Floor Statements

Madam President, this morning, following any time used by the two leaders, the Senate will resume consideration of the two motions to proceed to H.R. 800 and S. 1639. Debate time will extend until 11:30 this morning. That time will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy and Enzi or their designees. At 11:30, the two leaders will control 10 minutes each, with the Republican leader controlling the time from 11:30 to 11:40 and the majority leader controlling the time from 11:40 to 11:50. Therefore, if the leaders use the time available to them, the first vote will occur about 11:50. The first vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Regardless of the outcome of that vote, even if cloture is invoked on that motion, the Senate will then proceed to vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1639, the immigration bill. Following the second vote, the Senate will then recess until 2:15 in order to permit the respective party conference meetings.

The schedule is difficult. Last week, we worked things out so we didn't have to be in on the weekend, and that was because the cloture vote did not succeed and we saved some 30 hours. Had that succeeded, we would have had to work into the weekend.

Madam President, yesterday the U.S. Conference of Mayors highlighted the toll of the Iraq war, the toll it is taking on our health, safety, and well-being here at home, by voting for a resolution to bring the war to a responsible end. Stanford, CT, Mayor Dan Malloy said the war has drained desperately needed funds from classrooms and municipal services. David Cicilline, Mayor of Providence, RI, said:

Continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is resulting in

the tragic loss of American lives and wounding of American

soldiers . . . reducing federal funds for needed domestic

investments in education, health care, public safety,

homeland security and more.

The mayors understand this as much as any other political body in the country. They are the ones who are seeing that desperately needed funds are not going to projects they believe are so important to their constituents, the people who live within those cities, because the money is going at the rate of $10 billion a month to Iraq. I appreciate the Conference of Mayors for taking the important stand they did.

Finally, last evening, just before the Senate went out, Richard Lugar, former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee today, made a very important speech, one of the most important speeches we have had in the Senate in a long time. He is a soft-spoken man and doesn't really talk a lot. He is a Rhodes scholar, a brilliant man, an academic with experience, prior to coming here, as

mayor of one of the major cities in America. I appreciate what he did last night, what he said last night. On foreign policy, he has the credentials to speak.

Yesterday, he gave voice to the growing sentiment among his Republican colleagues that we must change course in Iraq and change now--not in September but now. Senator Lugar said:

Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay

policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting

our vital interests over the long term.

I recommend and suggest to all Senators, Democrats and Republicans, that they read the brilliant speech given by Dick Lugar last night. It was very good. It was, I am sure, prepared by him, every word. I understand it is not easy to speak out against the war. I can vouch for that. I also recognize how difficult it is for Republicans to speak out against the war. It has been hard enough for this Democrat to speak out against the war. Senator Lugar's comments and those of a handful of other Republicans who share his view--to this point, two have said so publicly--takes real courage. Courage is the only way we will change course in Iraq.

Some floor speeches go unnoticed. Most floor speeches go unnoticed. Senator Richard Lugar's speech last night is not one of them. When this war comes to an end--and it will come to an end--and the history books are written--and they will be written--Senator Lugar's words yesterday could be remembered as a turning point in this intractable civil war in Iraq. But that will depend on whether more Republicans take the stand Senator Lugar took, a courageous stand, last night.

I look forward to working with Senator Lugar--and hope and believe a growing number of Republicans--to put his words into action by delivering a responsible end to the war that the American people demand and the American people deserve.

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

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:

It is one of the characteristics of a free and democratic

nation that it have free and independent labor unions.

Roosevelt's New Deal lifted America through the Great Depression by showing us the rights of working people can go hand in with economic growth. His call for equality and basic fairness, which guaranteed our country a permanent workforce of skilled, trained, and professional employees, is something that is one of his legacies. But now, 70 years later, for many Americans the New Deal has become a raw deal.

Today in America, hourly wages are down, way down, while the number of uninsured is up, way up. Today in America, household income is down, way down, while the average chief executive officer's pay is a staggering, record-shattering, 411 times higher than the pay of the average working person, and going up every day. This has happened in part because, to use a term from Las Vegas, ``the boss holds all the chips.''

I rise to support that we proceed to the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that will level the playing field for the American worker. It is unquestioned that when employees join labor unions, their standard of living improves and they become more productive employees. It is a win- win for employers and employees alike. Yet too often some employers coerce, harass, and threaten their employees to keep them from organizing. Our current laws give our employees little recourse when that happens, and it happens a lot. The Employee Free Choice Act puts the choice to organize squarely on the shoulders of the employees, and that is where it belongs.

This bill requires employers to recognize the formation of a union when the majority of employees express their support by signing a simple authorization card--a card check. It gives both sides a right to bring in the Federal Mediation Service to mediate the first contract once a union is formed, and enforces stronger penalties for companies that interfere with the right to organize.

Providing the American workers with free choice will ensure access to higher wages and better benefits, better fringe benefits. That means more working families will have good health care and will be able to save, for example, for a college education for their children and maybe even for a better retirement. They will be guaranteed fair benefits, such as vacation time, a reasonable workday, better on-the-job safety.

This is particularly true for African Americans, Latinos, and certainly women. There are some who claim this is a political vote, a gesture to labor. It is a gesture to the American working men and women. I can only venture to guess that those people who do not understand what this bill is all about are those who do not like the bill. This bill is an honest attempt to help improve the lives of Americans who often work hardest and are rewarded the very least.

Opponents of this bill, I guess, see it differently. Lobbyists for big business argue the status quo NLRB secret ballot election works just fine. It is not just fine. It doesn't work just fine. In reality, the status quo is often unfair and undemocratic. Big business wields tremendous power in secret balloting, and too often they use that power abusively. Big business controls the paychecks of the voters and livelihoods of labor. Big business sets the work schedule and terms of employment. And big business has a captive audience, an unfiltered audience to voters. All of us, save our new colleague who was sworn in at 3:15 yesterday, Dr. Barrasso, have earned a place in the Senate through an election. But I guarantee everyone here, everyone within the sound of my voice, in any of the elections of the other 99 Senators who serve here now, if our opponents controlled 100 percent of the information that voters receive, none of us would be here.

That is what this is all about. There is nothing more democratic in politics and in government and the workplace than a level playing field.

For those who are skeptical of this legislation, let me remind you that it is already working. The NLRB permits the use of majority signup, or card check as it is often described. For example, in Nevada, a State where business and labor work together, most union organizing drives are implemented through majority signup.

Let me say this. Let me be very clear. This bill does nothing to limit employee options in right-to-work States such as Nevada, nor does it eliminate secret ballot elections, as some have said. It simply gives employees the choice to determine their path to union representation. That seems fair. That is the level field we are talking about.

Skeptics of this bill should look to Nevada to see that labor organizing does not have to be adversarial. The Employee Free Choice Act will be good for both sides: It will be good for labor, and it will be good for management. This legislation will help provide the fair, square deal for working people that President Roosevelt first promised 70 years ago and will keep our country strong and certainly more competitive.

I encourage all my colleagues to join in supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. That is what it is, a free choice act.

Mr. President, after we vote on the Employee Free Choice Act, we will return to immigration. Attention will be brought back to that issue, which is so critical--comprehensive immigration reform.

We would not have been able to revisit this issue if Democrats and Republicans hadn't put aside their differences to move forward. We may not all agree on the destination, but we now do at least have a roadmap. The process for this debate and the number of amendments we will consider were decided with the complete support of the Republican leader, Senator McConnell. Senator McConnell and I have worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open, and productive debate on an issue of such overriding national importance. But this bill will not get done without Republican support. The bill is here, but we need Republican support.

Sunday I had the good fortune to visit with the President. I spoke the same evening with Secretary Gutierrez. I spoke to Josh Bolton, the President's Chief of Staff. I explained to them, this is not a Democratic bill. They understand that. We had a Democratic bill last year. It died because the Republicans wouldn't allow us to go to conference. This is a bill that was negotiated in good faith with the total support of the President. He has made public statements that he supports this legislation. Throughout this debate, Democrats have done our part. Eighty percent of us voted for the President's bill; 14 percent of Republicans did the same. That is not enough. We are not asking the Republicans to equally match our support, although I wish they would, for their President's bill. If they deliver even 50 percent of their caucus, the legislation will pass. We need 25 Republicans to support us in this matter.

This is important legislation. The stakes are too high for inaction. We are the Senate of the United States. People have said the issue is too complex; let's not do it.

We have to take hard votes. We have an immigration system that is broken and needs to be fixed. That is what we are trying to do, fix it. We would be derelict in our duties if we didn't make every effort to get this legislation passed.

When we finish here, is it over with? Of course not. It goes to the House, and they will take up a measure. They will do what they think is appropriate. It will go to conference and we will come up with something that hopefully will solve most of the problems of immigration. I believe that to be the case. Comprehensive immigration reform will require us to tackle a number of difficult issues, such as border security. We have done a remarkably important thing in this bill regarding border security. Previously, there was authorization for money to do border security. This bill gives direct funding of $4.4 billion to address border security. If for no other reason, people should vote for this. I am confident this bill will take care of border security more than anything we have talked about in recent years. It will also look at a fair temporary worker program. There is in the legislation an agricultural workers program that is excellent. In this legislation there is the DREAM Act for education for children who previously could not be educated. Of course, there are employer sanctions which are important.

I am confident this bill addresses all four of these issues in a way that honors our country, our strong immigrant history, and sets us on the path to a stronger future.

I was looking at some commentary, talking about me and immigration. Actually, they made fun of fact that my father-in-law came from Russia, as if it were a negative. My wife's father was born in Russia. That is the strength of our country. My grandmother was born in England. I used to talk to my grandmother. She didn't remember much

about anything, but she remembered a few things. The fact that my father-in-law came from Russia, my grandmother came from England makes us a better country. Immigrants are the strength of this country. This legislation honors that fact.

We need to proceed with this legislation and send the American people a better life for everybody. That is what this legislation will do. It will allow us to solve the problem, secure our borders, have a temporary worker program that meets the demands of our country, and put 12 million people on a pathway to legalization. As Secretary Gutierrez said, it is not amnesty. If we do nothing, there is silent amnesty. What this bill does is make sure that people learn English. It makes sure they pay their taxes. It makes sure they work, stay out of trouble, pay penalties and fines. Even then, they go to the back of the line. Remember, these people, whether we like it or not, have American children. This will allow them to come out of the shadows, be productive citizens and with the great work we have done on border security, stop illegals from coming into the country in the future. That is what this legislation is all about. It is good legislation. We have an obligation, as the legislative branch of Government, to do something to work with the President and get this passed.

cloture motion

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

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

Mr. President, despite the fact that we are fast approaching the 6-year anniversary since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, it is painfully clear we have much work left

to do to protect this Nation from these awful attacks. Osama bin Laden and his No. 2 still remain at large, and al-Qaida has grown in strength and is determined to attack globally. The administration's failed Iraq policy has catalyzed a whole new generation of extremists who can be expected to carry out attacks against the U.S. and our friends around the world. Objective analyses, including the final report of the 9/11 Commission, conclude that this Nation has failed to take the steps necessary to protect America from terrorist attacks.

We need only go back to look at the report card the Bush administration received in implementing the 9/11 Commission Report: Ds and Fs. The threats the 9/11 Commission talked about and are encompassed in this bill are real and growing. When Democrats took control of the Congress at the start of this year, we said we would finally and fully implement the unanimous recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. It is something we fought for when we were in the minority, and it was one of the first bills we passed at the start of this session of Congress.

The House passed its version early this year, January 9, by a vote of 299 to 128--broad bipartisan support. We passed our bill on March 13. It, too, had bipartisan support, passing 60 to 38.

As my colleagues know, Democrats and Republicans who serve on the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over this bill have worked tirelessly to resolve the differences in these two bills. I have had numerous conversations with Chairman Lieberman. This preconference process has carried on for months, on a bipartisan basis, with full transparency and good-faith efforts to produce a final bill. Progress has been made.

The American people, though, don't expect progress. They expect results, and that is what we need. We need to finish the work on this bill yesterday--as soon as possible. That is why I believe we need to take the next procedural step to finish these negotiations, to appoint conferees. That is what we normally would do.

When this bill is finally signed into law, it will make America more secure. It will improve the morale, training, and efficiency of the TSA screening workforce, allowing them to work more effectively to protect air travelers. It will improve the screening of all maritime cargo--all maritime cargo--so Americans can be assured we are doing all we can to prevent the smuggling of weapons--even a nuclear weapon--through America's ports. It will improve the congressional oversight of intelligence to be sure we are building the best capabilities possible to stop terrorist attacks. It will improve communication sharing and communications interoperability among first responders so they can work swiftly to protect us from terrorist attacks. It will ensure that transportation and mass transit infrastructures are hardened against terrorist attacks.

We need to work together to protect the American people from terrorism, and we need to do so immediately. We asked numerous times in the last Congress to be able to finish the 9/11 bill, and we were denied that ability. I would hope that this unanimous consent request allowing us to go to conference would be granted.

I am told the minority is going to object to this request that we go to conference. That is too bad. Although Senate Republicans have thrown procedural hurdles in front of virtually everything we have tried to do in the Senate this year, I was hoping they would reconsider their obstruction when it comes to getting through legislation that makes America more secure. There have been issues raised, but couldn't we handle these in conference?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 4, as passed by the Senate on March 13, 2007, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, we are glad to have you back. We are glad the medical procedure went well and that you are back with the same fighting spirit you had the first day you came here. We are happy to have you back.

Mr. President, I will renew my request at a subsequent time, and probably a few more times, until we get this done. I think a number of people have had calls from the 9/11 survivors, those people who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attack. They want us to get this done. We need to get this done. This is an issue that affects the safety and security of our Nation.

So I would hope that there would be a reconsideration of this objection at a subsequent time because I am going to continue to offer this until we are able to go to conference.

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

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the minority coming forward and outlining their objections to the 9/11 bill. It seems pretty clear that the objection deals with collective bargaining, which is in the Senate-passed version of the bill. I appreciate very much that being on the record.

It seems, that being the case, we at least know what we are dealing with. It appears if that weren't in the bill--but it is in the bill--we could go to conference.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I want to visit with everyone present for just a few minutes about S. 1, the ethics and lobbying reform bill. We hope to appoint conferees on this important bill today. By doing this today, we would enact this critical legislation that is so important to be done. It is the most significant lobbying ethics reform, I believe, in the history of this country. It makes tremendous reforms--long overdue. It will restore the people's confidence in their elected officials.

Last year, Americans rightly got sick and tired about story after story of corruption, the culture of corruption some called it, here in Washington led by Jack Abramoff, who is now in prison; Randy Cunningham, who is now in prison; Bob Ney, who is now in prison; Safavian, the head of Government contracting, led away from his office in handcuffs; Scooter Libby--numerous people who worked for various House Members who were involved in corrupt activities, airplane trips to golf in Scotland and places that are hard to imagine.

The American people responded at the polls last November with a clear message that they wanted a new direction, and we, the Democrats, responded by passing the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in a generation. We did it with the help of the minority. I do not say that lightly. But let's see what is in this bill. Let's review it for a bit to find out what this bill does.

It prohibits lobbyists and entities that hire lobbyists from giving gifts to lawmakers and their staffs. It prevents corporations and other entities that hire lobbyists from paying for trips for Members or staffs. And it prohibits lobbyists from participating in or paying for any such trips. It requires Senators to pay fair market value prices for charter flights, which put an end to the abuses of corporate travel.

Many people in this Chamber flew in corporate jets and paid first- class airfare. That did not corrupt any Members of Congress, but it was corrupting. It didn't look right, and therefore it is important it be stopped. And I hope it stopped. We need legislation to make sure it is stopped.

This legislation also slows the so-called revolving door by extending a ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress and senior staffers, and prevents Senators from even negotiating for a job as a lobbyist until their successor has been elected. This legislation puts an end to pay-to-play schemes, such as the notorious ``K Street Project.'' It provides dramatic improvements to disclosure and lobbying activities by doubling the frequency that lobbyists must file reports on their activities, requiring disclosure of contributions and bundled contributions, requiring that lobbyists' disclosures be publicly available on the Internet in a searchable form. This is for the first time ever.

This legislation requires lobbyists to certify in writing that they have not violated House or Senate gift and travel rules. It ends the practice of corporations hiding their lobbying activities behind bogus coalitions with friendly sounding names, and increases civil and criminal penalties for lobbyists who violate the law.

The bill has brought about a revolution in earmark disclosure.

For the first time ever, the Senate will identify all earmarks in bills, the Senator who requested it, and the entity or location that receives it. Further, every Senator has certified that he or she has no monetary interest in their earmarks. Let me say that. This disclosure is the first time ever that this information will be disclosed. The Senate could have required the disclosure last year or the year before or the year before that, while the number of earmarks was exploding under a Republican Congress, but it did not. This year we took the lead and changed the way we do business around here. At the beginning of the year, we sent a message that ethics and lobbying reform was our No. 1 commitment by designating the bill S. 1. We worked hard to make this a bipartisan bill. Now we must take the next step by appointing conferees. I look forward to moving the ethics bill forward so we can reassure the American people that Congress is as good and honest as the people it represents.

I have gone over most everything in this bill. There are other things in it, but this is strong, important information the American people deserve. It is a law that should become a reality as quickly as possible.

I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, H.R. 2316, lobbying disclosure; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1, as passed by the Senate on January 18, 2007, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio of 4 to 3, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Madam President, here we go again, doing their best--that is, the Republicans--to stop us from going ahead on ethics and lobbying reform. The suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Utah is reasonable, but it should be a different matter. In fact, once we look at the amendment, we may be willing to accept it. But it is only an effort to divert attention from ethics and lobbying reform, those matters--corporate jets, what lobbyists can do, what they can't do, bundling, what we need to do with earmarks. It is an effort to divert attention from that. Attention may be diverted for a few minutes this afternoon, but we are going to continue to focus on it. We need to pass this legislation. It is important we do so.

We, the Democrats, support what the Senator has suggested, basic electronic filing of FEC reports. There is no problem with that. Senator Feinstein moved it through the Rules Committee and has been seeking consent to pass it on the floor unanimously. We have never seen the amendment Senator McConnell wishes to stick on this. Once we have a chance to review it, we will be able, perhaps, to move forward on this consent request. In any event, let's not muddy the waters on the ethics bill. We want to move forward on that comprehensive bill, the most sweeping reforms in a long time, probably ever.

I wanted everyone to know there has been objection made by the minority to going forward on a conference. The conference will be led by Joe Lieberman on our side, a man who is certainly fair to both sides. Why would we not go to conference on this important legislation?

I will be back. I will be back and hope there will be the revelation to the Republicans that we are going to do everything we can on this legislation. We are going to focus attention on why it is not going to conference. It is not going to conference because the Republicans are stonewalling our ability to do so, coming up with something as diverting as FEC reports being filed electronically.

I object to the request of my friend.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we are waiting for the legislative counsel to bring us the legislation we are going to be dealing with, so I think it would be appropriate that we be in a period of morning business until 10 of 4 and that Senators be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each for the next however many minutes it is, and that at 10 to the hour I be recognized. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, at 2:15, the amendment was 10 minutes away. We called a few minutes ago and it is now 5 minutes away. I don't know how time is kept in the legislative office, but I understand that people have made minor changes and that has caused the need to reprint part of the amendment. I wish to waste as little time as possible. I think it will be a few more minutes, so maybe we can adjourn subject to the call of the Chair, and as soon as it gets here, I will let everyone know.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a limitation of 26 first-degree amendments to S. 1639, the immigration bill. This is the list of the 13 Democratic amendments, the 12 Republican amendments, and 1 managers' amendment, which each are at the desk; that there be a time limitation of 1 hour equally divided for each amendment; that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments under the same time limitation; and that upon the disposition of the amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I renew my request and ask that we have an hour and a half per amendment, with the same conditions I just propounded.

Mr. President, how about 2 hours per amendment, with the same conditions and provisions in the previous unanimous consent requests I made.

So I take it there is an objection.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, he always comes directly to the point. I appreciate him and his objection.

Amendment No. 1934

Mr. President, I tried to line up these 26 amendments for debate and vote. We have been told that no matter what the time per amendment is that would be allocated, that is not good enough. I also included second-degree amendments. That was objected to. I have no choice but to offer, after consultation with the Republican leadership, an amendment that contains these Democratic and Republican amendments and ask that it be divided

so that these 26 Senators may get votes in relation to their amendments.

I now call up that amendment, which is at the desk, on behalf of Senators Kennedy and Specter.

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

Mr. President, I did have a conservation with the junior Senator from Louisiana and a number of his colleagues. I think it is only fair that they have the evening and night to work on this big piece of legislation. It took a lot longer to get here, as always happens. It is ``always on its way,'' be here ``right away,'' ``another 5 minutes.''

Of course, it took several hours. I think in fairness, it is only the right thing to do. We are going to come back at 10 o'clock in the morning. There will be no morning business tomorrow. I would say to all Senators, there is a briefing that starts at 10 o'clock with Admiral McConnell. I have not had the opportunity to speak to him yet. But I am confident that for any Senators who are unable to go to that briefing because of being obligated to be here on the Senate floor, another time can be arranged that he and/or his staff would be happy to come and visit with another group of Senators. So we are not going to be in recess during the time of that briefing. But I would hope tomorrow we can get some movement on this bill, and the Senator from Louisiana and others will better understand this tomorrow, and make a decision of how if, in fact, they want to proceed, along with a number of others.

So that being the case, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Louisiana and his colleagues we met with earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, there will be no more votes tonight.

Mr. President, 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 no further business to come before the Senate this evening, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, following any time used by the leaders, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 7 p.m. tonight. The time is equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy and Enzi or their designees. During this time I expect there will be speeches on H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, and S. 1639, the Immigration bill.

At 7 p.m. Senator Sessions will be recognized to speak for up to 1 hour. There are no rollcall votes. At 3:15 the newest Member of the Senate will be sworn in, John Barrasso, who is an orthopedic surgeon from Wyoming. We welcome him here but with some degree of sadness, because you are forced to comprehend and think about Craig Thomas whom I had such great admiration for. As I have said before, Craig Thomas and I did not vote very much alike, but we shared a great belief in the sovereignty of our two States, two sparsely populated States, Wyoming and Nevada, and of course this great country of ours that we both have such affection for.

We welcome Dr. Barrasso. More will be said about this later.

Order of Procedure

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if any quorum calls occur during the debate until 7 p.m., they be equally divided between the sides controlling time.