Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Saint Thomas Aquinas Cathedral in Reno.

Construction on Saint Thomas Aquinas began in 1906, after Reno's sole Catholic church was destroyed by fire. Father Thomas Tubman led the effort to build a new church for Reno Catholics. He planned to construct a larger, more centrally located church, explaining that ``The time has come for making the structures in Reno attractive as well as useful. The Cathedral will be one of the finest buildings in the State.''

On June 21, 1908, Saint Thomas Aquinas opened its doors to parishioners with a remarkable dedication ceremony. Over 3,000 people waited outside the new church long before the ceremony was set to begin. At 10:30, dozens of priests and bishops, 120 Knights of Columbus, 2 bands and hundreds of parishioners were led by the chief of police and 16 patrolmen in a march from the convent of the Sisters of Mary to Saint Thomas Aquinas Church. Upon arriving, the Knights of Columbus encircled the new church as Bishop Grace blessed the buildings exterior. A high mass was then celebrated with the church filled to capacity. About one hundred worshipers were unable to enter, and instead waited outside the building, listening to the beautiful music from the choir and organist.

To celebrate its centennial anniversary, Reno Catholics reenacted this special ceremony last month. They joined in procession once again and marched together to the Saint Thomas Aquinas Cathedral, where a celebratory mass was held. As they marched, they rejoiced in 100 years of memories at their place of worship.

Today, Saint Thomas Aquinas Cathedral prominently stands in the heart of downtown Reno and will forever remain in the hearts of Catholics who have worshiped here in the last 100 years. I am pleased to honor Saint Thomas Aquinas Cathedral today. I know that it will continue to serve Nevadans as an outstanding religious institution for another 100 years.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ms. Betsy Rieke, a woman who has served my State and the West for nearly three decades. Like many of us in this body, Ms. Rieke is an attorney. Her specialty has been water issues, and, as many of my colleagues know well, being a water lawyer in the West is not a job for the faint of heart.

Ms. Rieke's experience in water law began in Arizona, where she served as Chief Legal Counsel and Director for the Department of Water Resources under former Gov. Bruce Babbit. Ms. Rieke then served as an Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science in the Clinton administration. During her tenure, she helped negotiate the 1994 CALFED Bay-Delta Accord in California. This landmark agreement brought together numerous Federal, State, and local agencies and environmental enthusiasts to resolve a looming environmental and economic crisis. Honored several times for her important role in securing this accord, she did so in her trademark fashion--by bringing people together, leading difficult discussions, and helping parties find solutions to meet the community's diverse interests and goals.

In 1998, Ms. Rieke brought her expertise to Northern Nevada where she serves as the area manager for the Lahontan Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation. In such an arid place, she's been responsible for irrigation, wetland restoration, wildlife protection, and maintaining drinking water for one of the fastest growing regions in the country. Like she did in Arizona and California, Ms. Rieke showed great leadership as she brought many Federal, State, municipal, tribal, public and private interests together to reach the historic Truckee River Operating Agreement to be signed next month--an issue close to me and important to many Nevadans.

I also appreciate her work with others to preserve and restore Nevada's desert terminal lakes, their wildlife, and habitats. She has fostered relationships and cobbled together agreements that have improved Pyramid Lake, and she has advised me on ways to restore Walker Lake. While many people have been working very hard, for many years, to restore Nevada's unique natural resources, Ms. Rieke's determination, focus, and tireless efforts provided leadership for these efforts.

I extend my most sincere gratitude to Betsy. Nevadans are certainly fortunate to have had such a talented, skilled, and committed individual working on their behalf.

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

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

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the time until 11 will be equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees. At 11 a.m., the Senate will proceed to two stacked rollcall votes. The first vote will be on the motion to concur with respect to H.R. 3221, the housing reform legislation. The second vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3186, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. The last 20 minutes prior to the 11 o'clock vote, it is my understanding, and I direct this to the Chair, has been reserved for Senator McConnell and me. I have the last 10 minutes; is that right?

Mr. President, I have a question for the distinguished Republican whip.

You are going to take the minority leader's 10 minutes prior to the 11 o'clock vote?

Mr. President, I am happy to ask consent that the Senator have that, but he is not entitled to leader time. If he wants an extra 10 minutes, that is fine with me.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the minority has 2 minutes left; is that right?

Mr. President, I say to my friend, do you intend to use that?

Mr. President, on our side, it is my understanding we have 1 minute, plus my time; is that right?

Mr. President, I would yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. No, he doesn't want it. OK. That is unusual.

I wish I had the words to express adequately my appreciation for the work done by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee. Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby have done a remarkable job under tremendously difficult circumstances to get where we are today. They were for this piece of legislation before Fannie and Freddie got into big trouble because they knew and they could see the problems with the housing industry. The fact that Fannie and Freddie got into trouble only made it more imperative that these two managers of this legislation move forward more rapidly. They have overcome tremendous obstacles.

We have had seven cloture votes on this housing bill. I do not know if in the history of this country we have ever had a single piece of legislation with that many cloture votes, but we had them on this bill. These two very fine legislators--one from the State of Connecticut, with a totally different economy, different political base than that of the State of Alabama--worked together for the good of the American people. I so admire and appreciate the work they have done under, I repeat, very difficult circumstances.

For most Americans, yesterday, Friday, was an ordinary summer Friday. But for about 8,500 families, it was a terrible day because, when they got their mail, there was a foreclosure notice or, when they opened their door, they found on their door a notice of foreclosure or, when they opened the door on Friday, there was someone at the door serving papers on them, moving the legal process forward--foreclosure notices. But they joined, yesterday, 8,500 who received their notice the day before and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that.

During the process of this legislation moving forward, that we should have passed fairly quickly--within, at the most, a week--hundreds of thousands of people received foreclosure notices. Well, 8,500 families will not receive their foreclosure notices today or tomorrow but only because the courthouses are closed for the weekend. On Monday, the drumbeat of foreclosure will continue.

In Nevada, 1 out of every 43 families who have a home now have their home in foreclosure. It is almost the same in Arizona and almost the same in California and almost the same in Florida. There are only two States in the country that do not have the problem, one of which is the State of Alabama.

But for families who face each day with trepidation because of a foreclosure concern they have, hoping a notice has not arrived, in some fashion--but knowing it may soon--a foreclosure notice is something that is a terrible day in their lives. But today, this Senate will deliver some rare and much-needed good news for people who own homes throughout America. Not only will it help those people who own homes but neighborhoods, communities, States, local governments and servicers and lenders.

We are on the verge of passing a bipartisan housing bill that will help rebuild communities, safeguard future housing meltdowns, and, most importantly, help at-risk families keep their homes. Because of the work in this legislation dealing with Fannie and Freddie, the financial community in America will be stabilized.

It has taken far too long to reach this point where we are today. We have talked about that. The housing bill was introduced in February and work began in the fall of last year.

Now, I have already talked about Senators Dodd and Shelby. During the process of working to get legislation that they thought was appropriate to bring before this body, they both received pressure from their respective caucuses, from editorials: Why aren't they doing something more rapidly? They wanted to bring something to the Senate that would pass. They wanted to work with the House on something that would pass both bodies and be signed by the President. So, again, I underscore the great legislative work these two gentlemen did.

Not only have we had seven cloture votes but we have had Presidential veto threats. Thank goodness those threats have been withdrawn.

As some Republicans have continued to stall, families have continued to lose their homes. And note I said ``some'' Republicans, not all Republicans in the Senate. But today, at long last, a ray of hope--a chance to turn the page on the housing crisis and begin a new chapter that gives more families a chance at the American dream of responsible home ownership.

Now, we are going to move--after we complete legislation on this housing bill--to LIHEAP. We would not have the opportunity to vote on this most important measure, this energy legislation, but for one Senator, a Senator from the sparsely populated State of Vermont, Mr. Bernard Sanders. It is because of his advocacy for months and months that we are going to have an opportunity to vote on this. He has worked on legislation. We have Republicans who support and have agreed to support his legislation. We are going to move to proceed to that.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have expended countless hours of floor time and many barrels of ink talking about the need to do something about energy prices. While they have endlessly talked, the Democrats have been proposing comprehensive solutions.

Yesterday, Republicans refused to join us in a bill to stem the excessive

speculation by Wall Street traders who artificially bid up the price of oil for their own profit. That was a plan Republicans had claimed to support previously. It was part of their legislation. When it came time to take action, the monied interests of this country backed the Republicans down from doing the right thing.

When we offered the Republicans a vote on the very thing they claim to want more than anything--offshore drilling--they passed on that. They said no.

Now, Democrats are proposing improvements to the LIHEAP program. This is yet another bipartisan opportunity to help Americans cope with our energy crisis.

This is something that is a crisis that has been here for a while. Listen to what George Bush, the President of the United States, said. This is a quote:

First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund

LIHEAP, which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly

here in the East, pay for their high--high--fuel bills.

A direct quote from President Bush.

This legislation assists senior citizens, low-income families, and those who are disabled to afford to heat their homes in winter and cool them during excessive periods of heat in summer.

There are not many States like Nevada. In the southern part of the State, in Laughlin, NV, it is not unusual for the temperature to hit 120 degrees. In the northern part of the State, in places such as Owyhee, it is the coldest place in the Nation on many occasions. It is not unusual at all for it to be 20 degrees below zero. These ranges in temperature indicate that if you are old, if you are disabled, if you are poor, you have trouble paying for the fuel costs to cool your home to survive or to heat your home to survive. People who have temperatures above 100 degrees know how important it is to keep their home cool, and people who are freezing know how important it is to keep their house warm.

Since 2001, Americans are paying three times as much for heating oil and twice as much for propane. As these energy costs have skyrocketed, these LIHEAP proposals we have talked about have been hamstrung. These programs are not there to provide the necessary assistance. As the winter months are growing near, this problem will exacerbate. It will grow worse.

This legislation has rightly earned bipartisan support, as I have talked about, with at least a dozen Republican cosponsors of the Senator's legislation. It is regrettable Republicans could force us to waste valuable hours on a cloture vote on proceeding to this legislation--even allowing us to debate the matter. It is unimaginable Republicans might choose to block us from passing this worthy legislation for which President Bush said: ``First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP, which is a way to help low- income folks, particularly here in the East, pay for their high--high-- fuel [costs].''

Well, it is not only folks in the East. It is folks in the West and Midwest and all over this country. I hope they will not stall this. They say they want to legislate on energy. They had the chance yesterday. They did not take that. They have a chance again today. We will soon see what they choose to do.

If Republicans choose to join us in passing LIHEAP, we will welcome their votes, certainly, with open arms. But if they choose to block this legislation, they will have to shoulder the burden of millions of low-income families, senior citizens, and those with disabilities who are struggling and suffering to pay their ever-rising energy bills.

Mr. President, I ask that the vote now occur that is scheduled for 11 o'clock.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know everybody is concerned about what is going to happen tomorrow and Monday. We won't know until after the next vote is cast. Within an hour or so after the final vote, all of the offices will know what will happen either tomorrow and/or Monday. We will have more definite information after the next vote.

Mr. President, the Republicans had every opportunity, for more than a month now, to talk about energy and to vote on energy. They turned that down. On speculation, they had an opportunity to do that. Even though it was part of their proposal, they dropped it. They had an opportunity to vote on drilling. They dropped that. They had an opportunity to vote on oil shale exploration. They would not do that. They said nuclear power was an immediate need of the

American people. They would not vote on that.

Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are being--it is being recommended by their leader to vote against LIHEAP. This issue is important to old people, disabled people, and poor people. There are 12 or 13 Republican sponsors of the legislation. So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, go ahead and vote against your best interests, I guess.

Mr. President, my friend, the Republican leader, has said something that is not true. On this floor, on numerous occasions, and in public meetings on numerous occasions in the past 10 days, I have said we are willing to vote on drilling, we are willing to vote on oil shale, and we are willing to vote on nuclear power. In their package, that is one of their seven amendments, which starts on the road to 28 amendments. We said we are willing to vote on that. Now everybody over there, all 48 of them--or however many there are--should understand you have had the opportunity to vote on those amendments. I have offered it on many occasions, many occasions. So any conversation to the contrary simply is without any factual foundation. The record is replete with what I have said.

Mr. President, the Republican minority is being misled on this issue. We have had opportunities to vote on every one of your amendments, every one of them. They have been stalling for months on lots of things but in the last two weeks on energy.

Everyone should understand, if you want to vote on drilling, we offered that to you on numerous occasions. Oil shale--we offered that on many occasions. The same on nuclear power. This is an opportunity-- and American people should understand this--to avoid legislating. It has even gotten so directed that they are going to take out their frustration on what is going on in the country today--mainly that the status quo is not something that the American people want anymore. They are going to take it out on old people, disabled people, and poor people. That is what this LIHEAP vote is all about.

Folks, go ahead and vote against LIHEAP. We are going to vote for it.

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Another thing, Mr. President, I am going to get the last word, so we can keep going all day.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the American people have seen here, in the last few minutes, what is going on in the country today. No one denies that their big panacea to all of the problems of gas prices--what they have said was the silver bullet--is voting on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, letting the Governors decide where they want to drill. We said you can vote on that. They don't want to vote on that. It is the same on oil shale and nuclear.

This is a big stall. They have been stalling for 18 months. That is why we have had to file almost 90 cloture motions, because of filibusters they have conducted.

The final answer to all this stalling is going to come on November 4, because the American people are going to make sure that next year there are not going to be 49 Republicans over there.

Yes, I objected.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to invoke cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3186.

I now withdraw the motion to proceed to S. 3186.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 894, S. 3297. With that, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, pursuant to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief based upon information provided to me by the committees of jurisdiction, S. 3297 does not contain any congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as those terms are defined in rule XLIV.

There are no tax or tariff provisions in the bill whatsoever. Nor do I believe the bill contains any ``congressionally directed spending items'' which rule XLIV defines as ``a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula- driven or competitive award process.''

To clear up any misconceptions, the bill provides only authorizations--enactment of the bills would have no effect on the Federal budget deficit or debt. As the nonpartisan CBO stated in a letter regarding S. 3297, ``By themselves--that is, in the absence of subsequent legislation--those authorizations [in S. 3297] do not cause changes in Federal spending or revenues.'' I wish to ask that a copy of this and a related CBO letter be printed in the Record.

As a formal matter, no provision of S. 3297 could qualify as a congressionally directed spending item under rule XLIV because no provision was added ``primarily at the request of a Senator.'' S. 3297 is a compilation of bills identified by my staff as meeting the following criteria: No. 1. the other Chamber has approved companion legislation; No. 2. the Senate committee of jurisdiction supports the bill, e.g., by approving it in Committee, by assenting to a ``hotline,'' et cetera; No. 3. the bill has broad bipartisan support, and No. 4, to the best of our knowledge the only impediment to enacting the bill was the obstruction of a single Member of the Senate. Bills were included in the package because they met these criteria, not ``primarily at the request of a Senator.'' That is, with one exception noted below, if a bill satisfied these criteria, it was included in the package regardless of whether a Senator requested its inclusion, and if it did not satisfy these criteria, it was not included regardless of whether a Senator requested its inclusion.

The only item in the package that does not meet all of these criteria is the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act, S. 1810, introduced by Senator Brownback and cosponsored by Senator Kennedy, because it has not yet been passed by the House. Senator Brownback requested inclusion of the provision in the package, Senator Kennedy supported the bill, and it apparently has broad bipartisan support. No provision of that act could be considered a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.

But because the spirit of transparency underlying rule XLIV is not served by such a formal approach, my staff asked the committees of jurisdiction to identify any item that might be considered a congressionally directed spending item in the respective bills as considered by committee. Each committee indicated that it did not believe any item included in S. 3297 within its respective jurisdiction meets the definition of a congressionally directed spending item.

The Advancing America's Priorities Act includes many important bills, including the following: a bill to promote research into and better care for those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease; a bill to promote research into and better care for Americans suffering paralysis, a healthcare problem all too prevalent among our brave veterans; a bill to promote research into and better care for individuals who suffer strokes; a bill to promote research into and awareness of postpartum depression; several bills to protect children from exploitation and to crack down on child pornography; several bills to reauthorize successful U.S. foreign policy programs; a bill to promote the safety of families enjoying America's beaches; a bill to help increase the availability of broadband throughout the United States; several bills to improve our understanding of the oceans; and a bill to promote investments in mitigating risks before a disaster strikes, saving the Federal and State governments money in the long run.

To avoid specious arguments that distract from the substance of these important bills, and in the interest of the broadest possible transparency, I provide here information about each of the items that even might be alleged to be a congressionally directed spending item.

One subtitle in the bill, title VI, subtitle A, authorizes $1.5 billion in funding for capital investments and preventive maintenance projects for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, an authority established pursuant to a compact provided for under Federal law. Over 40 percent of the Washington Metro ridership consists of Federal employees. The Government relies upon Metro for transporting the millions of tourists who visit the Nation's Capital each year, for special events, and for evacuation planning. Since the Metro was first built, the Federal Government has made capital investments in the Metro on three separate occasions: 1969, 1980, and 1990. Apparently, a Republican Senator is claiming this subtitle constitutes an ``earmark.'' Assuming that the term ``earmark'' is intended to be synonymous with ``congressionally directed spending item,'' this claim appears to be inaccurate. Under this theory of what constitutes a ``congressionally directed spending item,'' nearly every authorization or appropriation relating to an entity within the government of Washington, DC, would be considered an earmark. The House did not consider the legislation to contain an earmark under equivalent House rules. Senators Mikulski, Warner, Cardin, and Webb sent a letter supporting inclusion of this provision in the package. It was included because it satisfied the criteria noted above.

Another item in the bill, title VII, authorizes $12 million for the Smithsonian Institution to construct a greenhouse facility at its museum support facility in Suitland, MD. The lease on the greenhouse currently used by the Smithsonian Institution expires next May. If the Smithsonian Institution does not obtain a new greenhouse facility, it will have to find a way to dispose of the scientifically important National Orchid Collection, over 11,000 orchids, many of which are extinct or threatened in the wild. Further, the greenhouse is important to the historic gardens surrounding the Smithsonian Museums. The provision would not appear to meet the definition of a congressionally directed spending item in any event because it is a House-originated item, the House committee noted that the legislation was requested by the Smithsonian Institution--the authorization is directed to a Federal trust instrumentality, and money appropriated under the provision would be spent under a competitive bidding process. The House committee of jurisdiction stated that it was unclear whether the provision met the definition of a ``congressional earmark''

under equivalent House rules. Senators Dodd and Leahy expressed their support for including the provision in the package. It was included because it satisfied the criteria noted above.

One bill in the package--title V, subtitle B, part II, subpart B-- authorizes funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to advance undersea technology through the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology. This technology supports NOAA's Undersea Research Program's, NURP's, regional centers. The National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology was established in 2002 at the University of Mississippi--Oxford, MS--and the University of Southern Mississippi--Stennis Space Center, MS--in partnership with NURP's. The National Technology Institute and undersea regional centers undergo periodic external review. According to the best information available to me, funds under the provision would be administered through a competitive award process, and therefore this provision would not appear to constitute a congressionally directed spending item. A similar provision in a House companion bill was not treated as an earmark under equivalent House rules. According to the best information available to me, Senator Cochran requested inclusion of the provision in the original committee-passed bill. The part of the bill in which the provision is located was not included in the package at the request of a Senator; it was included because it satisfied the criteria noted above.

Finally, another item in the bill authorizes $5 million in funding for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews, Title IV, subtitle F. This provision would not appear to meet the Rule XLIV definition of ``congressionally directed spending item'' as it is a House-originated item, there is no indication that the House treated it as containing an earmark under equivalent House rules, and it is clear that support for the provision is based on widespread agreement with the policy underlying it, not parochial interests--the House bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 407 to 13. The provision was not included at the request of a Senator; it was included because it satisfied the criteria noted above.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the two letters to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act; further, that the Senate disagree to the House amendment, agree to the request for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to authorize conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio 4 to 3.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there are a number of individuals who want to speak. I ask consent that the following be the order of the Chair: that Senator Brown be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Cantwell for 1 minute--Senators Brown and Cantwell for 1 minute and Senator Enzi for 1 minute. How many minutes is that?

Where I made my mistake is Senator Cantwell needs 4 minutes. So Senator Brown, 10 minutes; Senator Cantwell, 4 minutes; Senator Enzi, 1 minute; Senator Carper, 1 minute; and then the Senator from Alaska would be given 30 minutes to distribute however she feels appropriate. This is all as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 732, S. 3001, the DOD authorization, at a time determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, and that when the bill is considered, the only first-degree amendments in order be those that are germane to S. 3001, H.R. 5668, the House companion measure, and items within the jurisdiction of the House Armed Services Committee, and that the first-degree amendments be subject to second-degree amendments which are germane to the amendment to which it was offered; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, it then be in order for the Senate to consider, en bloc, the following calendar items: Nos. 733, 734, and 735; that all after the enacting clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 3001, as passed by the Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A--S. 3002, Division B--S. 3003, Division C--S. 3004; that these bills be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; further, that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record; provided further, that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 758, H.R. 5658, the House companion; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3001, as amended and passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that upon passage of H.R. 5658, as amended, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing vote of the two houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the above occurring with no further intervening action or debate; finally, that in order for a first-degree amendment to be considered in order to the bill, it must be filed at the desk, and comport to the requirements specified above, by 2 p.m., Wednesday, July 30, 2008; provided further that the bill would not be considered prior to the filing deadline of first- degree amendments.

I would say to my friend, the only requirement was that the amendments be germane. There were unlimited amendments as long as they relate to what we are dealing with on our side.

I understand the objection. The Senator from Utah is certainly not supposed to be totally aware of all that is in the Defense bill. But this agreement would allow scores of amendments because it would be anything that is germane. That is certainly nothing unusual. So I understand.

I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 18th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have much to celebrate on this occasion. Signed into law 18 years ago, the ADA has fundamentally strengthened our Nation with its promise of equal rights and opportunity for individuals with disabilities.

We can see the ADA's transformative effects on society, with our public facilities, services, transportation, and telecommunications now accessible to millions who were excluded in the past. Even though the results are easy for most of us to take for granted, they can mean the difference between exclusion and full participation for a person with a disability. The ADA has ushered in a new era of opportunity in the workplace as well. After all, this legislation was intended to prohibit discriminatory job decisions in the same spirit of the other great civil rights laws of our country.

The ADA both reflects and reinforces our commitment to the inclusion, understanding, and acceptance of all people--no matter their ability or disability.

I have met countless Nevadans with disabilities over the years whose stories breathe life into the ideals set forth by the ADA. They want to live, work, and pursue the American dream on equal footing with everyone else, and the ADA has paved the way for them to do so.

Nonetheless, the struggles that people with disabilities continue to face show that we still have a long way to go before the ADA's promise is fully realized. Economic independence, affordable health care, and the dignity of equal treatment are still beyond the reach of too many, and poverty and isolation still afflict the majority of people with disabilities. Unfortunately, court rulings in recent years have exacerbated these challenges by narrowing the ADA's coverage contrary congressional intent. It is time to restore the ADA to the law it was meant to be.

So let us renew our efforts to build upon the founding principles of this landmark civil rights law. I look forward to continuing this vital work in honor of all those who fought for its passage and on behalf of everyone today who cherishes the equality of opportunity promised by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 395.

Mr. President, S. 3344 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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