Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the conference report on H.R. 3222, the Defense appropriations conference report. I would note that this matter will be managed by Senators Inouye and Stevens.

Mr. President, Senator Inouye was called away for a meeting with another Senator. Therefore, it is my understanding the distinguished Senator from Alabama wishes to speak. Does he have any idea how long he is going to talk?

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii has managed this bill for many years. He has done an outstanding job. It is an honor and a pleasure to work with the Senator from Hawaii. It doesn't hurt once in a while to remind each of us what a great man he is. I am sure I will embarrass him, and I do this rarely, but for those of us who have the opportunity to serve in the Senate, one of the highlights in all our lives is having the ability to tell our children and our families that we served with Dan Inouye. Here is a man who is a Medal of Honor winner for gallantry during World War II.

This week, the President of France bestowed the highest civilian honor they can bestow on any non-Frenchman--and that is the Legion of Honor--to Senator Inouye. So not only is he a great manager of this piece of legislation before the Senate now, he is a great American. That is an understatement.

I hope we can do this bill as quickly as possible, and 6 o'clock is coming soon. This piece of legislation has attached to it the continuing resolution, as was done last year when we were not in charge but the Republicans were in charge. That is not saying the Republicans did anything wrong. We have a situation where we have to fund the Government, and funding runs out next Friday, a week from tomorrow. So this would fund the Government until the middle of next month. Attached to the continuing resolution--we want all the transparency we can have and should have. A number of items are extremely important. FEMA has run out of money all over the country because all these emergencies have occurred. There is money for wildfires, and it is pretty clear what that is about. There is $1.9 billion in the bill for veterans. This is what the President requested. It is not as much as we wanted. He requested that. We put his money in the continuing resolution. There is $3 billion that was requested by the Senators from Louisiana, which is something that is an emergency. The people of Louisiana have suffered a great deal, as have other States in the gulf. This allows people to come back to their homes. If this money is not obtained by the first of the year, then all applications will have to be stopped. So it is important to do this. I hope we can complete this as quickly as possible.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to do that and, when he completes his statement, that I be recognized.

Mr. President, one point I failed to mention in talking about this bill which has been brought to the floor in the form of a conference report is the House of Representatives acted on this conference earlier today. The vote in the House of Representatives was 400 to 15--400 to 15--and here we are in the Senate playing around with this bill today, a bill that gives $470 billion to our fighting men and women around the country for the next year, and it funds our Government until the middle of December, and we are having some kind of a procedural meltdown in the Senate.

Does this mean the House of Representatives, with their overwhelming vote of 400 to 15, didn't know what they were doing? The House is evenly divided, just as we are, with Democrats and Republicans. The difference is fairly minimal. But Democrats and Republicans, by an overwhelming margin, voted for this conference report. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

If we don't adopt this conference report today, here are the procedures, everybody. Listen to what we face. We don't have to take it up. We can just drop it. We don't have to have a vote on it today. The word is out that there are individuals who want to take the CR out of this conference report. So they do that, and we decide to move forward on the legislation. Then what would happen is we could pass the conference report, as amended, take the CR out of it. It will go back to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives could sit on it for the next 6 months or they could pass it during their session tomorrow.

Why do we need to do that? We have to fund the Government. We are not going to shut down the Government. There may only be 51 one of us, but we will always vote to keep the Government open. The Republicans tried shutting down the Government 10, 12 years ago, and it didn't work. We are not going to do that. We just thought it was appropriate--and I don't know who could object. The Democrats didn't do it in the House of Representatives; the Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives decided FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency needed money. Why do they need money? There have been emergencies all over the country, and they don't have the money to take care of what is needed. They are out of money.

Have we had wildfires? We have had wildfires. They swept the West. Maybe they were on television a lot, as they were when the wildfires swept southern California, but they have been burning for months, and we are out of money. The Federal Government has obligations. The President has declared a number of emergencies because of these fires. That takes taxpayers' money. So we put that in the bill.

The House also decided in their wisdom, which I support, to take money from what the President asked for veterans--$1.9 billion--and put it on the CR so he could get that money as early as tomorrow. And we put, as I have already indicated, $3 billion in for Katrina, which is humanitarian money. It is absolutely necessary. It is for people's homes.

The House passed this outrageous legislation--I guess that is what people think. We have had this bill since about 2:30 this afternoon. It is now approaching 6 o'clock, and people are trying to decide what they want to do with it when it passed the House of Representatives 400 to 15. I am really at a loss as to what the problem is.

We have done nothing on the farm bill, not because we don't want to do something on the farm bill but because we have treated the farm bill the way every farm bill has been treated for the last three decades.

We say we want to vote on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. No, you can't do that. We are willing to set that aside and do the amendment we know has to be done; that is, the substitute by Senators Lautenberg and Lugar. No, you can't do that. We say: Why don't you give us a list of amendments you might be interested in doing? No, we can't do that.

It appears to me the minority doesn't want a farm bill. Maybe they want to wait until the new year and extend the present farm bill. I personally think the farm bill is something we should do. It has a lot of very good provisions in it, not as far as some people wanted, not as far as I wanted, but it is a good bill, and we should pass it.

I simply was told by my counterparts: We don't like the bill; you are wasting your time; forget about it. Now we hear all these words: We don't like the way you are handling the procedure. Why? Because it isn't right the way you do it, even though it has been done this way for many years.

Mr. President, 400 to 15, and we are spending hours and hours trying to decide what to do. In the meantime, there is other work of the Senate not being done. I can sit in a quorum just as everyone else and waste everyone's time, but I think we should get about the business of this country. It shouldn't be that hard to decide what they want to do. Do they want to override what the House did by a vote of 400 to 15-- ``they'' being the Republicans in the Senate. If they want to raise a point of order to take something out of the bill and sustained by the Parliamentarian, we can vote on that. We

can waive it with 60 votes. I just think we should have a decision made by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 374, the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States; that there be a time limitation of 5 hours of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, with the Democratic time divided as follows: Senator Leahy, 45 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 15 minutes; Senator Durbin, 20 minutes; Senator Cardin, 10 minutes; Senator Reed, 15 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 10 minutes; Senator Harkin, 10 minutes; Senator Boxer, 15 minutes; Senator Salazar, 10 minutes; that upon the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the leaders be recognized for 10 minutes each, with the majority leader going last; that the Senate then vote on confirmation of the nomination; the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session; that the Senate then, without intervening action or debate, vote adoption of the conference report on

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of everyone. This has been a difficult day. These are very sensitive issues we are dealing with, with the troops and the financing of the country, in addition to the nomination of a Cabinet officer. It is a time when you need cooperation from both sides. That is what we have had. It has not been easy. I extend my appreciation to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the cooperation of my Members. I would finally say that for those of you who have had questions asked by Democrats and Republicans, we are going to finish the farm bill. There is some real movement on that with amendments. I feel comfortable we will be able to get that done in the near future. I appreciate everyone's cooperation.

Mr. President, I yield back the time of the majority except for the statement I am going to give.

Mr. President, the hearing in this matter on Judge Mukasey was good. The Judiciary Committee, with Senators Leahy and Specter, did a good job, a full airing of this man's qualifications and ideas were present before the American people and the Senate. The debate that has transpired today dealing with Michael Mukasey has been extremely good. It has been good for the process. It is good for the American people to understand that the chief law enforcement officer of this country has had a fair hearing and a good debate in the Senate.

I will vote against the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. My historical analysis is different than that of my good friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, much different. It is regrettable that I must vote no. When the President first nominated Michael Mukasey, I was fully prepared to support him. That is the history I remember.

Judge Mukasey has a stellar reputation for integrity and judicial excellence throughout his decades of Government service. He has an excellent academic background. I was pleased to see that after the Gonzales debacle and with the Justice Department in shambles, the President finally relented to pressure from Senate Democrats to look beyond his inner circle at this most important appointment.

I considered it significant that an administration that has shown such contempt for the other two branches of Government, particularly judges, would turn to a candidate who served in the judicial branch for so many years. So like many Democrats, I was predisposed to support this nomination. In fact, I was prepared to embrace this nomination. I, too, met with Judge Mukasey and told him I was impressed with his credentials and his background and I hoped the hearing went well.

Well, the hearing didn't go well, from my perspective. During this confirmation process, Judge Mukasey expressed views about Executive power that I and many other Senators found deeply disturbing. I was outraged by his evasive hair-splitting approach to questions about the legality of waterboarding. After his initial comments, Judge Mukasey was given every opportunity to address these concerns. But he was unable to state clearly that waterboarding is torture and, therefore, illegal under U.S. law. This is not a difficult or complex legal question. It does not require high-level security briefings.

I agree with former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora and former Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck who wrote in an op-ed this week:

The question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture

is a no-brainer.

Why is it a no-brainer? My friend, former Nevadan and now a long-time Federal Judge Evan Wallach, a former decorated Vietnam combat veteran who came back from military service in the first Gulf War and is now a leading expert on the law of war, wrote in a recent Washington Post article--in fact, it was last Sunday on the front page of the opinion section--

The media usually characterize the practice as ``simulated

drowning'' [but] that's incorrect. To be effective,

waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death.

The only difference between actual drowning and waterboarding is that the waterboarding process is halted before death. Victims inhale water, suffocate, and often pass out. Who could reasonably argue this is anything other than torture?

Judge Wallach further points out, in a related law review article in the Columbia Law Review, that even under the extreme and now disavowed legal theories of former Justice Department officials such as John Yoo, waterboarding still constitutes torture.

``Can there be any question,'' Judge Wallach asks, ``that water torture, the repetitive artificial drowning and revival of another human being, falls within their memo's parameters?'' No. There can be no question at all.

Notwithstanding the novel legal theories of the Bush administration, whose approval rating as we speak is 23 percent--and we wonder why--it has long been settled law in this Nation and around the world that waterboarding is torture and it is illegal. Civil and military courts in the United States have rejected waterboarding, as Senator Leahy has said more than once today, for more than 100 years, whether directed at or committed by Americans.

U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using water torture to question Filipino guerrillas during U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American war. After World War II, the United States prosecuted and convicted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American allied prisoners of war. During the 1980s, a Texas sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison for using waterboarding to force confessions of prisoners. So this is not a new debate, nor an unsettled question.

Judge Mukasey doesn't need a classified briefing from the Bush White House to answer the question, is waterboarding torture. He has more than 100 years of established American law on which to base his position. His position was evasive without any question, misleading. That is why it is so disturbing that for all his impressive years on the bench, Judge Mukasey could not give a simple straightforward answer to the question posed by members of the Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans. His lengthy nonresponsive answer was wrong. This was a question that demanded brevity and certainty, not lawyerly semantics.

My Republican colleagues, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner, who served as leaders in the Senate on this issue, recently issued a detailed legal analysis that concluded waterboarding ``represents a clear violation of the U.S. law.''

For purposes of this debate, let's give a little added credence to a man who served 7 years in a Vietnamese prison camp and was tortured more than half the time he was there--the rest of the time was in solitary confinement--John McCain. Let's give that a little more foundation.

Former and sitting Judge Advocate Generals agree. On Friday in a letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, several prominent former Judge Advocate Generals declared unequivocally:

Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal

. . . Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in

all circumstances.

I could continue at length quoting military and civilian experts who all agree the answer to this question is settled. And it is settled. But why is this issue of waterboarding so critical for the chief law enforcement officer of our country, the U.S. Attorney General? Tremendous damage has been done to the moral credibility of our great country, both in the eyes of our allies and of our enemies abroad, by the widespread belief that our country, the United States, has used waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques. The United States of America has done that? All over the world now they know it.

As a result, our allies have at times refused to cooperate with us in the fight against terrorism, under constraints from their own laws and public opinion at home.

Even if the Bush administration is no longer utilizing waterboarding--which I do not know now--the President's refusal to publicly disavow it gives license to our enemies abroad to use it. This puts our troops and any citizen who may fall into our enemies' hands at risk and serves as an ongoing recruiting tool for militant extremists.

How do these evil people, who are trying to do damage to this country--how are they using the fact that America tortures people they want to get information from? How is this a recruiting tool for these bad people? A pretty good one, I would think.

President Bush claims we must not disclose our techniques to the enemy. But I contend we should shout from the hills and the rooftops for all to hear, that no matter how hateful the actions of our enemies, we will never relinquish our most treasured commitment to human rights.

That is America, Mr. President--not water torture, not thumb screws, not the rack.

We should make it clear to all the world that no matter what our enemies do, our core American values cannot be shaken. We are a constitutional form of government. We deserve an Attorney General who will uphold this message to the world.

Judge Mukasey's answer to the waterboarding question was important in itself, but it also raised for me serious doubts about whether he is prepared to be the truly independent voice that the Justice Department, which is now in shambles, so desperately needs. If he cannot stand up to the President on such a question of profound importance and simplicity with a clear legal answer, how can we be sure he would be more than just another mouthpiece for an administration that treasures secrecy and loyalty above all?

I respect Judge Mukasey's long career in public service. I have said that before. We have met in person. I have said that before. And there is no question he is an intelligent man. In the past, he has been very capable.

If he is confirmed, the eyes of every American will be on him as he faces the unenviable task of depoliticizing the Department of Justice and restoring the integrity that was so lacking under his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales. He will have my earnest support in that challenge.

But in light of his responses during and following his confirmation hearings, I cannot stand by him today with my words or my vote.

One day, Mr. President, historians will expend countless reams of paper and barrels of ink writing the story of the Bush-Cheney administration's extremism in support of its never-ending

quest to expand the reach of their Executive power. There is no question that this time will be remembered as a dark chapter in America's otherwise steady march toward justice.

But for now, all we can do is honor the trust and authority given to us as individual Senators by the American people and do what we, as Senators, can to turn the page to a brighter day because it needs to be turned.

What we can do today is reject this nomination. The next Attorney General must be able to stand up to the President and stand up for the rule of law.

If confirmed, I hope Judge Mukasey is up to that challenge. But because he has not given me confidence of his independence, I will vote against confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination of Mike Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. President, there will be no more rollcall votes this week. The first vote next week will be at 10:10 Tuesday morning.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will recess shortly for a joint meeting to hear an address from the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that the recess order be changed--it now has us reconvening at 12:15 p.m.--to subject to the call of the Chair. That way, if it doesn't work out exactly at 12:15 p.m., no one will be disadvantaged.

Mr. President, when we reconvene, we will go right to work on the Labor-HHS-VA appropriations conference report under the parameters of the agreement entered last night. In addition, the Senate also may consider the WRDA conference report after disposition of the Labor-HHS conference report. Members can expect rollcall votes during the day. We will also, of course, be on the farm bill, interspersed through all the other work we are doing. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we can work something out.

I had a conversation with the distinguished Republican leader last night. There may be something we can work out on the amendments. I note for the record, as I explained to my Republican counterpart last night, there was conversation on the floor yesterday that the last time the farm bill came up, Senator Daschle was the leader. At that time, there were 16 or 19 amendments, but they were all relevant amendments, with the exception of one from Senator Kyl of Arizona which was a sense-of- the-Senate amendment dealing with the estate tax. Other than that, they were all relevant to the farm bill. That is the way it has been. We went back and checked, and that is the way it has been for very many farm bills. That is what we should do on this farm bill, as I have suggested. But we can work something out with the minority and come up with a list of amendments. I will be happy to do that if that is something which will make them happy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair, as indicated in the previous unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, Senator Specter and I are on the floor. We had the pleasure--the entire Senate did--of listening to a joint session presentation by the President of France. It was stunningly good. I have been to a lot of those over the last quarter of a century, and I would put his right up near the top. He was so good.

He spoke about the deep and historic friendship between our two countries. After the speech, I heard Senator Joe Lieberman say to him: President Sarkozy, sometimes we need to be reminded by others of how good we are as a country, how good we have been, and how bright our future can be. That, in effect, is what the President of France told us all as we assembled there.

One thing I wish to mention is one symbol of that friendship is the Legion of Honor Award the President of France presented to seven World War II veterans who are in a category of their own. To be a World War II veteran, a combat veteran, says it all, but to be awarded the Legion of Honor by the French Government puts them in a special category.

One of the presentations was to our own Senator Dan Inouye, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner--well, you don't win one, it was presented to him. Senator Inouye is one of the brave men who served our country during World War II. Senator Inouye, in 1945, was a 20-year-old lieutenant who was grievously injured. He lost one limb and had many other injuries as he was leading an attack in Italy. The President of France recognized the heroism of Dan Inouye, as we do every day.

Senator Inouye was the leader of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, composed of only Japanese Americans. So for Senator Inouye and for the Senate, this is a wonderful day, and I am so thankful to the President of France and the people of France for recognizing Senator Inouye.

Floor Schedule

Mr. President, today, we continue to debate the farm bill. This debate is going well. We had good debate yesterday. I wish they had been more directed toward amendments, but it was a good debate--people for and against the bill. That is what Senate debates are supposed to be about. I am confident the bipartisan cooperation that brought this bill to the floor will continue and result in final passage.

There has been some concern over the amendment process. I have made it clear this bill will not fall victim to nonrelevant amendments, and there was a discussion on the floor with me and a number of other Republican Senators yesterday saying this isn't the way it should be done and we have never done it this way before. But we went back and checked the record and that is the way it is always done. In the last several decades, the farm bill does not have nonrelevant amendments.

On the last farm bill, when Senator Daschle was the leader--he had my job--there was one nonrelevant amendment, and that was a sense-of-the- Senate resolution offered by Senator Kyl on the estate tax. We had one of our so-called side by sides, and that was it. All other 18 amendments were all relevant. That is the way it has to be on this bill. It has been recognized for decades that is the only way you can get one done.

I had a productive conversation with Senator McConnell last evening about the process, and I hope we can work something out on the amendments. It is something we need to do, and ultimately that is what we will do. The sooner we do it, the better off we are.

Tomorrow, I am confident and hopeful the Committee on Justice, State, and Housing and Urban Development will meet and confer in conference and come up with proposals so we can bring this to the floor and work out whatever we can do with the remaining bills. Most all the work has been done. I have spoken to Senator Mikulski. She has talked to her counterpart in the House, Chairman Mollohan, and they have worked with their Republican counterparts, and so it is something we should get done as quickly as possible.

These bills are extremely important to America's safety and well- being. The Commerce-State-Justice bill deals with, among other things, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, so it is an important bill and I hope we can move forward on that very quickly.

Today, we turn to the Veterans, Labor, Health, and Education conference report. It is an important bill. The labor aspect of it is chaired by Senator Harkin and Ranking Member Senator Specter. I feel about them--about Harkin and Specter--as I have for a long time about the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Domenici and I were the chair and ranking member of that for as long as a lot of people can remember, and for Senator Domenici and I, who was chair and I was ranking member, it didn't matter that much because we knew the bill and I think we did a fair job of working that bill. I feel the same way about this Labor-HHS bill. It doesn't matter who is the chair, whether it is Harkin or Specter, because we always get a good product. They have done wonderful things and come up with new proposals.

We hear a lot about stem cell research. That idea, legislatively, originated in that subcommittee. They were the first ones who got us focused on that.

I appreciate their hard work. I think they have done a tremendously good job. There is no reason this package should not enjoy the same overwhelming bipartisan support the individual bill received; that is, the Labor-HHS bill passed here, and I will talk about it here in a minute. The Military Construction-VA got 90-some-odd votes. Both the Veterans and Labor, Health, and Education parts of this bill are just as important as the VA part. The original VA bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly. Democrats and Republicans joined to support this legislation that will address the critical funding shortages that have left tens of thousands--not hundreds, not thousands--tens of thousands of our veterans without the care they have earned and left them without it for far too long.

I am sorry to say the Bush administration has underfunded the VA for years, but no more dramatically has it been underfunded than the request by the President this year. The result of this short shrift and mismanagement has been made so very clear, painfully clear, by the crisis at Walter Reed. The scandal at Walter Reed Medical Center merely highlighted the problem. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the VA to a breaking point. The number of uninsured veterans has skyrocketed. The personal data of millions of vets has been lost or destroyed. Thousands of American veterans we call heroes wait endlessly for treatment because their claims are caught in a bureaucratic nightmare. You can't say you support the troops but leave them high and dry when they return home.

That is why this legislation includes the largest increase in funding for veterans care in the history of our country. We provide almost $4 billion more than the President's request, funds that will go straight to the core of the problem, making right the awful conditions at Walter Reed and other veterans military facilities, yet will ensure that veterans' personal data is safeguarded. We will make sure that research in post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and other all-too-common illnesses our returning troops face is dealt with quickly and, most importantly, greatly expand the number of claims managers and health care workers to provide our heroes with the efficient, high-quality care they have so bravely earned.

Madam President, I alert my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell, that I am going to use 4 or 5 minutes of leader time. So if he needs more time, I alert him to that fact. Our time is basically gone. I didn't know that when I came to the Chamber.

Madam President, the Labor, Health, and Education bill passed the Senate with 75 votes. When the bill originally passed the Senate, I applauded my Republican colleagues for joining with us in such great numbers to support a bill of such great importance to our country's domestic well-being.

This bill makes significant investments in education, and isn't it right that we do that? It supports the No Child Left Behind programs such as title I grants. In one school district in Nevada, 315,000 students go to that school district. I have another school district in Nevada that has 88 students in it. We have 17 superintendents of schools in Nevada, but I have met with every one of the superintendents, and they believe the No Child Left Behind Act is really creating problems. Whether it is a big school district or a little one--problems. One of the big problems is the financial aspects of it are too short.

The conference report that is before the Senate will do something to magnify our ability to educate children with disabilities. That is the right thing to do. Why should the burden be left with local school districts? That money is taken from programs that enrich schools and is used to take care of a Federal mandate--educating these children. I support educating those with disabilities--physical, emotional, mental disabilities. They should be educated. But we required the States to do that. We should step forward. We have not done that. This bill conference report does that.

This legislation helps families pay for college with Pell grants and other aids. It is important that is done.

This legislation supports our economy and the well-being of our workforce with job-training programs for adults, young people, and dislocated workers, and supports funding for the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

For health care, it makes critical investments, including local health care centers like community health care centers, to improve access to care and train nurses and other health care professionals.

I can remember as a young Senator, Senator Moynihan was back there. He sat right back there. We were debating, at the time, one of the problems of the day--homelessness. Senator Moynihan said to me--he said it as a professor would tell a student--he said that one of the big problems with homelessness is we haven't lived up to our obligation as a Congress. When we emptied the mental institutions around the country, one of the obligations we had was to have community health centers so these people could go back and have their medicine readjusted. He said we have not done that. Very few community health centers exist, and this is the reason we have so many homeless. This legislation doesn't cure it, but it helps, it helps with community health centers.

In this legislation, crafted by Senators Harkin and Specter, there are new funds for medical research to study diseases such as diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

I had a conversation with J.C. Watts yesterday. He is retired from Congress but an All-American quarterback from Oklahoma, a great athlete. He said: Have you seen David Humm lately? I said: No, I haven't. David Humm was an All-American from Nebraska, and, of course, J.C. Watts knew of him and knew him. I told him: You wouldn't know David Humm. Handsome--he should have been a model. He played college football. He played professional football for 10 years. But he was stricken with multiple sclerosis. David Humm is very sick now.

You think of people like David Humm when you recognize that we need to do medical research. This legislation increases funding for diseases such as multiple sclerosis. It gives the National Institutes of Health resources to do things in medical research that they cannot do unless they get money.

Right now, people who want to do medical research are stymied. They know they make these applications to the National Institutes of Health, and if they are lucky, one out of every five grants will be funded, so a lot of people don't bother to even apply anymore because their chances are so remote that they are going to be able to do their medical research. This bill will help.

This legislation fights poverty with community service block grants and social service block grants. It adds money to programs such as Head Start to keep kids healthy and start them on a path to good education and helps families cope with ever-rising energy prices.

It does it all. It works in tandem with the VA portion to support America's veterans with funds for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. There is money in this to support the Department of Labor's veterans employment and training programs to help returning troops.

There are additional moneys for emergency and hospital care, rehabilitation, education, and long-term support for Americans with traumatic brain injuries.

It is a good partner with the bill that is part of this conference report, the veterans aspect of this. In the Labor-HHS bill, there is care for homeless veterans, who comprise an outrageous 23 percent of America's homeless population. If you see a homeless person on the street, you can bet, No. 1, there is a 25-percent chance that person is a veteran. What a shame.

The priorities I talked about here are not Democratic or Republican priorities; they are American priorities. We all want to keep our economy strong and growing, we all want to provide our children with keys to unlock a future of limitless opportunity, and we all want to give every American a chance to share in the blessings of our country. The bill now before us reflects those ideals in a responsible way. Yet President Bush has threatened another veto.

Remember, ``veto'' is a new part of his vocabulary. He has been President for 7 years, and that is just something new he has picked up. In fact, he has threatened to veto all 12 appropriations bills before they were even written. He has already vetoed children's health insurance and is threatening to veto the farm bill, which is bipartisan legislation that both sides of the aisle have worked hard to write. In the 7 years of his Presidency, after having rung up record deficits and debt with his tax and spending policies that were rubberstamped by a Republican-dominated Congress, President Bush has suddenly decided to act as if he has newfound fiscal discipline.

Given his fiscal record, everyone should understand the President's latest stand is driven by partisan politics rather than a desire to pursue proper fiscal policy. I understand that. I am sure many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. We all do understand it, but it is irresponsible. His failed Presidency has left him with little else to become relevant. But he should not attempt to score political points on the backs of our veterans who have given so much to our country and received so little in return.

We have, in this conference report, $4 billion more than he asked for. Why? Because it is needed. The President should not attempt to score political points on the backs of working families who are struggling mightily after 7 years of his failed economic policy. Gas prices in Nevada are way over $3 a gallon now, and they say they will arrive at $4 a gallon. The President should not attempt to score political points on the backs of children in need of a good education, those who are ill and in need of a cure and those who are homeless in need of a place to sleep.

He should not, and we must not let him, and we have that right here. We have the ability, and we have that obligation when we vote on this later today.

Some Republicans are seeking to separate the two bills--to force a vote just on the VA bill and vote just on the Labor-HHS bill. If we do that, here is what happens. This bill will go back to the House with only the Labor-HHS bill. That is all the President will get. He will not get the veterans bill. At some time he will get it, but he could have it today. Remember, one bill we passed by 92, the other one by 75. Why would people change their votes? They agreed on these two bills. We have not changed the amount of them.

So I hope we can do both of these bills. With the same bipartisan support that has brought this bill to the floor, we can pass it and send it to the President. We can get aid to veterans before Veterans Day. We can start investing in America's domestic priorities right away.

We must not dance around the reality of the situation. President Bush wants these bills separated so that he can pressure us to make even deeper cuts in education, health care, and homeland security. Why do you think increases were made in the Labor-HHS bill? To help the American people as we see it. We are an equal branch of Government.

The President and some of his allies here in the Senate are sure to recycle their well-worn language that we are holding up funding for veterans. That is false. It is untrue. We stand ready to pass this bill today. We stand ready to make right the awful conditions many veterans face as a result of this administration's neglect. We will not take from Peter to pay Paul. We need not make that choice.

Mr. President, 92 Senators who voted for the VA bill believe it sets the right priorities for America. I do too. Clearly, the 75 Senators who voted for the Labor-HHS bill believe it, that it sets the right priorities for America.

What we have before us now are the same priorities. They have not changed. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing.

We are the legislative branch of Government. The Founding Fathers, in setting up this wonderful country with our Constitution, made three separate and equal branches of Government. We, the Congress, do not serve under the President; we serve with the President.

Why in the world would Senators who voted 75 in number now suddenly vote against the bill for which they voted? That is what they are doing. Why wouldn't we just send this whole piece of legislation to the President? Seventy-five Senators voted for one part of it; 92 Senators voted for the other.

Be the legislative branch of Government; that is who we are. Don't kowtow to the President. We did what we thought was right, and it is unfair for him now to tell us how we should legislate.

I ask that Senators vote the way they did the first time around: 92 supported the VA bill; 75 supported the Labor-HHS bill. They are both badly needed for this country.

Madam President, if we have remaining time, I yield it back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, November 7, when the President's veto message on H.R. 1495 is received, it be considered as having been read, spread in full in the Journal, and printed in the Record; that there then be 3 hours of debate on the message with the time divided as follows: 45 minutes each for Senators Boxer and Inhofe, 90 minutes under the control of the Republican leader or his designee; that upon the use or yielding back of time today, the message be set aside to occur following morning business tomorrow morning, Thursday, November 8, at which time there be a total of 30 minutes remaining for debate, with 7\1/2\ minutes each for Senators Boxer and Inhofe and 15 minutes for the Republican leader or his designee; that upon the use or yielding back of time, with no further intervening action, the Senate proceed to vote passage of the bill, the objections of the President notwithstanding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

At this hearing, the subcommittee will discuss research and development efforts to safely and efficiently sequester carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration is a widely discussed solution to decreasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining U.S. Government Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights'' on Wednesday, November 7, 2007. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a markup of S. 2300, the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2007. The meeting will commence on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, in order to conduct an oversight hearing on performance and structure of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Committee will meet in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business for 1 hour today. Senators are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the times equally divided and controlled, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half.

At the close of morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2419, the farm bill. As a reminder, the Senate will stand in recess today from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the respective party conference meetings.

I mentioned yesterday that we have a lot to do this week, and we do. I have spoken with the Republican leader. The House is going to pass the conference report on Labor-HHS. As part of that conference report, there will also be military construction and the veterans' benefits. I have been told there is going to be a point of order raised against the military construction-VA aspect of that bill. In fact, if that is the case, we can set it up very quickly, as I explained to my Republican counterpart, to find out if there are 60 votes for that bill without the necessity of filing cloture. If, in fact, there are not 60 votes, that part, of course, will be peeled off, and we will pass the Labor- HHS bill, and it will go back to the House. The House will concur in what we had done, and the President would be sent the Labor-HHS bill alone. We need to accomplish that work this week. We need to get our first appropriations bill to him--or bills, whatever the result.

As we speak--we started 5 minutes ago--the House and Senate conferees are meeting on the Defense appropriations bill. That conference will be wrapped up fairly soon. There has been a lot of preconference work done on the bill. We have Senators Stevens and Inouye who have worked that bill for many years. They do very well with their House counterparts.

It is a huge bill. I don't know the exact amount--$470 billion or some such amount. In addition to that, I think, as I told my friend, the Republican leader, the senior Senator from Kentucky, a continuing resolution will be put on the Defense bill just as it was done last year when Senator Frist was majority leader. That we should get soon. We will get it in the next couple of days. And we have to finish that legislation before we leave this week.

It is extremely important that we don't wait until the last minute next week to take care of the Defense appropriations bill and the continuing resolution. That will leave us plenty to do next week. We have a lot to do, not the least of which is the Mukasey nomination which the Judiciary Committee will take care of this morning. That meeting also started 5 minutes ago.

We are on the farm bill. I will have more to say about the farm bill a little later, but I do want to say this regarding procedures and the farm bill. I have had some real good teachers over the years as to how to handle legislation. Some of those teachers have been my Republican counterparts. No one was more versed in so-called filling the tree than my friend, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott.

We have just a few days until we break for Thanksgiving. This bill, the farm bill, is a tax bill. It has tax provisions in it. So I want to make sure everyone understands we should do all

relevant amendments to the farm bill. There is no problem with that. That is what I said we would do. But this bill, as I have indicated, as I learned from my friends in past years from teachers such as Senator Lott, Senator Dole, and Democratic leaders, of course, is you have to be very careful in the waning days of any work period because any one Senator can shut this place down.

So on the farm bill, that is not going to be the case. We are going to work to complete the farm bill. It is a good, bipartisan bill. There should be amendments offered. We have a number of bipartisan amendments that must be offered. We have one amendment that Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley are ready to offer on payment limits. We have Senators Lugar and Lautenberg who want to offer a whole substitute for this legislation. So I hope we can get to this legislation.

I have been told one of the things the Republicans will do in protest of what I am doing, which has been done countless other times in the past, is to go into a quorum call and prevent us from doing work on the farm bill. Everyone has a right to do that. We will have a few live quorums. If people don't want to do work on the farm bill, that is their right as a Senator.

The farm bill is something I believe we should do. I am certainly not going to file cloture on the farm bill this week. So if my friends on the other side of the aisle just want to have us sit in a quorum call and not do any work on the farm bill and not do our other work, that is fine. I don't think it is very productive when I have indicated the farm bill is certainly one where we can offer amendments relating to it, that will be relevant to the farm bill.

I, at a subsequent time prior to our getting on the bill, which will be an hour or so from now, will make sure I ask consent that we handle this bill with relevant amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that the time I use and the time my distinguished friend uses not count against the hour for morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday we reached another tragic milestone in Iraq. It seems it never stops. We lost five young American soldiers. That means 2007 has been the deadliest year for our troops in the entire war. In just a few months, we will be starting the sixth year of this war. We have almost completed 5 years of the war. Our thoughts have to be, as they should be, with the families of the five latest American victims of the civil war in Iraq. Our hearts go out to the families--several score have been Nevada families--a total of about almost 3,900 now, young men and women who have lost their lives, and to the more than 30,000 who have been gravely wounded.

This war has caused so much suffering in America where losses continue to rise, not only in the loss of life and injury to our valiant troops but our Treasury. The Joint Economic Committee is going to come out with a report soon showing it to be in the trillions of dollars this war has cost our country. That means our Treasury is going to be depleted for generations to come.

No one doubts that our military is battered, scarred, and stretched to the limit. And let's not forget about what is going on in Iraq. It is estimated that 2 million people have left the country. This was a country of about 25 million people when the invasion took place. We learned today that 2.3 million civilians are now displaced, fleeing from their homes, their neighborhoods, their schools, places of worship. Violence is down, and certainly that is important and good, but many of the experts are saying one reason the violence is down is that so much ethnic cleansing has already taken place. It is true they found 35 or 40 dead bodies today, and they are still finding them--not to the amount they were finding before. They were finding more than 100 a day. Many of the areas have been ethnically cleansed.

Two-thirds of the displaced are children under the age of 12. This humanitarian crisis rages with no end in sight. Two-thirds of the 2.3 million displaced are kids under 12. By the most critical benchmarks, President Bush's flawed strategy on Iraq is making America not more secure but less secure.

We are seeing no signs of meaningful progress on political reconciliation, which is the key to success in Iraq. We have a civil war going on with the Palestinians. Two factions are at war. We have Lebanon, in effect, with an election that cannot be held because of civil strife in that country. We have Iran which is causing trouble in the whole region. And if a civil war in Iraq were not bad enough, now we have 100,000 Turkish troops who have gathered on the northern borders of Iraq.

Our brave troops, more than 160,000 of them, are giving everything they have to this war. Far too many of them have been buried; far too many face lives forever marred by physical and psychological wounds. Yet for all of our troops' sacrifice and suffering, Iraqi politicians are doing basically nothing. President Bush has said: As they step up, we stand down. They have not stepped up.

What better reminder do we need than the crisis in Pakistan that the world can change overnight? It is time to rebuild our military to refocus on the war on terror and the grave challenges that face us throughout the globe, not just in Iraq. We must repair the readiness of the Army and Marine Corps, the finest fighting force in the world, but a force that is under great strain. One only need look at the leader of the Army, General Casey. He is saying that right now, and he has testified under oath to that effect. We must be prepared to respond to new challenges. We must have the strength and flexibility to promote freedom and defend human rights when they are attacked. We must refocus our efforts on bin Laden and al-Qaida who threaten our safety, and it is long past time to give our troops the hero's welcome they so bravely earned. They need to come home.

After years of the Republican underfunding of veterans' care, Democrats have provided $4 billion above the President's request to make this failure right. President Bush remains obstinate. His allies in Congress have remained loyal. They have blocked our efforts so far, but we will continue fighting to give our troops and all Americans the new course in Iraq they deserve.

Mr. President, on the farm bill, it is a 5-year bill, scored at about $280 billion. It is a bill we need to look at the positive aspects of, and I have done that on a number of occasions.

The nutrition title is one of the bright spots of the bill. Food stamp recipients under the bill will be allowed to spend more on childcare and remain eligible, as well as save more for education and retirement without losing their benefits. Minimum benefits will rise. Funding for buying surplus food stuffs for food banks and other relief organizations have increased by $100 million each year. That includes over $1 billion for the School Lunch Program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to these schools.

There are many other good things in this bill, and I was disappointed the President again talked about a veto. This is a new word in his vocabulary, because in the first 6 years of his Presidency, he basically never used the word. I should say the first 7 years. One year from today, we will have elections for a new President. So in the last 12 months, in this man's Presidency, he has come up with a new word, ``veto.'' Everything is veto--CHIP, WRDA, appropriations bills, farm bills.

Yesterday, I came to the floor to express my optimism for the farm bill. I said the bill is an example of the good work that can come when both sides of the aisle work together. Chairman Harkin and Senators Baucus, Chambliss, and Grassley have done that. I also said this bill would receive floor time for amendments dealing with the farm bill. Apparently, the good work and good faith put toward this bill by Democrats and Republicans does not count for much for the President. Yesterday afternoon, Acting Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Connors announced the President's intent to veto the farm bill--before it has been debated, before amendments are offered, and before, of course, it is passed.

Here we go again, I guess is what people are saying. The President has now threatened to veto 11 of 12 appropriations bills, including Labor-HHS, which provides crucial funding for schools, medical research, and police. He said he is going to veto WRDA, which passed the Senate with 81 votes.

I am not alone when I say this latest veto threat of the farm bill rings kind of hollow. It rings hollow because Secretary Johanns went around the country giving lectures about the current payments system, what a bad deal it was. Yet the Bush administration had every opportunity to fix the issue of nonfarmers receiving farm payments. This is what Johanns loved to go around the country saying. Why don't they fix this? He is the Secretary of Agriculture, part of the Bush administration. Yet even though he has gone around and given PowerPoint presentations to this effect, he should have been giving a PowerPoint presentation of why the Bush administration hasn't done anything to fix it. It can all be done by changing regulations. You don't need to change the law.

What they now blame Congress for failing to do, they could have reformed--the ``actively engaged'' farming payments system--right now. That is what they talk about all the time. They talk about people in apartment houses drawing benefits. They can change it. The President can do that. He has the power to do that. We gave him the power to do that. We passed a bill 20 years ago that reformed the process. Yet an April 2004 study by the General Accounting Office determined the Bush Department of Agriculture's track record in implementing this reform was, at best, halfhearted, and that is being generous.

A problem exists in the farming payout structure. We have all heard of individuals who live in the city but claim they are farmers and receive a subsidy. The Bush administration could change that with a regulation. The farm bill begins to tackle that problem--a problem that exists, in large part, because the Bush administration has failed to address it.

Now, the President plans to veto a bill that reforms the payment process, while maintaining the President's administrative authority to act on it. This bill takes reform seriously. If President Bush were serious about it as well, rather than just looking at political points, he would do something about it. He has the power to do something about it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, how much time is left in morning business?

OK. Whose time is it?

OK. I do not see any takers.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, if there is any morning business time left on the Democratic side, I yield it back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendments to H.R. 2419 be relevant to the bill or to the substitute amendment.

Mr. President, I hope beyond all hope that we can have a farm bill that will be related to the substance rather than the procedure. It is a good bill. The committee has worked very hard on it. People have some problems with parts of the bill. But if we had a vote on the bill right now, we would get 70 votes. We are not going to be able to do that. People are going to come out here--and I suggest they are going to have to write new speeches. This has happened so many times, all you have to do is go to the Congressional Record and read what has gone on before. It doesn't matter whether it is a Democrat or a Republican who is majority leader, the same thing always happens when we are trying to get out of here.

This time we are trying to finish the work period before Thanksgiving. There are things we have to do. I say to my friends, do people really want an open process on this bill? Do we want to debate the war in Iraq on this bill? Do we want to debate amendments relating to labor issues throughout this country? I have been told those are some of the amendments that are going to be offered on my side. I have no idea what amendments the Republicans will offer, but I have kind of a good idea. I have see the rule XIVs in the last few weeks and the very mischievous amendments that have nothing to do with the farm bill--political amendments.

We are late in this year of Congress. We have just a few weeks left, and every majority leader does what I have done. I didn't invent this. As I said earlier this morning, I learned a lot from my Republican counterparts--from Senator Lott, when he was majority leader, and from Senator Dole. They did the same thing. I have to acknowledge that Senator Mitchell did it and Senator Daschle did it because it is the only way we can get the business of the country done.

We have had an open amendment process this year--not always but generally speaking. Once we got to the bills--and that has been tough-- I have had to file cloture on motions to proceed, which has been a big waste of time. But we have been able to work our way through many different things we have done.

I think we have accomplished a great deal, Mr. President. We have done the minimum wage; the balanced budget, pay as you go; the CR; the work on U.S. Attorneys; the excellent work we did on higher education, health care for vets, and Active-Duty servicemembers; disaster relief, wildfire relief, SCHIP--a lot of good things.

So I hope everyone will understand Harry Reid hasn't invented what is taking place on the Senate floor. I am just copying what others have done. Why? Out of necessity. I have told everybody this farm bill is a pretty good bill. It is not everything I want, but one of the interesting things about American farm policy is we don't import 65 to 70 percent of our food as we do oil. Oil, we have been told, is soon going to go up to $4 per gallon.

Food, Mr. President, we pay too much for food. But we pay far less, on a proportionate basis, than any other country in the world. Why? One reason is the farm policy in this country. Could the farm policy be better? Sure. That is why we are having a bipartisan effort to change the underlying bill. Democrats and Republicans think it could be better.

Mr. President, we should move forward on this farm bill and finish it. We only do it every 5 years. If there are amendments that deal with this, I have said--and that was my consent just asked--if there are relevant amendments dealing with farm policy, move to change it, debate it, and vote on it. That is all I am asking. But I don't want to debate the estate tax repeal. The American people don't deserve that at this time. I don't want to debate another SCHIP bill that a number of Republicans believe is the right way to go for children's health because they are in such desperate shape for the vetoes the President has done. I have mentioned just a few things.

Mr. President, we are doing the right thing. I hope people will go to work on the farm bill. Both Democrats and Republicans have worked for months on a farm bill to get here. Do you think it was easy for Chairman Harkin to get a bill out of committee? No; it was difficult. How many meetings did he hold--private meetings--with this group or that group of Senators? I have no idea, but there were scores of them. We are at a point where we are today so that we have a farm bill that received overwhelming support in the

Agriculture Committee, and now it is on the Senate floor. For the American people, we need to do this bill.

Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

That is exactly what I said.

I say to my friend, the chairman, and to the ranking member, who have worked well together, I am not saying we are only going to allow Democratic amendments to be offered. I have made it very clear in my presentation to the Senate this morning that I am talking about mischievous amendments not only by Republicans but my colleagues over here.

I also say this of the farm bill: I was listening this morning to public radio as I was doing my exercise. There was one provision that struck me on this bill. Over a billion dollars for fresh fruits and vegetables will go to schools. That may not sound like much to people. I was raised, as everybody knows, in rural Nevada. When I was a boy 9 or 10 years old, the only grocery store in Searchlight burned down. It was never rebuilt. To this day, I like canned asparagus better than fresh asparagus. I love canned peas and canned fruit. The reason is, we never had fresh fruits or vegetables. We didn't have them and could not buy them. We all know fresh fruits and vegetables are better than that heavily salted stuff you get in a can that I am used to eating.

This bill is going to say the kids in Searchlight today are still-- there are a few, such as the 7-Eleven you can go to.

Places, such as where I was raised, where there are no stores, but they have some food programs, they are going to be able to have fresh fruits and vegetables on occasion. Isn't that great? I would know--I am using me as a point of reference--what a fresh asparagus is, an apple, an orange. So this is a good bill. It has a lot of warts and pimples on it, but it is a good bill. I only picked one provision.

Why don't we go ahead and try to get this bill passed? I am not trying to play any games with anybody. I am trying to do what I have made a decision on that I think is best for the American people. Do we want to spend all this week on one amendment? People say: How would that happen? Let's go back to the Amtrak legislation. What happened when we went on that bill? As soon as it was open for amendment, bang, out came a tax amendment, and we spent all week on it, Internet tax. I am glad it is done, and that issue has now been sent to the President. He signed it. But we do not have time to do that this week. We must get an appropriations bill to the President. The House is going to work and send us something tonight. The President will wind up getting Labor-HHS later this week, unless we get hung up on some procedural issue.

We need to pass the Defense appropriations conference report, with a CR included in that, this week. So this is no effort on my behalf to try to circumvent rules or procedures. I am following the rules of the Senate to the letter. But I am saying, I repeat, I am doing what every majority leader has done, similarly situated, in recent history.

I said I hope we can deal with this important bill as we focus on efforts to pass an important farm bill. It appears the minority intends to offer unrelated amendments to the farm bill. They will have to wait until later to do that. Hopefully, maybe the time we are here during December, there will be amendable vehicles we can deal with. I hope we can work on this bipartisan farm bill in an orderly, relevant fashion.

So in an effort to keep this debate focused on farm-related issues, I intend to fill the amendment tree, but I will be willing to lay aside pending amendments for Members who wish to offer farm-related amendments to this bill.

I ask the Presiding Officer to lay down the bill.

Mr. President, I call up an amendment on behalf of Senators Dorgan and Grassley. The amendment is at the desk.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I apologize to my distinguished colleague. That was actually in my script and I should have done that. I apologize for not doing that. Without losing my right to the floor, I yield to my friend. I apologize.

Mr. President, this is not a tit for tat. Each time we do the farm bill, it comes at different times in the year and different situations and circumstances. I explained to both the chairman and ranking member that I have no intention of filing cloture this week. But there will be a time we will have to file cloture. We have such a small amount of time left this year and next year with the Presidential elections coming and all the other business we have to do that there will not be five cloture votes on this farm bill. People who vote no on cloture the first time should understand they may not get another chance to vote cloture on the bill, and there will be no farm bill. This is not a threat, it is what we have to deal with in the Senate.

I also say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, once I complete the amendment process, the Republicans have equal authority as I do whether other amendments will be heard. It takes unanimous consent to set an amendment aside, and they have as much control over that as I do. So I am not the ruling authority on that issue. It takes both the Democrats and Republicans to move down the road.

Amendment No. 3510

Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the desk, to the underlying bill.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I send a motion to commit to the desk.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I agree with my friend from Kentucky. Farmers do deserve more than what is going on here.

You know, I took only one course in logic in college, but I did pretty well in that course. And what I would say to my friend is, it is illogical what he is talking about. A 1,600-page bill that needs to be improved can only be improved--if, in fact, people think it should be improved--by offering amendments to it--amendments to the farm bill. Every farmer and rancher in America should understand we are trying to pass a farm bill. We have said any amendment you want to offer to this big bill, offer it, but it has to be relevant to the farm bill. That is all.

That is not a closed process. It is an open process. How can you have it both ways? The ink is hardly dry on this, is a gross overstatement. This bill has been around for several weeks now--not in its final form, but everyone knows what is in this bill. The tax portion was a little late in coming, but it had been worked on for a long time.

This is a bill upon which Democrats and Republicans agreed. It is a bill that is here by virtue of that bipartisanship. The House has already done their bill, and a lot that is in this bill is in the House bill. So if this bill needs to be improved, let's improve it. Let's improve it. I have said let's offer amendments.

One of the amendments that might be offered, and we have debated it before, is dealing with payment limitations--a bipartisan amendment offered by Dorgan and Grassley, two senior Senators who come from farm States. They think this bill can be made better. What are they doing about it? Offering an amendment. That is what this is all about.

So for people to lament a closed process, look what Senator Daschle did--two amendments before cloture. Mr. President, I don't have any concern about how many amendments are offered, as long as they are relevant to the farm bill. That is all.

Sure.

Mr. President, I have served in the House of Representatives. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to understand the Congress. The House is a great institution but much different from the Senate. In the House, if you are in the majority, you can pretty much do as you want to do. That isn't the way we do it over here.

As I indicated a few minutes ago, the first amendment I offered, I offered on behalf of Senators Dorgan and Grassley. If someone wants to offer another amendment, I don't control that. Any one Senator who wants to offer another amendment, let's take a look at it. I don't control that. It takes consent from both sides, or the pending amendment must be set aside and another offered. I am not controlling that.

That certainly is not like the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee in the House sets what amendments can be offered--usually not very many--and how much debate time they can do on that amendment. That isn't anything like we are doing. What I am saying is, we have this big bill, and a number of people have said it can be improved upon. I am willing to work with the Democrats and Republicans to try to improve it, but it will not be improved by nonrelevant amendments.

I have mentioned some of the suspects that are lurking out there: provisions dealing with repealing the estate tax and getting us out of Iraq immediately. I mean, there are all kinds of suspects there. I am saying, if people want to change this bill, let's try to change it. I am not standing in the way of doing that, Mr. President.

Are you asking a question?

I am sorry, I was preoccupied.

The distinguished Senator is correct.

I would be happy to respond to my friend. I smile because that is the way every bill comes before the Senate. That is the way it works. Once you lay down an amendment and you want to set it aside, you have to ask unanimous consent to set it aside. Today is no different from any other day. That is the way it works here.

I have bragged about my friend before. He has served in the House, he has been Governor of his State, and he is now a longtime Senator. He knows that. Every time we have a bill here, and you have an amendment that has been laid down, the only way you can set that aside is by unanimous consent. No one Senator can start offering amendments.

So this bill, I say to my friend, is no different than any other bill we have done in that regard. The only difference is, I laid down the first amendment on behalf of Senators Grassley and Dorgan.

Mr. President, any Senator--not me, any Senator--on any bill has the same power I have to stop the setting aside of an amendment to offer another amendment. It is not me. The Senator from New Hampshire can do it, the Senator from Arizona, or the Senator from Georgia can do it. The Senator from Iowa can do it. Any Senator; it is not me.

I laid down the first amendment by virtue of being the majority leader. I have the right to do that. But that is about as far as it goes. Anytime after that, it takes unanimous consent to set aside that amendment. I agree, and offered a consent agreement, that any relevant amendment Senators want to offer, they should be able to do that, and that was objected to. But for my friend from New Hampshire to try to give a little mini lecture on what we are doing is different than anything we have ever done in the past, every day we are on a bill, it happens the way he has described it. Any one Senator can stop another Senator from setting aside an amendment and offering another amendment.

I am not going to, as my friend said, belabor the point, but my friend from New Hampshire has made my case for me--4 weeks, 245 amendments, and 19 rollcall votes. I have no problem with the 19 rollcall votes. I do have a problem with 4 weeks. I do have a problem with 245 amendments. That is why I think we should have a process whereby people offer amendments, if they are relevant, to the farm bill.

In the time we have spent debating this--and we only have 15 minutes before we take our usual weekly Tuesday break--we could have taken up at least one amendment. The people who offered this huge amendment, a big amendment, and we had it described, for me, it is a pretty easy deal. I have been here when this has been debated before. Most everyone who has been here has heard this debate on numerous occasions. So I am sure they will go back, Senators Dorgan and Grassley, and pick out their favorite statements they made before, and they will talk about it again. They do not want a lot of time on it. So we could dispose of this amendment very quickly, as we could most every other amendment on this bill.

But as I say, my friend has made my case for me--245 amendments, 4 weeks. I repeat: I don't have a problem with the 19 rollcall votes, but the only ones stopping the amendment process are my friends who think somehow this is different than other pieces of legislation we have. The difference is I offered the first amendment. And I am very happy, as the chairman of the bill is, and other people on this side of the aisle who are very concerned about the passage of this bill--they want it passed--to be cooperative. If there is something wrong with this bill, offer relevant amendments. If there is something in there you want to cut, that is always relevant, to cut things in a program, at least that is my understanding.

The only ones stopping the amendment process are my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are making a big deal out of nothing.

I yield to my colleague.

I would be happy to respond to that. Mr. President, I think there is tremendous incentive. First of all, they could have their amendment heard--their relevant amendment. And there is nothing to stop us from having the managers of the bill sit down and work out a procedure where they can come up with 10 relevant amendments-- amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10--to this bill. Do one, do the other, and we can try to work out time agreements on these matters.

So there is tremendous incentive, because I am convinced there are people on both sides of the aisle who have problems with this bill. Some do not like the bill and they want to change it; others want to improve the bill. They want to do that in good faith. So the incentive would be, as I have said to my dear friend, the Senator from Kentucky, to have their amendment and others heard.

There is nothing to prevent the manager of the bill from coming up with a series--I would even go as far as to say my distinguished friend, the Republican leader, if he wants to have the final say with me, if the managers do a good job, I would be happy to include him in the mix. But there is a lot of incentive. We could, in the next couple of days, work out a procedure to get rid of a lot of amendments that are relevant to this bill and would either improve the bill in the mind of some people or make it a little worse, which is the goal some people have.

There is tremendous incentive here, because we could agree to--we might arrive at a point where people say we have had a pretty good opportunity to change this bill; we do not need to do an Iraq amendment; we do not need to do an amendment dealing with firefighters that has no bearing on this bill. In fact, what we need to do is work on making this bill one where people have the opportunity to offer amendments on the farm bill that are relevant.

Mr. President, I know my friend from Arizona has been here and very patient. I guess the question I would ask--I have been asked most of the questions, but I do not ask any one person to answer this to me. But the question I have is: Why would there not be an agreement to my suggestion, my proposal? Let's debate the daylights out of this bill, offer amendments. What is wrong with that? Is it because there are people wanting to offer unrelated amendments to the bill? I mean, what in the world is wrong with what we are trying to accomplish here? It is a big bill. We do it every 5 years. People should have an opportunity to change it. I think they should do that. Why would they not want us to do that? Is there something I am missing here? I mean, is it their last opportunity to do--as Senator Dole used to refer to as decorating a Christmas tree? Is that what they want to do? Is this their Christmas tree to try to decorate it? I do not understand it.

I say to everyone within the sound of my voice: Do we need on the farm bill amendments relating to labor issues? Do we need amendments dealing with Leave No Child Behind? Do we need amendments relating to environmental issues? Global warming? Do we need amendments dealing with Iraq, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the situation now in Pakistan?

I do not think so. I think we need to work on this bill, get as much of it done as we can this week. I think it will spill over into next week, but in the process, we are going to have to find time to do a conference report on the Labor-HHS bill. That has a rule violation in it, perhaps; we have to do the Defense appropriations bill with the CR. Those are the must-do items.

Now I am not trying, as I have said so many times here, to stop an open amendment process on this bill, except I want them to be relevant. I think most everybody does who has any dealing in this farm bill. I do not expect the ranking member to get engaged in this. He has responsibilities to listen to his leadership, and that is understandable.

I will bet if the truth were known, those Senators who have worked so hard on this bill are thinking to themselves: Now, what has Reid said that is unreasonable? What he has said is: I have offered the first amendment, and it is not my amendment. I am not selfish, wanting my amendment to be heard. I have offered a bipartisan amendment that we know must be debated before this farm bill is completed. And then I say, anyone who wants to offer another amendment relating to the farm bill that is relevant: Have at it. I am not going to stop anyone from doing that. I don't think anybody on this side will either.

The Republicans are not having a debate on the farm bill, for reasons that are beyond my ability to comprehend, unless it is the Dole theory of trying to put new lights on the Christmas tree.