Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a topic that is very important. That is the preservation of the most important structure in our society. I rise to speak on the topic of marriage and the need for the Federal Marriage Amendment. But before I do, I want to thank my good friend from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, for the speech he gave on this very topic last Friday. His speech was eloquent and his thoughts profound. For those who did not have the opportunity to see or hear the speech, I strongly encourage them to read it. I also want to thank the floor manager of this resolution, Senator Cornyn from the State of Texas, for his thoughtful commentary and his leadership on this issue. And so I thank both Senators.

I have given a considerable amount of thought on the topic of the Federal Marriage Amendment over the last weeks and months. My thoughts have focused on what the meaning and purpose of marriage is. All words have meaning. The word marriage has meaning deep rooted in our culture. There are certain words that have such an important meaning that they invoke strong emotions within each of us. For me, marriage is one such word. The word marriage represents an institution with historically universal understanding. Its meaning is one that has been constant throughout time and across all cultures. I can think of no other word, and no other institution, that enjoys such a special status with such an important meaning.

For me personally, I understand the importance that the presence of both a father and mother has in the life of a child. I understand this because, for a time, I was raised by a single mom. I do not, in any way, want to suggest that single parents are not doing their best to raise their children. As a single mom, my own mother did her very best to take care of me, my brother and my sister.

Single parents are doing right by their children. Single parents, like my mom, deserve to be praised. But those circumstances are not the ideal in which to raise children. Marriage is that ideal.

When I was nine, my mom met and married the man who is my dad. With their marriage, there was finally someone in our home who was a strong male role model for me and my brother. I finally had a positive example of what it meant to be a father and a husband. Someone I could look up to and someone I could emulate. My dad's presence in our house made an immediate impact on me in a way that my mother alone simply could not. His presence also impacted me in ways that has helped me love and care for my own wife and my own children.

The presence of a mother and father in the life of a child is crucial. Mothers and fathers bring their own special qualities to their own relationship and to the approach they take to raise their children. It has been said that a boy will look to his mother as the type of woman he wants to marry and his father as the model for how to treat her. For that reason, and so many more children need both a father and mother. That is the universally recognized ideal on which marriage is based.

Marriage recognizes the ideal of a father and mother living together to raise their children. Marriage is the ideal that is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. This Congress, and all previous Congresses, have enacted laws to further that ideal. In fact, in 1996, this Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act by a vote of 85 to 14. The House of Representatives also passed DOMA overwhelmingly. My own State of Nevada has adopted a DOMA Amendment to our State constitution. As required by our State's constitution, this amendment was adopted two times by the voters of my State. So I would hope that no one in this body would take issue with the statement that marriage between one man and woman is the ideal. Congress overwhelmingly adopted legislation agreeing with that statement only 8 years ago.

For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply make two points. First, marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution. It predates the founding of our Nation and even the landing at Plymouth Rock. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America, and the world as a whole, has relied including even the church itself. Second, the Founding Fathers envisioned the possibility that future generations may need to amend the Constitution. In their wisdom they allowed the amendment process to begin either with Congress or with the States. So we are considering this amendment, in the manner contemplated by the Founding Fathers, which is to say consistent with the Constitution itself.

It is with concern that I have read about how a few unelected judges and some locally elected government officials have taken steps to redefine marriage to fit their own agenda. It is not right to mold marriage to fit the desires of a few, against the wishes of so many, and to ignore the important role that marriage has played in our history.

During the course of this debate, I have heard many people suggest that the Federal DOMA law, which I referenced earlier, is not under attack. And that an amendment is premature

so long as DOMA is still law. But because of last year's Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, many Constitutional scholars believe that Federal DOMA, and State DOMAs adopted in 41 other States, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman will most certainly be struck down.

Judicial activism is a huge problem in America. The Constitution is a living document in that it can be amended by the process our Founders set up, but not by activist judges. So the question before us today is: Will the Constitution be adopted in the manner proscribed by that document or by unelected judges?

It does not appear that this amendment will pass this year. In fact, it may take years to adopt this amendment. But it is critical to have this debate and vote here in Washington, DC so that the States can continue the debate and so that the people know exactly where each one of us stands on this issue.

In the end, for a healthy society, we need to have a tolerant society but also a society which strives for the ideal. That ideal is for children to be raised by one father and one mother bonded by the institution of marriage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor and celebrate an organization that has made an unbelievable impact on my home State of Nevada.

Today marks 50 years since Opportunity Village became part of the Las Vegas landscape. In 1954, a group of families joined together to support the needs of children with mental retardation. In the 50 years that followed, Opportunity Village grew to become the largest private provider of vocational training, employment, advocacy, and recreation for people with disabilities in Nevada.

Words cannot adequately describe the difference that Opportunity Village makes in the life of a person with severe disabilities. The organization gives individuals long-term work experience, marketable job skills, independence, and increased self-esteem. Those benefits are the very least that they provide.

However, Opportunity Village's accomplishments have not been made single-handedly. In Las Vegas, there are many wonderful partnerships between Opportunity Village and community businesses and agencies. Among them are America Nevada Corporation, ATC-Vancom, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. General Services Administration, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the Las Vegas Valley Water District, Bellagio, Harrah's, Station Casinos, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bank of Nevada, Bechtel, Boyd Gaming, the City of Henderson, the Clark County Health Department, Desert Automotive Group, GES, the Internal Revenue Service, KNPR, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, McCarran International Airport, New York-New York Hotel and Casino, Southwest Gas Corp., Wells Fargo, and Wynn Resorts. I applaud all of Opportunity Village's partners for their vision and their commitment to providing opportunity for so many individuals.

I had the chance to see one of the Opportunity Village partnerships in action and it was then that I truly understood the tremendous impact they make each and every day. Opportunity Village clients serve more than 60,000 meals per month at the Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) dining facility and also operate the postal service center at the base. On one of my visits to the base, Senator Reid and I joined Opportunity Village workers in serving lunch in the mess hall.

It was incredible to see individuals with disabilities working and interacting with our military. Not only were they serving food and smiles, but they were contributing to our Nation and the Air Force with their work.

Their accomplishments and contributions are quite remarkable given the hurdles they have faced all their lives.

Eddie was diagnosed a mentally retarded child in the first grade. Those who know him say he has a genuine and caring personality, a child-like shyness, and the focus of a genius. Eddie began working with Opportunity Village in 1986 where his specialty was packaging and product assembly. Following his mastery of that program, Eddie moved on to janitorial services in the work center. Later, he moved to another promotion as a room attendant in a hotel. Finally, he was promoted to mess attendant at Nellis AFB where the results of his hard work are easily seen in the respect he has earned from his coworkers and supervisors.

Jamie was diagnosed with mild mental retardation when he was a child. He refused to let the diagnosis slow him

down and began working with Opportunity Village in 1998. Jamie started in the Work Center where he assembled buckets for $5 an hour. He moved on to become a part of the janitorial crew in the work center. Then he joined the American Nevada Enclave cleaning parking lots. Today, Jamie has proved to be a valuable member of his work team at Nellis AFB where he washes dishes, performs janitorial services, and busses tables. Jamie will proudly tell you the $8.27 an hour he earns now helps to pay his mom's mortgage.

Paul was diagnosed a moderately mentally challenged adult and has a history of seizures. Despite all of the obstacles placed in his way, Paul continues to persevere. Beginning his career with Opportunity Village in August of 1999, Paul focused on production assembly. Quickly mastering the techniques necessary, Paul was promoted to room attendant. Then he moved to a position cleaning at the American Nevada Enclave parking lot. Now, Paul is also a mess attendant at Nellis AFB. Paul proudly calls himself a ``team player.''

While the accomplishments of Eddie, Jamie, Paul, and all of Opportunity Village's clients are inspiring, the benefits to our community are not just emotional. Employment generated through Opportunity Village contracts helps to reduce dependence on Government benefits and increases tax revenues. Individuals with severe disabilities are paid wages that reduce their need for other Government benefits. Earning wages allows them to become productive members of society and to join the ranks of the taxpayers of Nevada. Economic studies show that since its inception 50 years ago, Opportunity Village has saved Nevada taxpayers almost $1 billion.

I mentioned earlier that Opportunity Village receives vital support from business partners in reaching its goals. The other two essential elements to the success of Opportunity Village are its leadership and the contributions of the Las Vegas community.

Year after year, Opportunity Village is named by Las Vegas residents as their favorite charity. Las Vegans of all ages look forward to the yearly Magical Forest fundraising event as well as many other Opportunity Village programs. From world-renowned entertainers to local celebrities to area children to Las Vegas businesses, southern Nevadans continue to understand the importance of Opportunity Village's mission and fully support the 100 percent local organization.

And at the helm of Opportunity Village is a man whose vision and dedication has made it possible to serve more than 600 disabled workers every day. Opportunity Village Executive Director Ed Guthrie has proven to be a tireless advocate for individuals with disabilities and a true friend to the disabled community. I have had the pleasure of working with him on many projects, and I know how committed he is to the continued success of Opportunity Village.

Today, we look back on the last half century with heartfelt gratitude for those local families who, in 1954, decided that their loved ones with disabilities deserved more. They planted the seed that has been nurtured and cared for by their extended family of Las Vegans. Today, families of disabled individuals proudly see their loved ones--who 50 years ago would not have had an opportunity--gain self esteem and achieve things once not thought possible. With Opportunity Village's continued strong leadership, business partners, and community support, the next 50 years will bring opportunity and optimism to future generations of intellectually disabled individuals.

If we could modify the unanimous consent that I be recognized at 1:05 to speak for 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Oil-for-Food scandal. I do so because I have been told that high ranking officials at the State Department and Paul Volcker, who is heading up the U.N. investigation, believe Senators are not personally committed to gaining access to all relevant documents, including U.N. audits. That is not true.

A bipartisan group of Senators, including ranking members from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, wrote to Mr. Bremer in Iraq asking him to secure the Oil-for-Food documents.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Congressional investigators have an interest in making sure those documents are available and accessible. A subpoena has been served on BNP by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Chairman Coleman and the ranking Democrat, Senator Levin, have also sent letters seeking Oil-for-Food documents to

the State Department and the General Accounting Office.

An amendment to the Defense bill, which would help Congress to conduct its own inquiries into the Oil-for-Food Program was passed unanimously. We want access to those documents. We wish the Volcker panel well; however, we are not going to abandon the duty of this Congress to conduct proper oversight or subcontract that role to an international body. The stakes are much too high.

We now believe that Saddam Hussein, corrupt U.N. officials, and corrupt well-connected countries were the real benefactors for the Oil- for-Food Program. They profited from illegal oil shipments, financial transactions, kickbacks, and surcharges, and allowed Saddam Hussein to build up his armed forces and live in the lap of luxury.

The evidence in this far-reaching scandal tells an unbelievable story. Our own U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Saddam Hussein siphoned off $4.4 billion through oil sale surcharges. Saddam Hussein also demanded kickbacks on the humanitarian relief side from suppliers which amounted to 10 to 20 percent on many contracts. Saddam used this revenue to rebuild Iraq's military capabilities, to maintain lavish palaces, buy loyalty, oppress his people, and perhaps financially support terrorism.

And as Claude Haknes-Drielsma, an IGC consultant investigating the scandal, testified, the secret payments . . . ``provided Saddam Hussein and his corrupt regime with a convenient vehicle through which he bought support, internationally by bribing political parties, companies, and journalists . . . This secured the cooperation and support of countries that included members of the Security Council of the United Nations.''

The United Nations should be embarrassed. What resulted from the goodwill gesture was international scandal, corruption at the highest levels, and suffering Iraqi citizens--not exactly a model U.N. program.

Tasked by the international community to deny Saddam Hussein the ability to rebuild his military apparatus while providing humanitarian needs, the United Nations allowed the corrupt to become richer and innocent Iraqis to be oppressed. Today we have a chance to rectify that injustice. We must demand that the United Nations cooperate completely with efforts to extrapolate the truth from this scandal and punish the guilty.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be happening, as William Safire notes in a recent column entitled ``Tear Down This UN Stonewall.'' He talks about how Paul Volcker's first choices for staffing the U.N.'s own Oil-for-Food--

. . . were turned off not just by the lack of subpoena or

oath-requiring power . . . but by an inadequate budget to dig

into the largest financial rip-off in history. As a result,

after nearly three months, a foot-dragging bureaucracy has

successfully frustrated the independent committee dependent

on it.

We know that officials acting on behalf of Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil-for-Food Program for the United Nations, who is personally implicated in the scandal, are asking contractors not to release documents relating to the program to congressional investigators without first getting U.N. authorization. We know the U.S. has asked for copies of the U.N. internal audit reports on this program, and the U.N. denied our request. I will include an exchange of letters to that effect in the Record.

It was reported recently that the head of the U.N.'s own inspector general's office himself is now being investigated by the United Nations. The U.N. should be more interested in bringing the truth to light than trying to protect its tattered reputation and its corrupt officials. I hope the Volcker panel gets the tools it needs from the U.N. to do a thorough investigation of the Oil-for-Food Program. The Volcker panel work does not obviate the need for the U.S. Congress to conduct its own investigation.

My amendment ensures that the Oil-for-Food documents in Iraq are secured before the June 30 handover and that copies are brought to the United States. Right now it is unclear what will happen to those documents following the June 30 handover. The amendment also requires U.S. agencies to provide relevant congressional committees access to Oil-for-Food documents. Additionally, it calls on the U.S. to use its voice and vote to get access to U.N. Oil-for-Food audits and core documents.

Lastly, it mandates a GAO review of the Oil-for-Food Program. Under the Helms-Biden U.N. reform legislation which was signed into law, as this amendment makes clear, we believe the GAO should have access to U.S. documents relating to the Oil-for-Food Program.

We in the Congress have a choice to make. We could do nothing and allow the word ``humanitarianism'' to be the new code word for corruption and scandal from here on out, or we can stand up and make the United Nations rightfully accountable for the corruption that has harmed innocent Iraqis.

The answer is clear: We must act.

The U.N. is broken. If the Security Council is to function, there cannot be questions as to whether members are more interested in lining their pockets than preserving security. We have to make sure Iraqi government officials get a clear message that the corruption and kickbacks of the Saddam Hussein regime--potentially aided and abetted by U.N. officials--will no longer be tolerated.

I thank my colleagues for helping to craft this amendment. Lindsay Graham took the lead in achieving this consensus. Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Lugar, Kyl, Enzi, and the majority leader all made important contributions, as did the minority, in finalizing the language. This was truly a collaborative process.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters I mentioned earlier be printed in the Record.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3315

Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to a Landrieu amendment numbered 3315 and offer a second-degree amendment which is at the desk.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and remember the greatest President of the 20th century, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Ronald Reagan is widely known for taking some of the most courageous stands on behalf of our Nation and for truly changing the course of the world, but Ronald Reagan may have never known the impact that he had on so many individuals, including me.

I was in college when Ronald Reagan swept through our country in 1980--on a mission to empower Americans by reducing taxes, shrinking the Federal bureaucracy, and instilling a sense of hope for the future. Until that point, I had always considered myself a Democrat. Ronald Reagan's straight talk and emphasis on common sense and individual empowerment changed the way I looked at politics. As Ronald Reagan used to say--and he would know--I became ``a former Democrat who saw the light.'' He opened my eyes to a philosophy that I truly felt could change the direction of our country.

I was not alone. President Reagan's popularity while in the Oval Office for two terms showed that Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and independents--were inspired by him the way I was. More impressively, tens of thousands of Americans are mourning his death and reflecting on how he touched and changed their lives. The endless line of mourners, waiting for hours to walk past his coffin and pay final respects, is unparalleled. The most heartwarming for me is to see parents with their children, teaching them about the legacy of this great President and hopefully instilling a dose of Reagan optimism in the next generation.

There are many lessons to teach our children about Ronald Reagan. I know I will teach them to my own children.

Respect for others: Many of the stories that are being shared by those who knew Ronald Reagan revolve around his respect for all people. Whether it was someone who washed dishes in the White House or the leader of another Nation, Ronald Reagan treated each with the same amount of dignity and respect--and loving humor.

Commitment to principles: Ronald Reagan never shied away from his principles. His steadfast commitment led to monumental changes in the world landscape--making it a better place for all of us. On Memorial Day 1986, President Reagan said at Arlington National Cemetery:

If we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we

really care about peace, we must, through our strength,

demonstrate our unwillingness to accept an ending of the

peace. We must be strong enough to create peace where it does

not exist and strong enough to protect it where it does.

That's the lesson of this century. . . .

And that is a lesson from our 40th President.

Mutural love and admiration: I would be remiss if I did not note the relationship that Ronald and Nancy Reagan shared. Reading some of their old love letters, watching them together during his presidency, and seeing her devotion over these most trying last 10 years, one cannot help but be touched by the feelings that emanated from their marriage. Nancy Reagan was every bit Ronald Reagan's partner in the White House, and his legacy is theirs. Today Nancy Reagan grieves--she has lost her soul mate. And we grieve for her loss.

Optimism and hope for tomorrow: If nothing else, I hope that Americans today are inspired by Ronald Reagan's eternal optimism. He believed in this country and its people with every fiber of his being. He once told a gathering of youth in 1985 that:

True wealth, and the real hope for the future comes from

the heart--from the treasure of ideas and spirit, from free

people with a vision of the future, trust in their fellow

men, and faith in God. The better future that

we all yearn for will not be built by skeptics who spend

their lives admiring the complexity of the problems. It'll be

built by free men and women who believe in themselves.

I know Ronald Reagan is in a better place today, and, from his view, he is rooting for us and believing in our future.

Leaders like Ronald Reagan change the course of history with their vision and inspire a new generation. I serve Nevada in the United States Senate because I, too, was inspired by Ronald Reagan. Today, I thank him from the bottom of my heart for his service to this nation, for his unwavering leadership, and for his spirit that will always represent our greatness and remind us that we can achieve anything.

President Reagan, may God bless you and watch over you. And may God continue to bless America.

Mr. President, this past weekend President Bush dedicated the World War II Memorial before an audience of several hundred thousand attendees and a national television audience of millions.

The memorial honors the 16 million who served in our Armed Forces during World War II, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions who supported the war effort from home.

Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th Century, the memorial is a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people to the common defense of the Nation and to the broader causes of peace and freedom from tyranny throughout the world.

It is my belief that it will inspire future generations of Americans, deepening their appreciation of what the World War II generation accomplished in securing freedom and democracy.

Above all, the memorial stands as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless reminder of the moral strength and awesome power that can flow when a free people are at once united and bonded together in a common and just cause.

The dedication of the World War II monument reminded me of a story that not many are familiar with. This story is about a young man whose experiences throughout the Pacific during World War II helped mold him into the compassionate, reasoned, and fiercely patriotic gentleman he is today.

In December of 1941, that young man was a high school student in Hawaii. And on the morning of December 7th, he and his schoolmates watched from the hillside in horror as the Japanese planes carried out their surprise attack on the Naval fleet in Pearl Harbor.

After finishing high school, this young patriot joined the United States Army and was assigned to the Corps of Engineers. He sailed throughout the Pacific, and participated in the invasions of the Japanese-held islands of Saipan and Tinian. In fact, when he

was on Tinian he watched the Enola Gay lift off on her historic mission to the Japanese mainland.

Young Daniel K. Akaka had witnessed the beginning of World War II, and was fortunate enough to witness its conclusion.

Many years have passed since then. Now, Senator Akaka can look back on a remarkable life. In addition to his Army exploits, he was a welder, a school teacher and principal, Congressman and is currently a U.S. Senator representing the good people of Hawaii.

It is in his current capacity that I know him best. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and ranking member on the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, we have worked together overseeing military readiness issues including training and exercises, logistics, and industrial operations, depots and shipyards, military construction, environmental programs, as well as policies and procedures related to reform of management practices at the Department of Defense.

I have the utmost respect and admiration for my colleague. Today I want to say thank you to my friend, Daniel Akaka.

The United States of America is the leader of the free world and the greatest Nation in history because you and your comrades, the greatest generation, served and sacrificed.

We have not forgotten how you helped save the world from tyranny, nor do we take for granted the price you paid for the freedom we cherish today.

You served our country with honor and commitment during one of the darkest times in modern history.

This Nation is as grateful, if not more, for you today, than we were in the days following your liberation of the world.

History has taught us how heroic and courageous you truly were. So it is only fitting that on this day, at this time, on behalf of a grateful nation I say, thank you. God bless you, Daniel.

Madam President, I rise to speak for a few minutes about the men and women in uniform who are serving this Nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

I know the recent news has focused on the actions of a few of our service men and women, but I rise today because they truly are the exception.

I want to thank the members of our armed services who continue to exhibit extraordinary bravery, integrity, and commitment. I want to remind them we are grateful for them each and every day as they defend our freedom and our security.

My State of Nevada is proud and blessed to have many sons and daughters among the ranks of those on the front lines of our war on terrorism, people such as Jon Carpenter. Jon Carpenter is a 42-year-old marine reservist on his second tour in Iraq. Back in Las Vegas he has a wife and five children, and a proud community.

Jon wrote a letter earlier this year to his friends and family explaining why he would return to Iraq with the First Marine Division.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

He states:

When people ask why I am going back to Iraq, I say,

``Because the country has asked.'' Our country is at war, and

even though battlefields are different than those of WWI, the

dangers of not winning this war are at least as great as

those of our country's previous wars.

He continues on to write:

But we are at war, and during times of war, men and women

must make sacrifices.

Jon was wounded a few weeks ago when he was shot through the neck. He has recovered now, pinned with a Purple Heart, has returned to his work training Iraqi police officers. Actually, he could not wait to get back to his fellow troops.

It is commendably common for our wounded troops to return to the front lines when given the option. That is because they are focused on the mission and determined to get the job done.

Army PFC Sean Freeman, Sparks, NV, is another example of a determined soldier. He was wounded in a June 22 ambush last year in Baghdad where he was stationed as an artillery crewman. Sean suffered back, shoulder, and arm wounds and is stationed in Germany while he recovers. He is motivated to do so, so he can return to Iraq.

The stories of bravery and heroism are truly inspiring and there is no shortage.

Dr. Thom Merry in Douglas County, NV, volunteered for duty in Iraq as a flight surgeon and has since been decorated with a Bronze Star for entering a minefield, without regard for his own personal safety, to rescue a severely injured marine.

TSgt William Kudzia, stationed at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, was engaged in ground operations against an opposing armed force in Iraq and hand-excavated 226,000 pounds of high explosive bombs buried by fleeing Iraqi forces.

With disregard for his own personal safety, he hand-removed a burning projectile, saving the lives of his team members and averting a catastrophic detonation. He was also awarded the Bronze Star with Valor.

As brave as our men and women are, I think there is an equal amount of emotional bravery exhibited by the spouses, parents, and children left behind to wait for their loved one's safe return. Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper SGT Jim Olschlager's son, James Jr., is on an aircraft carrier. His daughter Laurie is in the Army and will be sent to Iraq in September, and his son-in-law Kendall is currently serving in Karbala, near Baghdad.

In Fallon, NV, Juanita and Kevin Porteous got to visit with their son Jon for only a few days before his leave was cut short and he had to return to Iraq. I had looked forward to meeting and thanking Jon on a recent trip to Fallon, but was honored to deliver my appreciation via his parents. They are extremely proud of him, but that does not make the waiting or the worrying any easier.

My prayers are with the Olschlager and Porteous families and every other family which is anxiously awaiting the return of a loved one. We all thank them for the sacrifices they have made to keep this Nation safe. The men and women of our Armed Forces are truly defending our security. Our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical to the continued ability to fight terrorism on foreign soil rather than on our shores.

Make no mistake about it, a war on our homeland would be devastating. That is why it is so important for us to continue steadfastly supporting our troops. Although we cherish our freedom of speech and the opportunity to debate, our united voice of support is essential if we want our troops to continue giving 110 percent to the mission.

It is easy to pretend what we as elected officials say is not heard by the men and women on the front lines, or for that matter by our enemies, but listen to what Jon Carpenter, the marine I talked about earlier, wrote before heading back to Iraq:

From experience, I can tell you how demoralizing all the

criticism of the military and the dissension in the country

is on the troops in Iraq. It also encourages the radical

criminals and terrorists we are fighting over there to

continue fighting in hopes we will pull out. We are doing the

right thing there, we are winning, and the majority of the

Iraqi citizens truly appreciate what we are doing for them.

God bless Jon Carpenter and all of the men and women who are willing to lay their lives down for this Nation. Our prayers are with you and your families. God bless America, truly the home of the brave.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that is fundamental to our democracy. That issue is the right for each American to know that their vote has been cast and accurately counted. Earlier today, I introduced legislation, the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, which would provide each American with those assurances.

The United States Constitution is sacred to Americans and it is the envy of the free world. It preserves the rights and freedoms that Americans hold so dear. Our Constitution also guarantees the right of each American to vote. Central to the integrity of our democracy is the right for each American to participate in our democracy.

Democracy works best when each eligible voter participates. As a Nation, we learned in 2000 that even a Presidential election can be determined by handfuls of votes. I learned this lesson in my own 1998 U.S. Senate campaign against incumbent Senator Harry Reid. In one of the closest Federal elections that year, a mere 428 votes separated us after all votes had been counted statewide.

After the election I requested a recount in Clark County, the only county at the time using electronic voting machines. The result of the recount was identical to the first count. That is because there was nothing to recount. After rerunning a computer program, the computer produced the same exact tally.

I conceded to Senator Reid and was elected to Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000, but I was still troubled by the fact that Clark County voters had no assurance that their votes had been accurately counted. Innocent computer malfunctions or intentional tampering could have altered their votes without anyone ever knowing.

That is why I led the fight for voter verification paper trails in the Help American Vote Act (HAVA) that President Bush signed into law in 2002. A voter-verified paper trail would allow a voter to review a physical printout of their ballot and correct any errors before leaving the voting booth. This printout would be preserved at the polling for use in any recounts.

Unfortunately, the language that is contained in HAVA has not resolved this issue. Now, I am working to address this issue once and for all. By introducing the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, I want to ensure that HAVA is clear--voters must be assured that their votes will be accurate and will be counted properly. A paper trail provides just such an assurance.

A paper trail is not just a hypothetical answer to electronic ballot mishaps that may not ever happen. On January 6, 2004, a special election was held in Broward County, FL, for House District Seat 91. The margin of victory was 12 votes, but the machine failed to record the votes of 134 ballots. The results of this election have to be called into question, because the House seat was the only item on the ballot. It is doubtful that 134 voters would go to the polling place, stand in line, enter the voting booth but leave without casting a vote. Yet that was the explanation offered to explain the failure of the electronic voting machines to record 134 votes. This triggered an automatic recount under Florida law but there were no paper records with which to conduct a recount. Election workers were left to rerun the computer program. Just as happened in my Senate race, rerunning a computer program to conduct a manual ``recount'' did not change the outcome.

In Maryland on November 5, 2002, and in Fairfax County, VA, on November 4,

2003, voters who used electronic ``touch screen'' voting machines watched as the ``X'' they placed on the video screen next to one candidate's name appeared in a box for the other candidate. There were no verified paper ballots, so a recount was not possible. The voters who witnessed such an irregularity, and all voters who used those voting machines, have no assurances that the machine accurately recorded their vote. This calls into question any results determined by these machines and shows that there is no limit as to the number of votes that may have been miscounted.

It's not written in the Constitution this way, but it seems to me quite obvious that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied on account of a lack of a paper trail. We must uphold the sanctity of our vote by making sure there is an accurate way to confirm and recount votes. I call on Congress to act swiftly to preserve America's faith in our election process and enact the Voting Integrity and Verification Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that is fundamental to our democracy. That issue is the right for each American to know that their vote has been cast and accurately counted. Earlier today, I introduced legislation, the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, which would provide each American with those assurances.

The United States Constitution is sacred to Americans and it is the envy of the free world. It preserves the rights and freedoms that Americans hold so dear. Our Constitution also guarantees the right of each American to vote. Central to the integrity of our democracy is the right for each American to participate in our democracy.

Democracy works best when each eligible voter participates. As a Nation, we learned in 2000 that even a Presidential election can be determined by handfuls of votes. I learned this lesson in my own 1998 U.S. Senate campaign against incumbent Senator Harry Reid. In one of the closest Federal elections that year, a mere 428 votes separated us after all votes had been counted statewide.

After the election I requested a recount in Clark County, the only county at the time using electronic voting machines. The result of the recount was identical to the first count. That is because there was nothing to recount. After rerunning a computer program, the computer produced the same exact tally.

I conceded to Senator Reid and was elected to Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000, but I was still troubled by the fact that Clark County voters had no assurance that their votes had been accurately counted. Innocent computer malfunctions or intentional tampering could have altered their votes without anyone ever knowing.

That is why I led the fight for voter verification paper trails in the Help American Vote Act (HAVA) that President Bush signed into law in 2002. A voter-verified paper trail would allow a voter to review a physical printout of their ballot and correct any errors before leaving the voting booth. This printout would be preserved at the polling for use in any recounts.

Unfortunately, the language that is contained in HAVA has not resolved this issue. Now, I am working to address this issue once and for all. By introducing the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, I want to ensure that HAVA is clear--voters must be assured that their votes will be accurate and will be counted properly. A paper trail provides just such an assurance.

A paper trail is not just a hypothetical answer to electronic ballot mishaps that may not ever happen. On January 6, 2004, a special election was held in Broward County, FL, for House District Seat 91. The margin of victory was 12 votes, but the machine failed to record the votes of 134 ballots. The results of this election have to be called into question, because the House seat was the only item on the ballot. It is doubtful that 134 voters would go to the polling place, stand in line, enter the voting booth but leave without casting a vote. Yet that was the explanation offered to explain the failure of the electronic voting machines to record 134 votes. This triggered an automatic recount under Florida law but there were no paper records with which to conduct a recount. Election workers were left to rerun the computer program. Just as happened in my Senate race, rerunning a computer program to conduct a manual ``recount'' did not change the outcome.

In Maryland on November 5, 2002, and in Fairfax County, VA, on November 4,

2003, voters who used electronic ``touch screen'' voting machines watched as the ``X'' they placed on the video screen next to one candidate's name appeared in a box for the other candidate. There were no verified paper ballots, so a recount was not possible. The voters who witnessed such an irregularity, and all voters who used those voting machines, have no assurances that the machine accurately recorded their vote. This calls into question any results determined by these machines and shows that there is no limit as to the number of votes that may have been miscounted.

It's not written in the Constitution this way, but it seems to me quite obvious that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied on account of a lack of a paper trail. We must uphold the sanctity of our vote by making sure there is an accurate way to confirm and recount votes. I call on Congress to act swiftly to preserve America's faith in our election process and enact the Voting Integrity and Verification Act.

Mr. President, I believe that this legislation is the next step toward ensuring that all children with disabilities receive the education and services they deserve. I am pleased to lend my support to the passage of S. 1248, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation has been carefully crafted to balance the concerns and wishes of students, parents, teachers, principals, and superintendents.

As a new member to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, it has been a pleasure to be involved in this reauthorization from the very beginning. I have worked hard to ensure that the needs of the children, parents, teachers, and administrators in my home State of Nevada have been met. I have heard from Nevadans the problems they face when dealing with the complexities of IDEA and believe this bill addresses many, if not all, of their concerns.

During one of my rural tours, I had the opportunity to stop in Minden, NV, which is located in the Douglas County School District. As part of my time there, I went to a school to meet with parents, teachers, students, and the superintendent of the school district. While many topics and issues were discussed during that time, the one that has stuck out the most in my mind is IDEA. The superintendent told me stories and gave examples of the difficult time he and his staff have had in dealing with the complexities of IDEA, especially the regulations related to discipline. It finally got so bad the Nevada State Department of Education had to put out a handbook to describe the regulations.

Just recently, the superintendent for Washoe County School District was in town, and he shared with me many issues of importance for his schools, including funding for IDEA. He told me that while additional funding for No Child Left Behind programs would be nice, funding for IDEA was much more important to the financial well-being of his district. We talked about the recent press regarding charges that No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate, but he replied that there is no greater unfunded mandate and burden on the financial state of districts than IDEA.

It is with these experiences in mind that I come to the floor today to discuss S. 1248, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. I am particularly pleased to see that this legislation focuses on the goal of improving the academic achievement and long-term goals of these students rather than burdensome administrative checklists. In 1954, the United States Congress made it clear that ``all children'' included racial minorities, and in 1975 we expanded this to include children with disabilities by ensuring that all children receive a free and appropriate public education. This legislation complements the work done with the No Child Left Behind Act, and helps ensure that no child is left behind.

Unfortunately, the focus of IDEA has moved away from providing students with disabilities a quality education and towards ensuring that teachers, schools, and districts are simply in compliance with the law. The current accountability provisions in IDEA focus more on compliance in terms of paperwork and lawsuits, rather than on student performance and outcomes. I believe that S. 1248 changes the direction that IDEA is moving by simplifying the paperwork requirements, giving States greater flexibility, and making the process of disciplining students with individualized education plans, commonly known as IEPs, easier.

Changes contained in S. 1248 will simplify the IEP process for parents and teachers, while maintaining the flexibility both parties need to include additional information, outcomes, and goals for individual students. The IEP process had become a burdensome and time- consuming endeavor for all parties that often produced little for the child involved. Rather than focusing on short-term objectives for every child, the Senate bill requires that IEPs contain only long-term goals and objectives that are focused on the child's academic achievement and functional performance goals for the school year. This change recognizes that not all children will make great strides on the academic side of the equation, but may excel in their functional achievements. I know that some parents in Nevada have expressed concern over this change, but I believe this will be more beneficial to individual children by eliminating a one-size-fits-all approach for IEPs.

Another area of great concern to parents, teachers, and administrators has been the discipline provisions contained in IDEA. The Senate version simplifies the framework for schools to administer IDEA but also ensures the rights and the safety of all children. In Nevada I have heard from numerous school principals, superintendents, and teachers about the difficulties they have when it comes to disciplining a disabled student. They have complained not only about the dual-discipline system created by IDEA but also about the incredibly complex rules and regulations they must follow if a disabled student does violate school rules. The Senate language will allow schools to suspend a child with a disability who violates a code of conduct and withhold services during the suspension. Schools would be allowed to discipline a child with a disability in the same manner as a child without a disability for school code violations so long as the violation was not related to the child's disability. An agreement has also been reached with regards to offenses related to weapons and drugs for children with disabilities. While this language is a great improvement on current law, I still have concerns about the complexity of these provisions and the continued burden faced by teachers and principals in completing paperwork and fighting lawsuits related to discipline.

That said, this legislation also makes great strides in other areas, such as providing special education teachers the initial training they need and the ongoing educational support and assistance required in the classroom every day. Parents will no longer be faced with reams of paper every time they go to a meeting with their child's teacher. Children will be taught by highly qualified teachers and receive the services they need to succeed in school. Students will also be provided with important transition services as they leave high school and enter either the workforce or postsecondary education opportunities.

I have heard from many parents in Nevada who believe their child's teachers and principals are overburdened with paperwork related to their child's education. They also have felt bombarded with notices explaining to them their right to sue school districts if they do not believe their son or daughter has received the services necessary for he or she to succeed. This legislation, I believe, strikes that delicate balance between parents who believe they are getting too much information and those who believe they are not getting enough. I am always careful not to have too great an impact on the important relationship between a parent and a teacher from Washington, DC.

The issue of Federal funding for IDEA has been an issue of huge concern not only to my constituents, but to every school district in the country. Every school district in Nevada has contacted me with a very legitimate concern in that the Federal Government has never lived up to the promise it made in 1975 to provide 40 percent of the excess cost to educate a child with a disability. Currently, the Government is providing funding that pays for about 20 percent of the excess cost to educate children with disabilities. I completely agree that the Federal Government must live up to its promise to provide this crucial funding to our schools. IDEA is truly an unfunded mandate. However, I believe we must continue to fund these programs on the discretionary side of the budget and not move funding to the mandatory side of the budget. Moving funding to the mandatory side of the budget places it in the same category as Medicare and Social Security and above other education programs. I do not believe it is right to make IDEA an entitlement and elevate it above other, equally important, Federal education programs.

Not only would IDEA funding be placed in a higher category than other education programs, but moving funding to the mandatory side of the budget has the potential to increase the deficit. We cannot afford to continue deficit spending and place the burden of our unrestricted spending on the backs of our children. I believe we must work to make IDEA funding a true priority both during the budget process and the appropriations process. We should work to increase funding at large levels every year to reach the 40-percent marker.

In addition, funding for IDEA has substantially increased over the past 4 years. In fact, assuming the President's $1 billion increase for this year is approved, funding has increased by $4.7 billion, or 75 percent, since 2001. Since 1996, when Republican's took over control of Congress, funding for IDEA has increased by 224 percent, yes, 224 percent. If the President's $1 billion increase is approved for this year, funding will have increased by 376 percent in less than 10 years. Nevada has seen funding nearly double in the past 4 years. Since 2001, funding has increased by 84 percent, one of the largest increases in the country. While I recognize we are only at half of our promised level of funding, it is clear that Congress is making great strides to living up to its promise.

I hope we can continue the great progress we have made on this important legislation and appoint conferees to work out our differences with the House-passed legislation. This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. We cannot allow children with disabilities to be held hostage because of the partisan atmosphere of the Senate.

Finally, I thank both Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their hard work on this legislation and dedication to this important issue. I look forward to working with both of them on future reauthorizations in the HELP Committee this year.

Mr. President, I rise to briefly talk about the underlying bill and the vote we are going to have on cloture, but mostly to discuss the Cantwell amendment related to the temporary extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. President, we had a vote on a similar amendment earlier this year, but the amendment before us today was redrafted to reflect changes in high unemployment states. First I want to talk about whether we should extend unemployment benefits--a temporary extension of the Federal program--based on the current unemployment situation. Then I want to talk about some of the details of Senator Cantwell's amendment and the changes that are in her amendment.

The employment picture in this country is looking up by all measures. In the past, employment was looking up according to the household survey, which is the survey that measures employment, including those who are self-employed, people who contract with the Government, and those on payrolls.

But, there are two surveys of employment. The payroll survey does not include people who are self-employed. It does not include small contractors who contract with the Government, and there are a lot of those people today. So the household survey is a more accurate survey of overall employment in this country.

In the past, the household survey and the payroll survey have paralleled each other. There really has not been a difference, so people mainly paid attention to one survey, the payroll survey.

In the past couple of years, we had a recession that was followed by a recovery. It has been called a jobless recovery. But, recessions always have a peak of jobless claims during periods of higher unemployment after recessions.

This is a chart of the last several recessions, and we can see the gray areas are the recessions. These dark lines are a measure of the unemployment rate. We can see after the recessions, either right at the end of the recessions or just after the recessions, we can see the peak in unemployment. This indicates there is always a lag in people being hired after recessions have ended. As the economy starts growing, people are still a bit unsettled in their businesses--Should we rehire people?--and so that peak of unemployment lags after recessions.

We have passed that peak. We had the recession. The recession occurred at the end of the year 2000 and going into the year 2001. We had this recession followed by a slow recovery. And then we had September 11 hit, which just decimated the economy in many areas, especially the tourist economy,

as in my home State of Nevada. It was almost a double dip of a recession. The first dip starting at the end of 2000 and the second dip after September 11, 2001. So we did some things in the Senate to try to overcome that situation. Working with the President, we passed two different tax bills. Those tax bills have had a positive effect on the economy. The economy is recovering. It is still in a growth phase, and it is now moving into the hiring phase of the recovery. As you can tell from recent job numbers people are starting to say: You know what, we really do feel good about what is going on. And they are hiring additional employees.

One of the criticisms has been in the decline of manufacturing jobs. In the past these jobs were declining, and we were losing manufacturing jobs in the United States.

This chart shows manufacturing activity. We can see it down in 1991, it is coming up in 2000, and then, going into 2001, it takes a nosedive. Then in 2001, it came back up a little bit and took another nosedive. We can see in the year 2003 manufacturing jobs have increased by a very nice rate. So the manufacturing activity in the United States is coming back. That is a good sign, and we all welcome that.

The Cantwell amendment would extend temporary unemployment benefits through November, but this is not just a clean extension. The amendment also changes the ``high unemployment'' definition to make more States qualify for additional unemployment benefits. In other words, if her original amendment that we voted on a couple of months ago was enacted today, the only State that would qualify as a high unemployment State would be Alaska.

She redrafted her amendment to where it eliminates what is called a look-back provision, and that look-back provision is what helps determine whether States are high unemployment States. It compares their current unemployment rate to the rates in the previous 2 years.

The amazing thing about that look-back provision is that states with relatively low unemployment could qualify as a high unemployment state under this amendment. According to preliminary analyses of the Cantwell amendment the State of Idaho qualified as a high unemployment state with about a 4.5-percent unemployment rate. That is very low. My State is 4.4 percent, and it is hard to find employees. When the unemployment rate gets that low, it is hard to find employees. Under the Cantwell amendment, the State of Idaho could potentially qualify as a high unemployment State.

Last Friday, the statistics were revealed for last month, the month of April. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent, and 288,000 jobs, according to the payroll survey, were created. In March, 335,000 jobs were created. Just since the beginning of 2004, almost 900,000 jobs, according to the payroll survey--the one the other side has been talking about--almost 900,000 jobs have been added to the payrolls in the United States. It is the eighth consecutive month of job gains, according to the payroll survey. In that 8-month period, we have had 1.1 million jobs created.

The other thing we have to look at are jobless claims, in other words how many people actually applying for unemployment compensation. The initial jobless claims declined by 25,000 last week, and that was the lowest level since before the 2000 Presidential election.

Also, something that has been talked about on this floor is the number of long-term unemployed, people who have been on the unemployment rolls for a long time or have exhausted their benefits. That number dropped by 200,000. Not only are the unemployment numbers improving, but so is productivity.

I talked before about payroll versus household. I want to emphasize that because the payroll survey is now showing jobs being created.

By the way, this chart shows the 1.1 million jobs by month, and this is the payroll survey. Comparing the payroll with the household survey, in the past we can see how these two surveys parallel each other. But in the years 2000, 2001 and beyond--this is the period we were in the last couple of years--these actually diverge because there were more jobs added to the household survey than the payroll survey. The payroll survey is now starting to catch up.

Why would this occur? Why would the household survey, which measures self-employed people, be different than the payroll survey? The difference comes about because our economy is changing. During times of recession--and this is not unusual for people who cannot find jobs-- they start their own companies. They become entrepreneurs, and sometimes it ends up being the best thing that ever happened to them because they start their own company and end up being more successful than they could ever have been working for somebody else. Senator Bennett referred to his successes in starting businesses earlier today on the Senate floor.

In the last few years, more people than ever have started their own companies. As a matter of fact, 430,000 people now make their full-time living on e-Bay. That is just within the last couple of years. Those people are not measured in the payroll survey; they are only measured in the household survey.

The other side says those who are self-employed do not have jobs. As a matter of fact, the other side says there have been 3 million jobs lost since President Bush took office. That number is according to the payroll survey. The household survey shows 2 million jobs have been added because a lot of those people are now self-employed.

Before my tenure in the U.S. Senate, I was a veterinarian. I was self-employed. My job did not count, according to the other side of the aisle. They say that the household survey does not count. If you are self-employed, you know you are working; you think you have a job; you think that should count. It is an insult to those self-employed people not to count them in a survey of jobs. If we are really talking about jobs, we should have the most accurate reflection of jobs.

Even giving the other side of the aisle just the payroll survey, the payroll survey is improving. It is improving dramatically. Almost 900,000 jobs since the beginning of the year have been added to the payrolls of the United States, which begs the question: why should we extend the temporary extension of unemployment benefits program again?

When the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate, after the early 1990s recession, the unemployment rate was at 6.6 percent. At that time they said unemployment was low enough to end the program. We have not heard the other side address that issue. I have made this argument on the Senate floor many times this year, and we have not heard the other side address that. They controlled all three of those bodies and yet they saw the fact that 6.6 percent was low enough to end the program.

Fast-forward to today, the Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House, and now the Democrats say that, even though the unemployment rate is almost a full percentage point lower than when the Democrats ended the program, now the unemployment is too high and we need to keep the temporary unemployment program going today.

I think that is disingenuous. It is saying while we were in control, 6.6 percent was low enough to end the program, but now the Republicans are in control, 5.6 percent is too high and we ought to keep the program going. They put out the statement from Alan Greenspan, who said we should keep the program going. Well, Alan Greenspan has also said that the biggest threat to our economic long-term growth is the deficit. The amendment that was offered by Senator Cantwell costs almost a billion dollars a month. It is a 9-month extension, and it is an $9.5 billion price tag. That adds $9.5 billion to the deficit. We have already spent $32 billion on this program the last couple of years, which added $32 billion to the deficit. It comes right out of deficit spending.

I believe it is time to end the program. The States have money we gave them. We gave them $8 billion to address the problem of high unemployment in their States. Many States, including the State of Washington, have not used this money. Out of the $144 million the State of Washington received out of the $8 billion, they have only used about $1 million. So if the State of Washington cared about their unemployed, one would think they

would use that money, but they have chosen not to use it. So I think we have fulfilled our obligation during the recession and post-recession when unemployment was high, but it is time to start worrying about the deficit. For those who talk about being deficit hawks, it is time to vote against this program.

Now I do not know whether this was done purposely or not, but in drafting this bill, the author of the amendment drafted it in such a way that it is retroactive to the first of the year. So that means if one is working today, but they were unemployed at the beginning of the year and would have qualified for TEUC at the beginning of the year, they actually would get a check from the Federal Government. I do not think that is the purpose of this program. The purpose of this program was to help those who really could not get a job.

The other reason I do not believe this program should be extended is, during times of economic growth, if one is having trouble getting a job it may mean that they have to move. Well, we are in times of economic growth, but the more comfortable we make it for people on unemployment insurance--in other words, when they are getting these unemployment benefits--the more comfortable we make it to stay on unemployment, the less incentive there is to go out and do what it takes to get a job. It is called personal responsibility.

I believe we are during that time of economic growth--I think all of the statistics show that--and it is time that we end this program and we vote down the Cantwell amendment. The Cantwell amendment violates the budget. We know that. That is why there is a budget point of order that is going to be raised against the Cantwell amendment. The vote we will have will be to waive the Budget Act so that we will deficit spend.

If we want to make sure those jobs are out there for the people who are unemployed today, we have to have a strong economy. Alan Greenspan says the biggest threat to our economy is the size of the deficit. Let us do something about the size of the deficit by voting down this $8 billion program.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

How much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I will take 1 minute and then the Senator from Oklahoma will take 1 minute.

Mr. President, a couple of quick facts. First, when the Democrats were in control in the early 1990s, following the recession, we had this same program. They were in control of the White House, the House and the Senate. The unemployment rate was at 6.6 percent and they voted to stop the program, again, when the unemployment rate was at 6.6 percent. Today the unemployment rate is one point lower at 5.6 percent and, yet, now they want to extend the program. This, at the cost of $9 billion. If one is a deficit hawk and they are worried about the deficit, they should vote against the Cantwell amendment.

This amendment is also retroactive. In other words, if a person has a job now, qualified for TEUC after it expired, then this would apply to them. They would get a check from the Government for the time after January they were unemployed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to address some of the comments that

were made by the Senator from Washington State. The proposal to extend unemployment insurance benefits is something the Senator from Washington has been attempting to have passed for some time now. The arguments have been that there are a lot of people unemployed in the country who have been unemployed for long periods of time and therefore we need to have not just normal unemployment benefits but we need to have extended unemployment benefits.

For the last several months, I have gotten up on the Senate floor to refute some of the arguments that have been made by the Senator from Washington, and I want to not only reiterate some of those points but I want to go a little bit further today.

One of the points I have been making is that back when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, the unemployment rate in the country was almost a full percentage point higher than it is today. At that time, the three bodies working together, in control, once again, by the Democrats, thought that the economy had come out of the recession and had recovered to the point where the extension of the unemployment benefits was not necessary. So they terminated the program.

Well, the unemployment rate in the country is almost a full percentage point less today--now when Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. We have recovered from a recession and today, enjoy an unemployment rate that is almost a full percentage point lower than what it was back in the 1990s when the Democrats were in control, when they stopped the temporary extension program. That is the situation we are facing today.

Nationwide, unemployment is 5.7 percent. Economists used to argue that this kind of an unemployment rate was full employment. I am one of those people who believe we can do better than we are doing today. In fact, in my State we are at about 4.4 percent. In some of our counties in our State we are at about 3-percent unemployment. So I think we can do better. In fact, in the JOBS bill that we have before us today, we have provisions in the bill that would create a couple of million jobs.

The one I authored, called the Invest in the USA Act, according to independent economists, will increase the GDP of this country by 1 percent and will produce 660,000 jobs. This is a conservative estimate. So I believe in creating jobs. It is not that people do not feel bad that people are unemployed, but instead of giving them a check for being unemployed we want to give them a job so they are no longer unemployed.

The Senator from Washington has an amendment that she has been trying to get enacted, and she changed her amendment slightly. Her State was one of the highest unemployment States in the country. So my colleagues could understand why she was pushing for this. In the last couple of months, her State's economy has improved. Her State's unemployment rate has been dropping precipitously, so much so that to qualify as a high unemployment State for some of the extra funds under her amendment, she had to redraft her amendment to adjust the figures in such a way that her State would qualify. Under her previous amendments, the State of Washington would not qualify because the economy is improving in her State.

When President Bush was elected, he inherited an economy that was in recession. There is no argument about that. We had three straight quarters of negative growth. By anybody's definition, that is a recession. It takes time to come out of that. We have had economic policies put into place, including two rounds of tax cuts, that have helped spur our economy onward to where we are creating jobs and to where the economy is starting to fire on all cylinders.

We still have work to do, and I think all of us in this body would agree that. But let's look at some of the employment figures.

This chart shows what I was talking about earlier in the State of Washington. Starting in April of 2001, their unemployment rate was a little above 6 percent. We can see, over the last couple of years, it has gone up fairly significantly. It plateaued in October 2003, and since then it has fallen drastically. This is the home State of the author of the amendment, and that is why her State, under her old amendment, would basically no longer qualify as a high unemployment State.

I want to address the issue of the two surveys that measure unemployment. One is called the household survey and the other is called the payroll survey. The household survey measures not only people on payrolls but it is a better measure of the economy because it also measures those who are self-employed.

For instance, in the last 2 years we have seen this incredible phenomenon known as eBay. I think most people are familiar with eBay. There are 430,000 people who now make a full-time living on eBay. Try to conceptualize that. Ten years ago, we could not even have imagined it. The payroll survey, the most common one that people quote about jobs being produced or eliminated, does not reflect a single one of those people who are now supporting themselves full time by doing business on eBay. The household survey does count them.

Anybody who goes out and starts their own business, once they hire somebody that individual is counted in the payroll survey. Well, even a lot of the small businesses are not counted for some time under payroll but they are counted in the household survey. It is a more accurate reflection of the current employment situation in our country.

In the past, the payroll survey and the household survey, the reason we did not worry about really talking about the differences between them is because they paralleled each other. For the last 20, 30 years they literally went up and down at about the same rate. Over the last 2 to 3 years, though, our economy has been changing. Today we are living in a high-tech information age. Things such as eBay didn't exist before. Thus, over the last 12 to 24 months the payroll survey has showed a loss of jobs while, according to the household survey, a couple of million jobs have been produced.

We hear the other side saying under President Bush a couple of million jobs have been lost. Well, that is if you include only the payroll survey. If you include the household survey, we are at the highest level of employment in the history of the United States--the highest level of employment in the history of the United States. We have the most people actually employed, self-employed or employed by somebody else, that we have ever had in the United States.

Unemployment insurance was set up to be a hand up. The longer and the more generous the benefits are, the less incentive there is for somebody to go out and get a job. We know that and can prove that.

During times of high unemployment, during times of recession, we extend the Federal program so those who have fallen on hard times in a tough economy, can get assistance. Those jobs may not be out there, so we extend the program an extra 13 weeks, sometimes 26 weeks, and we allow the States to extend it even further.

But when the economy is growing, is it really necessary to extend those Federal unemployment benefits? Not only is it not necessary, does it, in fact, inhibit somebody from taking the initiative, No. 1, to either create their own job, to become that entrepreneur on eBay or wherever else they are going to create the job, or, No. 2, to do what it takes to go out and find a job?

By the way, sometimes that requires moving. We have a very fluid economy today. Sometimes it requires changing careers. Today, the average American changes careers--not jobs, careers--three times. Again, a reflection of our changing economy. That is one of the reasons, if the other side of the aisle is so interested, as they say they are, in helping people, let's make sure the Workforce Investment Act that was passed unanimously in the Senate actually is finalized into law instead of using procedural maneuvers to block it. That would train an additional 900,000 people in the United States to help find those new jobs that are being created.

In most places that you travel around the United States, if you would ask how the economy is, a year ago there was a lot of pessimism. People were really unsure. You go out there now and there is a lot of optimism.

People are hiring and manufacturing orders are up. All the economic indexes we see in virtually every category are up, including the payroll survey for the last 3 months, and we expect to have fairly good employment numbers coming out tomorrow. The jobless claims that came out today were the lowest level we have seen since the year 2000, again, another good piece of economic news.

That is why I think it is the right thing to do, to not further extend the temporary extended unemployment benefits program. It already expired in March.

We have heard a lot from the other side of the aisle about deficits and how much of a threat deficits are to the current economy and the future economy of the United States. I agree with that. In fact I, by the National Taxpayers Union, was rated No. 1 as the biggest deficit hawk in the Senate. I am very concerned with deficits. My votes match my rhetoric.

Extending the unemployment insurance benefits cost $1 billion a month, which is added to the deficit. That is deficit spending. A few of the proposals we have heard from the other side would make it a $2 billion-a-month program. So if people care about the deficit, if they believe that it is something we should not be adding on to, as the Senator from Washington is trying to do by adding back in the extension of the unemployment benefits, then they should not support her amendment.

To sum this up, the facts are, the economy is growing, and growing strongly. Yes, we can do better. I will admit that. I want to see us do more. Pass the JOBS bill that is in front of the Senate today that the Senator from Montana, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, and the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, have put together. They put together a bill that will create jobs in America. That is part of doing better. There are many other things we can do.

I believe it would actually do harm to the economy, by adding $1 billion a month to the deficit and discouraging those people who are currently on unemployment, if we were to continue extending the TEUC program for weeks and weeks, and months, instead of giving people the incentive to go out and find the jobs that are being created in America.

I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to first talk about the underlying legislation and then talk about the Breaux-Feinstein amendment.

Allen Sinai is one of the most respected economists in the United

States--not a Republican or a Democratic economist--a bipartisan economist. These 660,000 jobs he said this underlying bill will create is based on our language. He is not saying what Senator Breaux just said, that they are not guaranteed to bring the jobs back. He is doing an independent analysis based on the money coming back into the United States and based on that determining how many jobs it will create, and this is a very conservative number.

What else will this underlying bill do? It will reduce the deficit, according to his study, also by $75 billion over 5 years because of the economic stimulus that will occur in the United States. The money that will come back--there have been studies--the first J.P. Morgan study was around $300 billion. They have updated their numbers. It is expected to be around $500 billion. Allen Sinai's numbers, once again, an independent economist, was based on the $300 billion figure. We heard $300 billion all the way up to $600 billion will come back to the United States. That is more money than all of the IPOs, initial public offerings, on the stock market from 1996 to 2002. That is a lot of economic activity.

We hear a lot today about outsourcing. Lou Dobbs talks about it almost every night--outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing. This bill is insourcing. This insources jobs to the United States. Mr. President, $500 billion will create a lot of jobs in the United States.

Here is the language, by the way, Senator Breaux is talking about in our bill when he says there really is not any kind of enforcement mechanism:

. . . described in domestic reinvestment plan approved by the

taxpayers, president, CEO or comparable official before the

payment of such dividends and subsequently approved by the

taxpayers board of directors, management committee, executive

committee, or similar body, which plan shall provide for the

reinvestment of such dividends in the United States,

including as a source of funding of worker hiring and

training, infrastructure, research and development, capital

investments or for the financial stabilization of the

corporation for purposes of job retention or creation.

Why is that language important in our bill and how is that enforced today? We are in a post-Enron environment. The markets look at the governance of corporations. The IRS certainly looks at it. With Sarbanes-Oxley on the books, CEOs are very sensitive to complying with federal laws such as this. Companies are required to develop a plan, and they have to stick with the plan, otherwise the stock markets will punish their stocks if they are not doing this. That is one of the ways the markets actually enforce what is going on.

I want to point out some of the other items that other countries do on a comparative basis. These are just corporate tax rate comparisons. The United States has the highest of all of these countries, and these are countries with which we deal and compete. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate of any of the countries--Korea, Indonesia, Japan, EU, average, Ireland, 12.5 percent. That makes a little more sense in terms of why they are competing a little better than we are.

In fact, in Ireland, they call it the Celtic Tiger because their success has been so incredible as a result of lowering their tax rates to attract capital.

The money right stranded overseas now will not come back in the United States without our bill. That is the bottom line. People say it is not fair to allow the money to come back in at lower tax rates than American companies are paying today in the United States. The bottom line is, fine, if it is not fair, then do we just want to leave this money overseas? The money is not going to come back to the United States to create jobs without our bill.

How do other countries treat this money that comes back into their countries compared to what the United States does currently? The United States is up to a 35-percent tax. France, Germany, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom--zero, and they have no restrictions on how the money can be spent. It just comes back and gets reinvested in their countries. That is why we are saying let's bring it back within that 1- year period of time, and we will charge you 5.25 percent, which is still higher than all of these countries. The companies want to bring that money back to invest in the United States.

By the way, paying down debt is not allowed under the Breaux- Feinstein amendment. If you are a company and you are burdened with debt and now you have to lay off people, doesn't it make sense to allow them to pay the debt down instead of laying off people? That just makes common sense to anybody who has ever been in business. If you are in tough financial times, having money from overseas come back and reducing your balance sheet debt for the companies located in the United States makes sense. It makes them more financially solvent.

Yes, I will yield.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I think those are very conservative estimates at a time when we are talking about jobs. The rest of the economy is doing well, and the job numbers are picking up. This can be the extra boost the U.S. job market needs.

These are the items not allowed under the Breaux amendment when it comes back: debt reduction I just talked about, job training, and tuition reimbursement, better health care benefits for workers, childcare for employees getting back to work, and materials for new manufacturing.

There are a lot of items the money would not be allowed to be used for under the Breaux amendment. This really is a poison pill. The companies are telling us if the Breaux-Feinstein amendment is adopted, it basically kills their incentive to bring the money back.

Let's have some common sense here. If money is overseas and it is being invested over there because tax rates are too high to bring it back to the U.S., let's lower the tax rates so the capital comes back to the United States to create jobs. That is the bottom line; it will create jobs in the United States. It will make American business more competitive in this global marketplace.

If my colleagues are worried about outsourcing, defeat the Breaux amendment and keep the provision in the bill. The Invest in the USA Act is a great piece of legislation. That is why on the floor of the Senate last year it received 75 votes to 25 votes against it. With 75 votes, in a bipartisan manner, we adopted our bill last year. We need to keep this provision intact in the underlying bill.

I encourage all Senators who voted last year with us to stay with us on this point and defeat the poison pill of the Breaux-Feinstein amendment.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, in a few minutes we are going to be voting on the Breaux-Feinstein amendment. In the underlying bill is an amendment that Senator Boxer and I worked on last year. It was voted on in the Senate and had 75 affirmative votes, 25 negative votes. Seventy- five Senators said, last year, it is a good idea for money that is sitting outside the country in bank accounts--in businesses' bank accounts outside the United States--to come back to the United States to create jobs and help the American economy.

Right now, if companies bring that money back, they will have to pay the difference between whatever that country charged and our 35-percent corporate tax rate. At the top rate, it is 35 percent they are paying. Therefore, those companies are leaving that money overseas.

Well, with our piece of legislation, it is estimated that somewhere between $400 billion and $600 billion will come back to the United States in the next

12 months. That is a huge amount of money and will be a huge boost to the American economy. Our economy is really starting to click on along, and we are really excited about that, but we can do more, and that is what we want to do. We can put more people to work with our bill.

Independent estimates by Allen Sinai, a well-respected economist, well respected by Democrats and Republicans, said this bill will create 660,000 jobs in the United States. Frankly, the amendment by Senator Breaux and Senator Feinstein will gut this amendment. It is a poison pill. So we are encouraging all of our Senators to vote against it.

There are some important uses of funds for job creation that Senator Breaux's amendment would stop the money from being used for.

Those legitimate uses of funds include improving health insurance for employees and preventing investing in new small businesses. They could buy a new jet under the Breaux amendment, but they couldn't pay for employees' travel expenses. This amendment makes no sense, and that is why we should vote it down.

The Senator from Louisiana is against the underlying bill. He is against the approach we took last year. He voted against it. This is his effort to try to gut underlying legislation. That is why we are encouraging all Senators, the 75 who voted for our legislation last year, to vote against this amendment to make sure that $400 to $600 billion does come back to the United States and helps American workers get jobs.

Every night we hear on television about outsourcing. This underlying bill is about insourcing. We are bringing jobs back to the United States, and we should do that.