He is one of the most senior Members of this body and one of the most respected.

I think truly the reason that Orrin is the person he is is because of Elaine. He has an angelic wife, a woman who is at his side, supportive of him through good times and bad. She is a wonderful woman.

I am happy to have as one of my neighbors from the State above ours, Utah, Orrin Hatch, who will truly go down as one of Utah's outstanding, great Senators, and that is the way it should be.

Mr. President, there has been a tremendous amount of work going into getting us to where we are now. It is long and tedious and one of the most complicated bills we do. It is the most complicated appropriations bill we do. So I very much appreciate the work done by Senators Cochran and Inouye. They are both experienced and terrific individuals and great Senators, their staffs, and all the floor staff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 3326 on Tuesday, October 6, the following list of first-degree amendments be the only amendments remaining in order to H.R. 3326, other than any other pending amendments, if not listed, and the committee substitute amendment; that no second-degree amendment or side-by-side amendment be in order to any of the listed amendments, except as provided below:

Franken amendment No. 2588; Barrasso amendment No. 2567; Bond amendment No. 2596; Coburn amendment No. 2565; Coburn amendment No. 2566; Kyl amendment No. 2608; that once agreement is entered into, it will be withdrawn; Sanders amendment No. 2601; Inhofe amendment No. 2618; McCain amendment No. 2580; McCain amendment No. 2584; McCain amendment 2560, with an Inouye side-by-side amendment in order and would be voted prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 2560; McCain amendment No. 2583; Lieberman-Sessions amendment No. 2616, as modified; that it be in order for the managers to offer managers' amendments, which have been cleared by managers and leaders, and that if offered, the amendments be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider laid on the table; that in the case in which the managers are agreeable with a modification of a listed amendment, then the amendment be so modified with the changes agreed upon; that upon disposition of the listed amendments, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the subcommittee appointed as conferees; provided further that if a point of order is raised and sustained against the substitute amendment, then it be in order for a new substitute to be offered, minus the offending provision; that the new substitute be considered and agreed to, no further amendments be in order, with provisions in this agreement listed after adoption of the original substitute amendment remaining in effect; that the vote sequence with respect to the listed amendments be entered later and that the only debate time remaining be 2 minutes, equally divided in the usual form, prior to each vote; and that on any sequenced votes, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each after the first vote; further, that the cloture motions be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m., Monday, October 5, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 87, H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice Appropriations Act; and that once the bill is reported, there be debate only, with no amendments in order except the committee-reported substitute.