Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the second half. At 10:30 this morning, the Senate will resume the Department of Defense authorization bill. There will be 1 hour of debate on the motion to invoke cloture on the Webb amendment. That debate time will be divided and controlled between Chairman Levin and Senator McCain. The minority leader will have 10 minutes under his control at 11:10. I will control the final 10 minutes starting at 11:20. The vote on cloture will occur at 11:30 this morning. As a reminder to Members, they have until 10:30 this morning to file any second-degree amendments regarding the Webb amendment.

Mr. President, I was in college a number of years ago. One of the things we studied was George Orwell's ``1984,'' which is a classic. It is a classic because George Orwell points out a futuristic society as he sees it. One of the things that has become known as Orwellian thought is where someone says something and the opposite is true. That is what George Orwell's book was all about. What we have heard now from my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, is Orwellian. His words were: Democrats are slowing things down. I mean, if there were ever anything in the world that is Orwellian, referring back to the book ``1984,'' it is that Democrats are slowing things down.

As a result of the envy of Republicans for losing the elections last November, they have done everything they can to slow this body down so we would look bad. We have had to file cloture many times, 43 times. Never, ever in the past history of this country has that been done. I have been in the minority, and I have held leadership positions in the minority. For years past, people picked their fights on relatively few issues where cloture would have to be filed. Not with the Republicans-- on everything we have done. They are filibustering things they support now. So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, which is America, understand, we have heard Orwellian speak here this morning: Democrats are slowing things down.

Yesterday marked 6 months from the day that President Bush introduced his temporary troop escalation plan to the American people. Six months ago President Bush implicitly acknowledged the Iraq policy he had been pursuing for nearly 4 years had failed. He asked the American people to overlook those 4 years of failure and trust his new plan to place tens of thousands of additional American troops in the middle of an intractable civil war, and it would bring about success. Six months ago, nearly 4 years after taking us into a war based on deception and falsification, including there being no weapons of mass destruction, the President asked us for trust. Despite his failure to convince other countries to share the burden of war with us, forcing our own brave troops to shoulder the burden of war virtually alone, he asked us for trust.

After nearly 4 years of strategic blunders and tragic mismanagement that left our troops without either the equipment they needed or the strategy for success they deserved, he asked us for trust. At a time when more than 3,000 American lives have already been lost, tens of thousands more wounded, and Iraq in flames, President Bush asked us for more trust so he could put tens of thousands of additional American troops in harm's way. Since then, 6 months, 600 more dead Americans, and $60 billion, that is where we are. Sectarian violence has not diminished. Importantly, the Iraq Government has failed to take meaningful steps to begin taking responsibility for its own country's future. Still, President Bush and his Republican allies ask us for more patience, more trust, more time.

They say that after more than 4 years of incompetence and mismanagement, they finally think they are entitled to more trust. I don't think so. That is akin to a quarterback throwing three interceptions--one, two, three interceptions--comes to the coach and says: Coach, trust me. I am not going to change anything, but trust me. Leave me in the game.

There is no evidence that the escalation is working. They refer to Anbar Province, and there are some good things happening there, but everybody knows that the bubble is being squeezed and terrible things are happening in other places. They are no longer bombing police stations only and health clinics and markets. They are now destroying villages. Three days ago they set off a 5-ton bomb and blew up a town. The town is gone.

Conditions are deteriorating and more lives are being lost every day. The days of trust have long since passed. Some would rather wait until September before forcing the President to change course. If there were real signs of progress or real reason for hope, that might make sense. If the real costs being borne by our troops and their families were not so high, perhaps we could afford more patience and more trust. If we wait until September, more Americans will die, more Americans will be wounded; a third of the troops being wounded are wounded grievously; our treasure will be more depleted; and the Middle East will become ever more destabilized. Our efforts to focus on the real war on terror will be impeded.

What do we have in the Middle East now? We have a civil war raging in Lebanon. The Palestinians are fighting among themselves. There is civil war. We have ignored Israel. We have Iran thumbing their nose at us and a conflagration in Iraq.

If the real costs being borne by our troops and their families were not so high, we could afford more patience and more trust. But the costs are high. Waiting until September is not the answer. Holding out hope, blind hope, blind trust that progress will appear out of thin air for reasons no one is able to articulate is not the answer. This Department of Defense authorization bill and the amendments that will be offered to it are the next chance we have to chart a responsible new course

out of Iraq. The American people demand the new course. Democrats demand it. Republicans demand it. Independents demand it. They deserve it.

Our brave men and women in uniform also deserve it. They deserve more than speeches expressing disapproval or dismay with the current course. Our votes, not our voices, will determine whether we heed the call for a new course. Our votes, not our voices, will demonstrate whether we reject President Bush's failed policy. Our votes, not our voices, will prove whether our resolve is firm and whether we are prepared to lead.

We will work hard this week and next week to pass a Defense authorization bill that reflects a resolve to pursue a responsible and binding new policy. That is going to require Republican support. Already we are seeing some Republicans speak out against the President's Iraq policy. We hope that they and other Republicans will put their words into action by not just saying the right things but voting the right way. That can start today. We have an amendment before us that is critical for the strength of our military and the well-being of our troops. Regardless of where we stand on this ill-advised war, I would hope we stand as one in our commitment to keeping our military the strongest in the world. We should all agree we can't sustain that strength if our men and women in uniform are not being given the protection and care they need.

That is not a Democratic talking point or a Republican talking point. It is common sense. That is why I rise to support the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, and cosponsored by dozens of others. It is also why I am so surprised the Republican leadership has decided to block this amendment, and that is what they are doing. They are blocking the amendment, once again, to stand for obstruction and stand against progress. I fear it is a sign of what is to come from the minority party in the tough votes ahead.

In the Roll Call publication this morning, the Republican leader is quoted as saying there will be a 60-vote requirement on anything we do on this bill.

Senator Webb's readiness amendment begins the critical and long overdue process of rebuilding our badly overburdened military. Who better to offer this amendment than the top two cosponsors: Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. I say to these young people who are pages, you are seeing on the Senate floor a real American hero, a Marine captain at age 23, a Naval Academy graduate about whom books have been written for his heroism, two Bronze stars, a couple Purple Hearts, Silver Star, Navy Cross.

Chuck Hagel is the other cosponsor. One of the great stories I have heard in my life is a story of Chuck Hagel and his brother. You go to his office and there is a picture of Chuck Hagel and his brother in Vietnam, arm in arm, as soldiers. Chuck Hagel saved his brother's life in Vietnam.

These are the two cosponsors of this amendment. Do they know what it means to go to battle, do they know what it means to go to battle unprepared and unrested? Yes, they do.

Also, Senator Webb has another little niche I would like to talk about, and that is his son Jimmy is also a Marine who just got back from fighting in Iraq. The Marine Jim Webb knows the consequences of overburdening the military and knows that ours is stretched nearly to the breaking point. Senator Jim Webb knows the consequences of overburdening the military, and he knows that ours is stretched nearly to the breaking point. So does Chuck Hagel.

Here are a few signs--and there are many--of that burden: Among the Army's 44 active combat brigades, all but one has served at least one tour in Afghanistan. Thirty-one of them have had two or more tours. Among the National Guard and Reserves, more than 80 percent have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, with an average of 18 months per deployment.

This week, the Army announced that recruitment has fallen short by 15 percent for the second month in a row. The qualifications they are looking for have been so written down. Now you do not have to graduate from high school. Now you can have committed crimes before joining the military.

Last year, the active Army was 3,000 officers short, and that is only projected to increase. So much of the equipment and supplies meant for Guard and Reserve use here at home has been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and now only about 30 percent of essential equipment remains. That shortfall is costing an estimated $36 billion--just one of many hidden costs of this war.

We have all heard of the heavy personal costs this overburdening of the military is causing: higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. Eighty percent of the married men and women coming home from Iraq are divorcing.

Our troops are not machines. They are human beings. They are parents missing Little League games, spouses missing anniversaries, children of mothers and fathers who wait and worry for their safety. These honorable men and women wearing our uniform need and deserve time off from the trauma of war. War is trauma, and no war has been more traumatic than this war, where there is a faceless enemy blowing up streets.

Could we have order, Mr. President.

These gallant men and women need time off from the trauma of war, as I said, to see their families and reconnect to their normal lives.

The Webb amendment is simple. It states if a member of the active military is deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, they are entitled to the same length of time back home before they can be redeployed.

It also states that members of the Reserves may not be redeployed within 3 years of their original deployment, which will not only give them time to recover from deployment, but will restore our Reserve forces to respond to emergencies here at home.

Mr. President, I am going to use my leader time right now.

Anyone who watched the tornadoes in Kansas and other States' emergencies knows how crucial a well-maintained and supported Reserve force is to our domestic safety. Some have tried to confuse this issue by calling it an infringement of Presidential authority. This is not true. It is false.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to ``make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.'' That is in our Constitution. And this amendment provides ample Presidential waivers in the case of an emergency that threatens our national security.

The Webb amendment sets a standard and binding policy, but it does not tie the President's and Congress's hands to respond to an emergency.

If we are committed to building a military that is fully equipped and prepared to address the challenges we face throughout the world--and I know we are--then we must support this amendment.

If we are committed to repaying in some small measure the sacrifices our brave troops are making every day--and I know we are--then we must support this amendment.

I am discouraged that the Republican leadership chose to block this troop readiness amendment. If Republicans oppose troop readiness, they are entitled to vote against it. If Republicans do not believe our courageous men and women in uniform deserve more rest, including mental health downtime, they can vote ``no'' on this amendment. If they do not agree that constant redeployments and recruiting shortages are straining our Armed Forces, they can vote ``no'' on this amendment.

But to block this amendment--to not even give it an up-or-down vote-- shows that some of my Republican colleagues are protecting their President rather than protecting our troops. But just because some in the minority party are choosing obstruction does not mean all Republicans must follow in lockstep.

I think it should alarm everybody to read the New York Times newspaper today. On the front page of the newspaper, it talks about what this administration does to people who they appoint to high- ranking positions. This one was a Surgeon General of the United States. To show how this administration is directing its employees

to act--and I am afraid leaking over into the legislative branch of Government--listen to some of the things the Surgeon General was directed to do.

Dr. Carmona said the administration ``would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues.''

``Dr. Carmona said he was ordered''--now, listen to this one--``he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.'' Any time he gave a speech, he had to mention President Bush's name three times or he could not give the speech.

. . . administration officials even discouraged him from

attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that

charitable organization's long-time ties to a ``prominent

family''. . . .

Now, we know that President Kennedy's sister got this started many years ago. He could not even attend the event.

``I was specifically told by a senior person, `Why would

you want to help those people?' ''. . . .

We are Senators. We have the ability, by virtue of our constitutional duties, to have a say in what goes on in this country. We are separate and equal branches of Government. My Republican colleagues must speak out against what the administration is directing this Congress to do. We need to stop protecting the President and start protecting our troops. That is what this amendment is all about. And to think that this administration is getting down into the weeds of things by saying how many times you have to mention his name in a speech speaks volumes of what is going on here in the Senate.

I urge all my colleagues who believe we need a new course to support this amendment, to vote for cloture. It is a crucial first step on the path toward a responsible end to this war.

cloture motion

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I know there is an order that recognizes the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes, both Senators from Colorado for 10 minutes each, and following that the Senator from Colorado will be recognized for up to 60 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that my two friends allow me to speak after they have done their first 10 minutes; that is, 20 minutes, that I be allowed to speak for a few minutes before Senator Salazar begins his 60 minutes.

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

Madam President, inside this desk is the name Johnson of Texas, majority leader. That, of course, is the signature of Lyndon Johnson, who was majority leader, Vice President of the United States, President of the United States. I have the honor of being able to work from this desk.

Lyndon Johnson is a legend from the great State of Texas, the Lone Star State. He was a Member of Congress, U.S. Senator, majority leader, Vice President, and the 36th President of the United States. But just as importantly, for those who know anything about Lyndon Johnson, were not these honors that were bestowed upon him by others but the fact that he married a wonderful woman, Lady Bird Johnson,

What a name, Lady Bird Johnson. Anytime you read about Lyndon Johnson, you have to understand the power of his wife.

Caro's book, ``Master of the Senate,'' has a lot in it about Lady Bird Johnson.

My wife understands, I am sure, a little bit what she went through. In the book, it describes how he would bring people home with little notice for dinner, and it was always available. Mr. Rayburn, the Speaker, came to their home at least once a week for dinner, many times unannounced except by the President calling at the last minute.

Today, America has lost this great woman. The greatest asset Lyndon Johnson had was his wife. I join my colleagues and all Americans in tribute to this great American woman.

I did not have the good fortune to know Lady Bird Johnson. She died today at age 94. But those who did know her said if you were to look up in the dictionary the term ``lady,'' you would find Lady Bird Johnson's picture. She truly stereotyped a lady.

I believe it is fair to say that you did not have to know Lady Bird Johnson--I did not--to admire her for the causes she championed.

As I said briefly, I have my own special appreciation for Mrs. Johnson because I have some idea of what Landra, my wife, puts up with being married to the majority leader.

He was a domineering personality, her husband. She was, during all of the domination he had--with his poking Senators in the chest and the things he is now legendary to have done--she was always the same graceful woman no matter the situation she found herself in. She was the same person no matter what the situation. She served during challenging, extraordinary times. President Johnson went through some very difficult times. She was always at his side.

She did not ask for the role of First Lady, but she embraced that role with grace and dignity.

As First Lady, she was instrumental in the Highway Beautification Act, which came to be known as ``Lady Bird's bill.'' She had many other initiatives that enhanced our natural world. She was a champion for children with programs such as Head Start. Later in life, her passion continued, most notably in her work opening the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center outside Austin, TX, where she will lie before reaching her final resting place at the Johnson family ranch in Stonewall, TX.

I can think of no better tribute to Lady Bird Johnson than to close with her own words. She said once:

Some may wonder why I chose wildflowers when there is

hunger and unemployment and the big bomb in the world.

Well, I, for one, think we will survive, and I hope that

along the way we can keep alive our experience with the

flowering earth. For the bounty of nature is also one of the

deep needs of man.

My thoughts and warm feelings are with her two daughters, Lynda, whom I know quite well, and Luci, whom I know of, and, of course, Lynda's husband, our former colleague, Chuck Robb--who served with such dignity in the Senate; I had the good fortune of being able to serve with this wonderful Senator, great Governor of the State of Virginia, an extraordinary, gallant marine--and Ian, Luci's husband, and Lady Bird's many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, all of whom she loved as only a mother and grandmother could love.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 226 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the title amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 240.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., tomorrow morning, July 12; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved

to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 30 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1585, the Department of Defense authorization bill, and then proceed to the McCain or designee amendment, as provided for under a previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time controlled by Senator Salazar, Senator Warner be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and that at the conclusion of Senator Warner's remarks, the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I appreciate the consideration of my colleagues for letting me squeeze in time to complete the Senate's work for today and to say a few nice things about the great Lady Bird Johnson.

Mr. President, we are going to be in a period of morning business for an hour. The majority will control the second half of morning business, the Republicans will control the first half of morning business. We had a conversation last night, the distinguished Republican leader and I, and the decision was made at that time that we are going to do our very best on the Webb amendment to come up with a side by side so we can have, sometime today, votes on those two amendments. Following that, there will be another amendment offered, and we will move along on this most important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know we have so many important things to do dealing with this legislation, but I do wish to say something about what is going on in Nevada. We have a serious problem in Nevada, and it is fires. This is about the fourth year we have had these raging wildfires.

It is so difficult. The smoke is so thick, helicopters cannot fly. Firefighters have been lost not knowing where they are fighting these fires. It is rough terrain. What people do not understand is, Nevada-- other than Alaska--is the most mountainous State in the Union. It has 314 separate mountain ranges. We have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. Some of this terrain, where these fires are burning, is very difficult.

We share Lake Tahoe with California. There was a raging fire there that lasted 2 weeks. It has now been put out. But they think that at least 400 structures have burned, with 275 or 300 homes burned to the ground.

On a lot of the land in Nevada not many people live there. In spite of that, people do live there. It is rural, and fires have been raging. What has happened with the fires that have taken place in the past, we have these species that are foreign to the high deserts of Nevada. They start burning, they get into the low mountains, they get into the cedars and the pines and then start burning in the forests. That is what has happened in Nevada.

In one fire we have had three lives lost. This fire burned so quickly that three grown men could not escape the fire. They were doing work on their farm. There was an 11-year-old boy. They saw the fire coming. They said, ``Run for your life,'' literally, and the 11-year-old boy ran and did survive. His family did not. They all died--three of them.

I say this because we have shut down roads. In one part of Utah, 100 miles of interstate were closed because of fires. Think about that: 100 miles of interstate closed. People could not go. One reason was the smoke was so thick--not the fire, the smoke.

There has been remarkable heroism, as there always is with these men and women who fight these raging fires.

I quoted, a couple weeks ago, Edward Croker, a long past fire chief in the State of New York, who said:

I have no ambition in this world but one, and that is to be

a fireman. Our proudest moment is to save lives. Under the

impulse of such thoughts, the nobility of the occupation

thrills us and stimulates us to deeds of daring, even of

supreme sacrifice.

The way fires are fought 100 years after this man said this is different than the way they used to be fought, but it still takes a great deal of courage and many times heroism to go forward in these areas where burning is taking place.

So far, 245 square miles in northern Nevada have burned. That is a lot of ground: 245 square miles. Some of the fires are not under control yet. So I want the Record to reflect we have problems in the West. Some say it is because of global warming. Whatever the reason, we have never had fires such as we have had in the last 4 years in Nevada and I think in the West, generally.

So I would finally say, long after the smoke has cleared, the accounts of bravery will still be told in Nevada.

Mr. President, may I ask my friend to yield? Senator McConnell and I need to transact some business.

I would ask that the record reflect that we stopped the Senator from Virginia but that he maintain the floor and that the record appear as his having not been interrupted. Will that be okay with the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. President, last night, the Republican leader indicated that he would have an alternative amendment to Senator Webb's amendment and that we would work out an agreement so we would not need cloture, and I appreciate that very much. But a problem has developed. We do have a side by side from Senator Graham, but what I didn't understand is that there would be a requirement of 60 votes on Senator Webb's amendment and Senator Graham's amendment. I just don't think it is appropriate that there be a filibuster on this amendment, and that is what it is.

I would be happy to enter into an agreement that would provide for a majority vote on both the Graham and Webb amendments. So I now ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2013

be withdrawn; that there now be 4 hours equally divided to run concurrently on Senator Webb's amendment and Senator Graham's amendment, as provided to us this morning--we have that amendment, we have looked at it, we understand it--and that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on Senator Webb's amendment, no. 2012, followed by a vote on Senator Graham's amendment.

I guess rationality is in the eye of the beholder. The real facts here are that, on Iraq, for example, the bill the President vetoed was not filibustered. We sent a measure to the President that he vetoed that had 51 or 52 votes. It was in the majority. That is what we should do here.

It appears to me we are arriving at a point where, even on the Defense authorization bill, amendments leading up to a final vote on the Defense authorization bill, which is so important, are going to be filibustered. It is really wrong. It is too bad. We don't have to have this 60-vote margin on everything we do. That is some recent rule that has just come up in the minds of the minority.

Mr. President, we should move forward on this Webb amendment, move forward on the Graham amendment. We have confidence that a majority of the Senate supports Senator Webb. I don't know about Senator Graham's amendment. But why don't we let the body work its will and then move on to other things. We have the amendment we are waiting to offer very quickly, which is the one that has been worked on for a long time, which is the Levin-Reed amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory live quorum be waived.

If I could, Mr. President, Mr. Webb has the floor. I asked him to yield to me to do this, and that was the agreement.

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

Mr. President, lobbying and ethics reform, the most significant change in the history of the country, has been passed by the House and the Senate. Why is it not signed into law? Because the Republicans are stopping us from going to it.

There are all kinds of excuses they are using. The latest excuse is they want the provision dealing with earmarks in this bill--the amendment passed 98 to nothing--they want that set out separately. But that is a ploy; it is a diversion. They do not want to go to the meat of this bill. They have blocked this now for weeks. The Senator from South Carolina, who was the last to come and block this important legislation from going forward, I know thinks earmarks are important. I do too. Earmark reform is important. But it is in this bill. Earmark reform is in it. It is hard to believe that his objection isn't anything more than a smokescreen to prevent us from making progress on the rest of the bill.

Here are the facts: No one has any intention of taking out the earmark disclosure provisions in the bill. It is a fantasy. Second, Senate Democrats have already imposed earmark provisions through the committees. Right now, anyone with an Internet connection can go on line to the Senate Web site and find earmarks and earmark sponsors in appropriations bills that the press has reported. I repeat: Anyone who can go on the Internet can find out what the earmarks are on any bill that has been reported out of any one of our committees. Every subcommittee that has reported a bill, an appropriations bill, has to have that in it. And we are even doing it with authorizing committees.

Right here I have the appropriations bill which is for the Department of Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies for 2008. No secret. All the earmarks are herein listed in detail--the amounts, the Senator sponsoring the earmark--and they have to sign a disclosure in addition to this that they have no financial interest in the earmark. It is here. Every subcommittee in the appropriations process that has reported out a bill has the same information I have just presented to the Senate.

So it is really hard to believe the earmark complaint is genuine. Let us remember all the other provisions in this bill the Senate Republicans are blocking progress on--campaign expenses, campaign contributions. As we have read in the press, they feel it is important that we do something dealing with bundling. That is lobbyists who agree to raise money for Senators. There should be some disclosure of that. In this bill we have it--the one they won't let us go to conference on. Bans on gifts from lobbyists and corporations are in this bill. They have prevented us from going to conference on that. No more corporate jets.

One of the issues around here--and I don't think it was necessarily corrupting anyone, but it was corrupting--flying these beautiful corporate jets and paying first-class airfare, even though it cost 10 times that to fly on these airplanes. This is eliminated in our bill. But we can't eliminate it because they won't let us go with it. They have obstructed this.

The Abramoff situation, brought to the attention of the American people, this is the culture of corruption the Republicans brought to Washington, DC, when they controlled the Congress. For the first time in 121 years, someone who works in the White House has been indicted. That man has now been convicted, and his sentence has partially been commuted by the President of the United States.

In the House of Representatives, the former majority leader of the House of Representatives, a Republican, was convicted three times of ethics violations by the ethics committee. He was indicted twice in Texas. He still is under indictment. One Member of Congress is even serving time now as part of the Abramoff corruption program. Numerous staff people are either in jail or under probation or now being investigated. The American people think we should improve the situation, and we can do that with this legislation.

One of the problems the Abramoff program allowed was people flying all over the country. Let's go to Scotland and play golf, and then they flew on a corporate jet and played golf in Scotland. Under our legislation, this would not be permitted. We significantly improve disclosure of lobbying activities.

We also prevent stealth coalitions. What does that mean? It means there is a company--I will pick this out of the air--Americans for Health Care, and they run these ads. It is a stealth organization. It is a phony organization because it is paid for by, let's say the pharmaceutical industry, someone who has an interest in the health care industry. Pick any name you want. And if you look behind it, it is some large, usually multilevel corporation that is paying for this.

Our legislation would slow the revolving door by former Members of Congress. Our legislation would put an end to the pay-to-play K Street Project that was also part of the Republicans' culture of corruption.

The list goes on and on. They are stopping us from doing these things. I don't want to file cloture in order to appoint conferees, but I will if I have to. We cannot let the Senate action on something so important be held up by the minority. It is wrong. They send one person out to do it, but this is reflective upon the Republicans. They do not want us to complete this legislation, but we owe it to the American people to get this bill completed. We need to restore the faith the American people want to have in government. They want a government as good and honest as the people it represents.

I appreciate very much indeed the Washington Post's writing an editorial saying this has to be done, and they said to me in that editorial, if they continue to stop us from going to conference, I should make them filibuster so they have to come here and vote against completing ethics and lobbying reform.

Maybe the culture of corruption is something they want to maintain. Maybe they are still flying in corporate jets. Maybe they are still doing some of the things we are trying to prevent. I don't know the reasons, but it appears very evident that they do not want us--they, the Republicans--to complete this legislation, and that is too bad.

I repeat, the earmarking is a guise. Right now every committee reports out, under the Democratic leadership, the earmarks in detail. We are complying with this legislation even though it is not law now. So for someone to come here and say we are not going to allow the conference to go forward because we want earmarks to be separate and apart from this is a guise. They are diverting attention from the work of the American people and this Congress.

I will be glad to answer a question of my distinguished friend from Illinois.

I say to my friend, it is this. It is the Republicans who are stopping us from going to conference on this bill. They may send one person out, and it could be a rotating person, but they are stopping us from going forward. The ploy of the day is they want to take the work we have done in this bill dealing with earmarking out of the bill and set it up as a Senate rule.

This is what conferences are all about. We want to do all these things I have enumerated in this legislation. We want disclosure of bundling, bans on gifts from lobbyists and corporations, no more corporate jets, major limits on privately paid travel, significantly improved disclosure of lobbying activities, disclosure of stealth coalitions, slow the revolving door of former Members of Congress, put an end to the pay-to-play K Street Project. That is what is being held up, and it is being held up by the Republicans.

I say to my friend, everything we have done for the past 7 months has been in spite of the roadblocks, the obstruction tactics the Republicans have put up. We have done it in spite of that. We have to this point 43 different cloture motions--43. We have never done that before, 43.

I say to my friend, on a Defense authorization bill--the bill that takes care of our troops around the world, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the work we are doing with NATO forces, to get pay increases, get them the right equipment, the right medical care--this is being held up.

I would also, in a way of response, ask my friend, what has happened in the past dealing with Defense authorization bills? Has there ever been anything like this that you can imagine?

Mr. President, I appreciate so much my friend from Illinois. I have such fond memories of our relationship. It seems now only yesterday, but it was 25 years ago that the Senator from Illinois and I came to the House of Representatives together. We were elected in the great class of 1982. At least I thought it was great, and I think, looking back, we have had some good experiences. I appreciate very much his laying out the facts.

The facts are that for Defense authorization bills, you should not have to file cloture on amendments. My counterpart, my friend from Kentucky, says this is the way we do business around here. That is not the way we have done business around here. This is the way we do business here because of the envy of the Republican minority, envious of our being in the majority, so they are making us jump through every procedural hoop, they are obstructing everything we are trying to do.

It is hurting, not the Democrats. It is hurting the American people. I say--I want it spread on the record--in spite of all of the obstacles we have had to jump through, we have been able to get things done. We have had to do it. It has been hard. We have had to fight with the White House. We have been able to get minimum wage passed, we have been able to get funding for Katrina, we have been able to get funding for homeland security, which we have never been able to do before, over the President's objections. We have been able to fund SCHIP through the first of the year, which was extremely difficult and hard to do. We have been able to do some things for farmers and ranchers. We have been able to do some good things. Disaster relief, 3 years overdue--we were able to get that done. That money is now out helping those people who desperately need it.

As I speak, all over the West, wildfires are burning. In Nevada, we have had 245 square miles burn. A 100-mile stretch of freeway in Utah has been shut down because of fires. We were able to get, over the President's objection, money for wildfires that burned last year and the year before that we have been trying to get.

In spite of all the hurdles we have had to jump through, we have been able to accomplish things for the American people. But the shame of it is we could be doing so much more but for the obstructions continually thrown up in our path by this minority.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, following any time utilized by the two leaders, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 3 o'clock, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides. At 3 p.m. today, the Senate will proceed to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department authorization bill. We all know how important this legislation is. The Senate will carefully and thoughtfully and thoroughly debate issues associated with our military servicemen at home and abroad. Senator Bill Nelson will be here to manage the bill for Chairman Levin, who will be in a hearing until later this afternoon. As I indicated prior to the recess, this period will be a very busy legislative period.

Members should be prepared for votes occurring whenever the Senate is in session unless I make an announcement to the contrary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 263 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony and representation in criminal trespass actions in Iowa District Court for Polk County in Des Moines, IA. In this action, antiwar protestors have been charged with criminally trespassing in the Federal building housing Senator Chuck Grassley's Des Moines office on February 26, 2007, for refusing repeated requests to leave the premises. Trials

on charges of trespass are scheduled to commence on July 9, 2007. Two members of the Senator's staff who had conversations with the defendant protestors during the charged events have been subpoenaed by the prosecution and the defense. Senator Grassley would like to cooperate by providing testimony from these two members of his staff. This resolution would authorize those staff members to testify in connection with this action, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it wasn't too many years ago that sessions of the Senate were much shorter than they are now. During the summertime, the months of July and August, people went home because it was so hot. They simply couldn't handle the heat in this building and this town. But that has changed now with air-conditioning.

We still traditionally take August as our break. We do it for good reason. There are a lot of things we have to do to catch up on work at home. Senators have to travel throughout their States to catch up on things. The State of Nevada, for example, is the seventh largest State area-wise in the country. Seventy percent of the people live in Las Vegas; 20 percent live in Reno. But the other 10 percent are entitled to representation in the Senate, as are the two metropolitan areas. In addition, we have important obligations around the world. August is set aside as a time when Members travel around the world to check assets our country has and obligations through treaties and other things.

The reason I mention that is we have a lot of work to do. This is a work period of 4 short weeks, and we hope it is 4 short weeks. It wasn't but a month ago when Members of this body and the House were criticizing the Iraqi Parliament for taking their summer vacation because they hadn't done the work they were supposed to do. The American people are looking at us--not the Iraqi Parliament, the American Congress--to make sure we also do our work. We have a schedule during this 4-week work period we have to meet. If we don't do that, the August recess period is going to be shorter. Everyone should understand that. I know I have come to the floor earlier in the year talking about the need for us to do different things, and it has worked out very well. We have worked only one weekend. We have spent a few nights but not too many because Members have, on most occasions--when it comes time to finish our work before a work period ends, we are able to complete the work. I hope that will continue. We have a lot to do.

I think this could be one of the most, if not the most, important work periods of the year. It was reported in the press today that we, the majority, have filed 42 cloture motions this year already. Why? Because everything we have had to do--motions to proceed, basically everything--the Republicans have had us go that route procedurally to try to invoke cloture to move forward. We have not always been successful, but most of the time we have because it was simply stalling when it came right down to it. On many occasions, the Republicans voted with us, but they still got their 30 hours to slow things down.

In spite of that, we have been able to accomplish a lot. We, of course, passed an increase in the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years. As a result of the supplemental appropriations bill the President gave us, we were forced into that legislation, not only the minimum wage bill but disaster relief which is 3 years overdue for ranchers and farmers. We were able to, for the first time over the President's objections, get extra money for homeland security. We got a billion dollars there. We were able to finally get money for the gulf, $7 billion. The President had gone there 22 times, but the money had never been forthcoming. We were able, in the supplemental appropriations bill, to force that in. We were also able this year to pass a budget, a good budget. We think it will set the pattern for what needs to be done this year.

We have had other accomplishments. We also have things we have to do. That is why this work period is so important. The Defense authorization bill is one thing. This gives us a chance to support our troops with a readiness amendment, which will be the first amendment up, which requires that active-duty troops have at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas. This will also be our chance to force responsible action in Iraq that the President up to this point has refused.

We have had, during the week we have been gone, a number of Republicans of good will who have spoken out for the need to change policy in Iraq. I appreciate very much their stepping forward, as do the American people, Democrats and Republicans.

Second, we are going to do everything we can during this work period to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program which provides health insurance to 6 million children. SCHIP must be reauthorized before it expires. I hope we can all agree to this as important to keep the children healthy. We are also going to turn to the Higher Education Access Act, a bill that will help more Americans afford college by addressing the alarming rise in tuition costs. It could be and will be the most significant change in higher education since the GI Bill of Rights. It is going to change programs. It is going to take moneys used to pay people who provide these loans, who are getting, in the minds of many, outrageous profits from the money they give to young people to go to school, take that and put it into something that will really educate children.

Fourth, we are going to tackle appropriations bills. The first bill I want to do is Homeland Security. This bill strengthens airport, seaport, and water security, supports our first responders, and plugs security gaps that have been ignored for far too long.

Finally, we are going to send the 9/11 and ethics bills to conference. As I said during the last day we were here, no longer am I going to come here and hope that the good will of the Republicans will allow us to go to conference. We are going to finish these bills. If it means I have to file cloture to get conferences, that is what we will do. It is too bad because on the ethics bill, it is important that we do this. It is so important that we do ethics and lobbying reform to address the culture of corruption. This legislation passed the House and the Senate with minor differences. We should complete them. We almost got there the last week we were here, but at the last minute somebody

stepped in and wanted to stop us from doing this--always some diversionary tactic. As to 9/11, we got another letter today from the 9/11 families saying do something about this.

Here is our work schedule. Let's make sure everybody understands what we need to complete during this work period: Defense authorization; we are going to work hard at SCHIP; we are going to finish the conference reports on 9/11 and ethics and lobbying reform. We are also going to do the Defense authorization bill, as I talked about. We are going to do the reconciliation on the Higher Education Access Act, and we are going to do an appropriations bill or more, if we can. I repeat: It is time that we start legislating for the American people. The minority has certainly proven that they can slow things down here, and 42 times we have had to file cloture. I hope we don't have to continue doing that. We will address the issues I have talked about before we end the work period and break for the August recess.

The recess is important. I repeat: It gives Members the opportunity to travel home and abroad, which is so important. It widens our understanding of the issues we face. Two of our colleagues, for example, both former members of the military, Senators McCain and Reed, traveled to Iraq during this Fourth of July work period. They will have a lot to report. I have already met with Jack Reed, and I have had a wonderful conversation with him. I don't think there is anyone in the Senate who has traveled there more than he has. I am quite sure that is true. The August recess is also a time to meet with constituents. That is also important.

We are sent here for one reason above all others; that is, to legislate. That is what we must do. So I say as respectfully as I can to my friends, Democrats and Republicans, who are Senators, you need to keep your August travel plans flexible. I believe we can address each of these issues I have mentioned in the next 4 weeks and complete our work. The conference reports could go very quickly, but it is not just up to me, as we move this calendar along at a pace that allows for fair debate but not obstruction. In recent weeks, we have seen some of our Republican colleagues filibuster even issues that it appears they support, which is hard to comprehend, but that is what we have seen. That is their right, but I don't think it is good for the country, and we are simply going to do what we can to move this body along so we can accomplish passage of legislation.

President Wilson said on one occasion:

The commands of democracy are as imperative as its

privileges and opportunities are wide and generous. Its

compulsion is upon us.

So, Mr. President, the compulsion to get the job done is upon us now, and I look forward to a very successful work period. We are going to have to put in some long hours, but certainly that should not be a hindrance to our work.

Mr. President, I appreciate not only the comments of my distinguished counterpart, the senior Senator from Kentucky, but the manner in which they were offered, the tone. I would hope we can work together to get some of these things done, starting with this bill, the Defense authorization bill.

We have two wonderful Senators who are the managers of that bill, Senators Levin and Warner. They have worked together in that committee for 25 years and are both dedicated patriots. They will do a good job managing this bill, no matter what happens on the floor.

I would also say that, coincidentally, I had a meeting today with the president of the American Medical Association. He came to talk about the SCHIP bill and how important it is we get that passed.

Also, in speaking with physicians about the Clinton health care plan that we did spend a lot of time on, as everyone knows, that legislation started out with 80 percent of the American people supporting a change in the health care policy in this country. With the huge amounts of money spent by mainly the insurance industry, with their ``Harry and Louise'' ads, that reversed, when it was all over, with less than half the people supporting that legislation. Huge amounts of money were spent denigrating that legislation.

Right now, as with the people who met with me today, they sure wish that legislation passed. It would have solved a lot of the problems we deal with here: medical malpractice and allowing the pooling of small employers so they can compete with large employers and have affordable insurance. But hindsight is 20/20. That was not accomplished. Hopefully, we can, with SCHIP, set a tone for what we can do with legislation as it relates to health care.

With the 9/11 and the ethics and lobbying reform, the proof is in the pudding. Are we going to have more delays? As my distinguished friend has indicated, if Republican staff comes to our staff and says: We are ready to go to conference, we will go, just like that. But I am not going to come out here anymore and have somebody come out and sideswipe it: We cannot do it because of this or that, always something standing in the way of it.

The American people are watching us. We are going to finish those two pieces of legislation before we leave in August. It is not a threat. It is what we have to do. The American people need us to do certain things. Can't we certainly pass ethics and lobbying reform? Can't we certainly pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which are 3 years old? The administration has not implemented those. In fact, as we know, we talk about one reason it passed overwhelmingly here and in the House is the Bush administration is given Ds and Fs on the implementation of this. We need to get this passed, and we need to get ethics reform passed. We need to get the 9/11 bill passed. I hope we can do that.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I am happy. I am happy. I so appreciate that, very much appreciate that. I think it is good we try to have a good work environment the next few weeks. We have a lot of things to do. We have been through one of the most difficult issues that has ever faced this body, ever, in the 200-plus years we have been a country; that is, immigration reform. Friends against friends, it was a very difficult issue.

So I think it is time we are able to do what the Senate can do by unanimous consent. So I appreciate very much what my friend said. I look forward to that. I think it will be something the American people can look at and say: You know, those guys don't disagree on everything.

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

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