Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order regarding amendment No. 1053.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have no remarks at the moment. If the Senator who stands in front of me, with his hand across his heart, wishes to make some comments, I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the adoption of my amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1053: Warner, Kennedy, Mikulski, Landrieu, Johnson, Stabenow, Murray, Bingaman, Jeffords, and in that order, please.

Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, be included and that his name occur in the order listed.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any other Senators on both sides of the aisle who wish to be added as cosponsors, that their names be added if they will let us know before the hour of 12 o'clock.

If they will let the leaders know. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I spoke on yesterday when I offered the amendment for the Senate's consideration. I will not speak further at this time except to say that my remarks of yesterday will be found on page S7420 of the Congressional Record.

I am very pleased that my chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi--I say ``distinguished,'' the distinguished Senator, Mr. Cochran--I am delighted he is the chief cosponsor of the amendment. I appreciate his excellent remarks today.

I also express my deep appreciation to the distinguished gentleman-- the distinguished ``gentleman''--the Senator from Virginia. And I say that with all the emphasis that word's meaning carries. He is a great Senator. He believes in the Constitution of the United States. He swore to support and defend it, and he has not forgotten his oath. He has not forgotten his oath. And he has stated it and restated it, holding his hand on the Bible and the other hand to God and all men. He has restated it several times, and he has lived up to it. I commend him.

He has been in the forefront of the effort to honor Dr. Martin Luther King with a memorial on the Mall. He has been in that forefront over a period of several years. He cosponsored, as he has pointed out, the original authorization. I am so pleased he is cosponsoring this amendment. He stood as a spectator, he said, but he later became an active participant in the history that followed on to that moment in which he was a spectator watching from the streets.

So he has become a part of history. And what I say with regard to the distinguished gentleman, the Senator from Virginia--the Virginian--I say also with equal heartfelt thanks to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, who has announced he will not remain with us after next year, to my great sorrow and regret. But Senator Sarbanes has been a leader in the march toward justice for all men and women. I commend him, likewise. And I thank him for being a cosponsor of this amendment.

While I have the floor, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the amendment: Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Boxer, Senator Harkin, and Senator Corzine.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished manager of the bill yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the Martin Luther King, Jr. amendment: Senators Brownback, DeWine, and Levin.

I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, our country is now involved in two wars--not one, two wars; one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. Each day we read in the newspapers about the human toll this nation is paying. As of today, 1,730 troops, men and women, have been killed in Iraq; 194 have been killed in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The toll of these wars is also borne by those men and women who carry the scars of battle.

In Iraq, more than 13,000 troops have been wounded. In Afghanistan, 476 troops have shed their blood in service to our country. The American people thank these servicemembers for their sacrifice. However, late last week, Congress learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs has been shortchanged in its mission to provide medical care to these warriors and all of the other men and women who have served in time of war before them.

Now, this is a shame. This is a sham. If our Nation owes just one thing to all of those men and women who have risked their lives in answer to our country's call, it surely must be, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle.''

It is a shock that the administration has only now revealed it has not budgeted the funds to fulfill this mission. I offer an amendment this afternoon on behalf of Senator Patty Murray, myself, and Senator Feinstein to provide $1.42 billion in emergency funds to address the shortfall in health care funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of this figure, $600 million would be used to reimburse VA construction accounts that have been raided to pay for health care costs. Another $400 million would be used to reimburse other accounts that have been raided for the same purpose.

Finally, an additional $420 million is included to compensate each Veterans and Integrated Service Network, or VISN, for the additional expenses incurred because of the high caseload of wounded veterans. This $1.42 billion is urgently needed and the Senate must not delay in providing the funds that are required to allow our veterans to see their physicians at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Earlier this year, the Senate rejected on a nearly party-line vote an amendment to the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill to add funding to VA health care. The administration told Congress additional funds were not needed to care for our Nation's veterans. We now know this claim was wrong. According to the estimate provided to Congress by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA funding is short $1 billion this year. Congress must act to care for our veterans. When it comes to our veterans health care, half a loaf is not good enough.

Some may argue against this amendment by urging the Senate to wait for the administration's plan. However, according to VA testimony before the House of Representatives last week, the administration intends to respond to the shortfall on the cheap by robbing Peter to pay Paul. We have already waited too long for the administration to recognize the needs of our

veterans. The Murray-Byrd-Feinstein amendment is the Senate's opportunity to end this year's shortchanging of veterans.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may send to the desk this amendment offered by me on behalf of Mrs. Murray, for herself, myself, and Mrs. Feinstein.

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

Mr. President, the greatness of women and men is often best judged from an historical perspective. History gives us the detached perspective that allows us to better understand and appreciate the person, the cause, and the legacy.

This happens because great individuals often have been leaders who challenged the status quo as they pushed the country into areas where it had feared to go. As a result, such leaders often arouse criticism and opposition.

The Revered Dr. Martin Luther King certainly was a controversial figure in his own time.

Black power advocates attacked him for moving too slowly, while more than one presidential administration attacked him for moving too swiftly.

The NAACP criticized his take-to-the-streets tactics.

Civil rights leaders broke with Dr. King because of his opposition to the Vietnam War.

I certainly had my share of differences with Reverend King--a lot of them. We were both products of our times, and both of us were doing what we believed was right.

But time and the march of history afford a better understanding of Dr. King and his contributions toward making the United States a better, stronger, and greater Nation.

It is for this reason, I am proposing that $10 million in funding be made available for the memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This $10 million, which is available within the subcommittee's allocation, would supplement the approximately $42 million that has already been raised and stands as a solid foundation to help make this memorial a reality.

I have come to appreciate how Martin Luther King, Jr., sought to help our Nation overcome racial barriers, bigotry, hatred, and injustice, and how he helped to inspire and guide a most important, most powerful, and most transforming social movement.

Despite the hatred and the bigotry he encountered in his efforts, Dr. King never allowed his movement to be reduced to a simple racial conflict. He stressed on more than one occasion, that the struggle was not one between people of different colors. Rather, Dr. King believed that his fight was a fight ``between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.''

His vision and his movement included all Americans. I remind my colleagues, and all Americans, that when Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and proclaimed that he had ``a dream,'' he pointed out that he also looked forward to the time ``when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands.''

I remind my colleagues that Dr. King's efforts also focused on the economic rights of economically deprived people of all races and creeds, as well as on the civil rights of African Americans. In this quest, he proposed a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged. He advocated a guaranteed national income. At the time of his death, Dr. King was organizing a ``Poor Peoples March'' on Washington, an effort meant to focus national attention on poverty among not only African-Americans, but among the poor whites of Appalachia, as well.

Dr. King's vision was not only about what America could be, but what America should be.

With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his dream was the American dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.

Dr. King touched the conscience of a Nation, and forced us, as a country, to confront our contradictions. How could the United States present itself as the leader of the free world, he asked, while denying equality and equal opportunity to a large segment of our own people? In his book, ``Where Do We Go from Here,'' Dr. King asked why 40 million Americans were living in poverty in ``a nation overflowing with unbelievable affluence.'' Writing of the destructive effects of militarism, he asked: ``Why [has] our nation placed itself in the position of being God's military agent on earth?'' ``Why have we substituted the arrogant undertaking of policing the whole world for the high task of putting our own ``house in order?''

With his works as well as his words, Dr. King left us a legacy that inspires and guides millions of Americans today. It is a legacy that demonstrates that human problems, no matter how big or complex, can be addressed--a legacy that proves that one determined person can help make a difference.

Amid all his successes and triumphs, and all of his personal accomplishments, including receiving the Noble Peace Prize, Dr. King always kept his perspective. The night before he was assassinated, he explained: ``I just want to do God's will.'' What a powerful statement this was: ``I just wanted to do God's will.'' What an inspiration it should be to all of us: ``To do God's will.''

Criticized, denounced, and opposed in his own time, Martin Luther King has become not only an American icon, but also an international symbol of social justice, and one of recent history's most beloved champions of freedom.

Mr. President, we have named a National Holiday in his honor. It is just and proper that we now place a memorial on The Mall of the Nation's Capital as a visible and tangible symbol of the thanks of a grateful nation. Martin Luther King taught us tolerance. How we need such teachings today. May his life, his legacy, and someday soon, his memorial ever remind us of his vision.

I am about to offer an amendment, and Senator Cochran, the illustrious chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, is the principal cosponsor of the amendment that I will offer, so it is bipartisan. I thank Senator Cochran, and I hope that many other Senators will join us in this effort to honor Dr. King.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment or amendments be set aside.

That I may offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Cochran. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the clerk, and I thank our distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran.

Now I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be added as a cosponsor on the veterans amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank all Senators.

Amendments Nos. 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, and 1058, en bloc

Mr. President, for too long, we as a body, and we as a Nation, have fallen short in our efforts to address some of the most profound and far reaching challenges of our time--global climate change and energy security. For too long, we have skirted the issues and have shirked our responsibilities. We have convinced ourselves that we are doing something but, in reality, we continue to take no real action. Rather than lead, we have stood by, paralyzed, undermining any efforts to forge an effective response.

It is time to pull ourselves out of that quicksand and confront the tasks at hand. First, we must establish practical and comprehensive steps to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. Second, we must work in a partnership with developing nations to deploy clean energy technologies that can meet their urgent development needs while reducing their own contribution to global climate change and their growing energy dependency. Third, we must commit ourselves to the fundamental task of forging an effective and sound international agreement to guide a truly global effort to confront this most daunting problem, global climate change.

In 1997, during the 105th Congress, the Senate passed S. Res. 98, by a vote of 95 to 0. As the primary author, along with Senator Hagel, of S. Res. 98, I sought at that time to express the sense of the Senate regarding the provisions of any future binding, international agreement that would be acceptable to the Senate.

However, almost from the day of that vote, those on both sides of the issue have misrepresented and misconstrued its intent. What was meant as a guide for action has instead been invoked, time and again, as an excuse for inaction. Yet no one has misrepresented and misconstrued S. Res. 98 more so than this present administration. Rather than employing it as a tool to positively influence the international negotiations, the administration used it as cover to simply walk away from the negotiating table.

For the U.S., the issue should no longer be about the Kyoto Protocol. Certainly, everyone in this Chamber knows that the United States will not join the Kyoto Protocol. The rest of the world has come to accept that fact as well. So let us exorcize the specter of the Kyoto Protocol from this debate. The real question is what comes next. How do we arrive at a credible, workable strategy, one compatible with the best interests of the United States and of the other major emitting industrial and developing countries? That must be the question now before us.

We must send a clear signal that we recognize our responsibilities, and we must be prepared to work toward a fair and effective framework for action. We must be bold leaders. We owe this to ourselves; we owe it to the other nations of the world; and we owe it most of all to our children and to future generations.

Technology is a critical component to resolving the climate change challenges in the U.S. and around the world. But let me be clear. Even as the administration has touted technology as the solution, it continues to woefully underfund these very programs. Technology policies by themselves cannot be the silver bullet. Technology policies must be paired with commonsense, market-based solutions to create incentives for innovation and adoption of new and improved technologies that will provide a signal to reduce emissions.

There must be a broader approach. I want to commend Senators McCain and Lieberman for their diligence and hard work to find a middle ground. I want to commend Senator Bingaman on his efforts as well. Like them, I believe that we face a problem, and it requires that we craft an economically and environmentally sound solution.

The McCain-Lieberman amendment did not pass in its current form. While I did not vote for their amendment, I want to make it very clear to the administration and to others who just want to say ``no'' that I will work with Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Bingaman, and other Republican and Democratic Senators who want to craft a constructive solution.

I have long said that global warming and our energy security are major challenges in the U.S. and around the world. Troubling things are happening in our atmosphere, and we should wake up. I am not alone in this belief. The U.S. cannot bury its head in the sand and hope that these problems will simply go away.

I have insisted on a rational and cost-effective approach for dealing with climate change, both domestically and internationally. I have no doubt that the far right and the far left will oppose any moderate approach on this issue, but it is time to get the right architecture and solid funding in place to make a first step a reality. I am concerned that the McCain-Lieberman approach, in its present form, will negatively impact my State, but that does not mean that we will not be able to find some common ground in the future. I hope that my friends in the energy industry will decide to work with them as well.

Mr. President, we cannot just stand still. I know Senator McCain. He is tenacious, and Senators Lieberman and Bingaman are equally tenacious. If 14 Senators in the middle can come together to diffuse the Nuclear Option, then I am certain that a solid center of Senators can find a new path forward to address global climate change and our Nation's energy security needs. I would certainly not support actions that would harm the economy or the people of my State of West Virginia or the United States in general. Yet, I repeat, I believe that there is a middle path forward, and I stand ready to work with those who share that view.

Mr. President, I will shortly offer an amendment to the Energy bill to provide relief for rural workers, some relief for rural workers from high gas prices. Before I do that, I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their time and their efforts concerning my amendment. Always courteous, always candid, always gentlemen--each embodies the spirit and the harmonious character of a U.S. Senator. I am talking about Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus.

I will shortly send to the desk a modified version of my amendment which I have discussed with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee and their staffs.

I will also ask Senators Lincoln, Rockefeller, Harkin, and Pryor be added as cosponsors, but I am not asking that right at this moment.

We debate the Energy bill today in the context of skyrocketing life- altering gasoline prices. The people out there watching the Senate through those electronic lenses, many of them know what I am talking about. The American public is reminded, day after day after day--as they drive to work, as they drive their children to school, as they drive to the local market, they are reminded of the outrageous cost of gasoline and how it squeezes their pocketbooks--how it squeezes your pocketbooks. That fact alone is probably the single most important catalyst for this Energy bill. Yet Senators candidly acknowledge, as has the President, that no energy policy can immediately deliver lower prices at the fuel pump.

I don't say that to criticize the efforts of the managers of the bill. They rightly are looking to the future with the hope of weaning-- weaning--America from its dependence on foreign oil. I have been talking about this for years.

They are setting admirable goals and I hope that we move quickly to meet them. But--that conjunction ``but''--in the meantime, while we wait for countless production incentives and numerous Federal programs to take effect, American workers--American workers--suffer, suffer daily at the fuel pump. The impact of high gas prices is burdensome in many cases and devastating in others.

I addressed the Senate recently about this issue, as I have addressed it many times, highlighting the impact that

high gas prices have had on rural areas in this country. You talk about rural areas; look at Maine. Look at West Virginia. Look at that map. I will talk about it in a moment. Residents of rural areas must drive longer distances to work and from work, inflicting burdensome costs on workers. Rural areas have less access to public transportation. This means subways and buses are not usually available to rural workers.

Look at my State, a mountain State. Senators ought to know what it is like to wind around those mountains, up and down; steep going up and going down sometimes is worse. In Appalachia--that is what we are talking about, what I am talking about right now is Appalachia. Rural roads--come on over, Senators, and try some of those rural roads. Your head will be dizzy and you will be holding on with your fingertips and your fingernails will be white. It is tough. In Appalachia, rural roads, twisting and winding and bending around the hills and mountains, exacerbate the financial pain.

When gas prices spike, rural workers often have no extra income to absorb the increase, forcing painful cuts in essential expenditures. High gas prices hurt local businesses as workers are forced to scale back leisure activities and everyday comforts. Economic activity slows, communities are impacted, and savings shrink. These communities are crying out for action. They have no alternative means of transportation available to them to avoid driving, no subways. Go over to the Alleghany Mountains, you will not find subways. Those mountains are beautiful. I tell you, there is nothing like them, the Alleghanys. Appalachia, no subways. No mass transit. They are unlikely to benefit much from the energy conservation incentives designed for their urban counterparts.

These rural workers--hear me, hear me--these rural workers seek immediate relief. They want some help. They grow increasingly frustrated with the hemming and the hawing of their representatives in Congress--not only in Congress but in the White House. They do not want equivocations about economic theories. They are all well and good, those theories. These workers do not want tutorials about tax policy. What do they want? They want relief. And today, I am going to submit an amendment that would be a partial answer. We have to start giving some attention to this problem and to these people.

This amendment would create a new transportation fringe benefit for eligible rural workers. Employers could offer these workers compensation for their costly gasoline purchases. Those expenditures for gasoline, up to $50 per month, by rural workers who can carpool, would be excluded from their taxable wages, providing immediate relief.

The amendment would cost $123 million over 5 years. It is my understanding, based on discussions with the Finance Committee, that an offset would be provided later in the day.

This amendment is the result of a compromise. Legislation is compromise. There are different opinions around here. Senators represent different areas with different problems. Sometimes we cannot have it all the way we would like. Not everything is the way we want. We have to compromise. Legislation means compromise. We have to have a bill. You do not go for the kill on every bill, but you do what you can. Sometimes you have to not do as much as you would like to do, but you do something, and later you do something more.

This amendment is the result of a compromise with the Finance Committee. I have been in Congress now 53 years. How about that--53 years in the House and Senate. I started out in the House. But you have to compromise. You have to do that in the House, compromise. You cannot have everything like you want it, but you get something for the people you represent. You help them a little here and a little there and then a little more here and a little more there. That is the way it is done.

This amendment is the result of a compromise with the Finance Committee. It represents an acknowledgment by the Senate that rural workers can be affected more directly and harshly by high gas prices and that the Senate is beginning to respond to that reality.

This amendment can help to provide immediate relief to rural workers. It cannot do everything, but we are doing something. It can help to provide relief to working mothers, to fathers, both of whom are searching for ways to stretch their paychecks just a little bit further. You can only stretch that paycheck so far. It will not stretch any further.

It will benefit residents from the northern most areas of Maine. We can see Maine looking at the chart, right up there at the top, way up there, way up there. It will benefit the northern most areas of Maine, down the east coast, down the east coast, into the Appalachia region-- there is home sweet home to me, Appalachia--Kentucky, Tennessee, and into the Southern States of Mississippi and Alabama. It will benefit residents throughout the rural heartland of America.

The dark areas are being pointed out by this fine young man. These dark areas are what we are talking about. These are the rural areas. Look at them on this map. The urban areas are the yellow areas. Look how big the map is when it comes to the rural areas. That is where a lot of real people live. You talk about the grassroots of America. Go back to the rural areas. Those people in the rural areas have to drive to work. They do not have mass transit in most of these areas. We are talking about the heartland of America: Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, westward. Turn westward young man, westward. West through Montana and Idaho, and along the west coast. Rural areas in California. California has rural areas, too. Oregon, Washington--rural areas along the west coast into Washington, Oregon, and California.

As the chart beside me shows, and I hope the camera is focusing on these rural areas, rural workers in every State--name the State--rural workers in that State would benefit from this amendment, workers who reside in the rural areas, the green areas. I will point out Appalachia again. If you have not been there, you ought to go and see what those people have to contend with. See what workers in Appalachia have to contend with. It is not just Appalachia; it is all over the country, throughout the country, every State. There are many in these rural--the green--areas who are forced to drive to work due to a lack of public transit. They do not have Metro. We have the Metro in the District of Columbia. They do not have it over there. They would be eligible to benefit from this amendment.

The Finance Committee has offered a tax package to this bill providing $18 billion in energy supply and efficiency incentives, many of which I support. The Finance Committee package will yield long-term benefits for the American people. As I have said, the chairman and the ranking member have been very gracious in considering my views regarding these matters. But the House of Representatives passed $8 billion of very different tax incentives, much of them going to big oil, which today is reaping an enormous windfall.

I say to the distinguished Senator from New York, there are a lot of people up there in rural areas in New York--Chuck Schumer, yes. He and Senator Clinton--man, they look out after their people. May the Lord bless them.

Much of the benefits are going to big oil, which today is reaping an enormous windfall from the high price of gasoline. Let me say that again: The House of Representatives passed $8 billion. How much is that? That is $8 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Now you can get an idea of what we are talking about. Eight billion, $8 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. These different tax incentives, $8 billion of very different tax incentives, much of them going to big oil, which today is reaping an enormous windfall from the high price of gasoline. These tax breaks are in addition to the billions of dollars in taxpayer revenues dedicated annually to these companies.

This is an opportunity to vote for an amendment that will provide some relief--not enough but some. The Senate is, finally, about to recognize this problem. This is an opportunity to vote for an amendment that will provide relief directly and immediately. To whom? The little guy. The little guy. Man, you talk about me now, the little guy. The

Presiding Officer is for the little guy. That is what this amendment is about.

This is an opportunity to help working men and women today. Not enough, not enough, but it is a good start. We do not have to wait and hope gas prices will decrease. We can take some action now.

I urge adoption of this amendment which I now send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I have nothing further right now.

Yes. I thank the Chair for remembering that. The names of those cosponsors I send to the desk.

Senators Lincoln, Rockefeller, Harkin, and Pryor--I ask unanimous consent that they be added as cosponsors.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I am ready to vote.

Madam President, I thank all Senators.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Madam President, on Sunday, June 19, the Nation will honor fathers with the celebration of Father's Day. Fathers certainly deserve a day to relax and to put aside for a time the heavy burden of work and worries that they carry. Most fathers are, I believe, great worriers. They feel the pressure to perform. They feel the pressure daily to go forth and to battle in conditions over which they have little control. Yet they feel that they must present to their families a facade of mastery. That is, after all, part of the ``dad mystique''--the desire of fathers everywhere to be seen as the unvanquished protector of the family, the benevolent provider of all good things, the safe harbor against all harm and all fears.

Today's economic conditions worry most fathers, no matter what their current earning prowess. If they are looking for work or to find a better job, recently reported economic indicators keep them awake at night. Housing prices continue to climb. Hiring is weak. Outsourcing and the offshore movement of jobs create heartburn. News that Chinese automobiles may soon be competing for sales in the United States will create a few ulcers, too, I am sure, as hard-working fathers

wonder how they can compete against Chinese workers making only $2 an hour.

Fathers at the upper end of the pay scale are not immune from such nightmares either. They must still worry about corporate scandals that could rob them overnight of their pensions, stock options, and the rising cost of college education. All fathers feel a sense of growing unease about the spiraling deficits, the uncertain future of Social Security, the weakening of America's global competitiveness to the high price of international conflict. What kind of future are they leaving to their children?

On a very personal level, fathers also share common fears. Where are their children? Are they behaving? Are they growing up to be good people? Will the world be good to them in return? I know that fathers, with sons and daughters in the military, carry particularly heavy burdens of worry these days, as well as fathers who are in uniform themselves with families waiting, waiting, waiting and praying for them at home. I hope these fathers know that the prayers of the Nation are with them.

Fathers want the best for their children, which is why they push their children to do their best. To be sure, some fathers have taken this perhaps to unseemly, even dangerous, extremes, as the stories of some ``sports dads'' attest. But most fathers want their children to develop a healthy sense of competition, coupled with fairness, to learn to win and to learn to lose graciously, to foster a sense of perseverance that will stand their children in good stead no matter what field of endeavor they play upon.

Fathers want to encourage a good work ethic. They want to encourage good study habits. They want to encourage the character traits of reliability--according to an old Greek ideal, character is destiny--and dependability, thoughtfulness, and generosity of spirit, traits that will make good students, respected leaders, able employees and, some day, good fathers and mothers.

The best fathers, of course, practice what they preach. Parents are the best teachers, sometimes without ever giving a word of instruction. They teach by the example of their own lives.

My own dad was such a man, the greatest man I ever knew, my dad. He was not my father. He was the man who raised me. But he was the greatest man I ever knew. I have met kings and shahs and Presidents, princes, Governors, Senators. Just that old coal miner dad was the greatest man I ever knew--hard working, God-fearing, generous with the little that he had. He took me in when my mother died, and he raised me as his own.

``It is not flesh and blood but the heart which makes us fathers and sons,'' wrote Johann Schiller. He is right. Titus Dalton Byrd was not my biological father, but he was my dad, pap. He is looking down from heaven right now. He is looking down. And some day I will meet him again. He was my dad.

He encouraged me in my studies. He didn't buy me a cowboy suit. He didn't buy me a cap buster. He bought me a watercolor set, a book, a drawing tablet, and some crayons. He took pride in my accomplishments.

Benjamin West said that he was made a great painter because of his mother who, when he went to her with little drawings about birds and flowers and so on, she took him up on her knee and she kissed him on the cheek. She said: Some day you are going to grow up. You will grow up to be a great painter. And that made him a great painter. He did grow up to become a great painter, made so by a mother's kiss.

So about my old coal miner dad. After a long day at work, he would spend time with me. He talked with me. He listened to me. He watched me recite. He watched me play the violin. He feared for me when I wanted to follow him into the coal mines. He shared his fear; he shared the love that was behind it. He gave me a whipping a time or two. He always told me before he whipped me that he loved me, and it hurt him probably more than it hurt me. That was my dad. He pushed me to do better, to reach higher, to work harder. He didn't want me to have to work in the mines as he did. He gave me pride in him. He never used crude language. I never heard him use God's name in vain in all the years that I knew him--ever.

He never raised a fist in anger. He never treated anyone with anything but courtesy. He was a poor, humble, hard-working coal miner. He took life as it came. He didn't grumble at what was placed before him on the table. He never complained. He never said anything about mom's cooking. He never used bad language, as I said. He carried himself--a poor miner without two nickles at times to rub together-- with the quiet dignity of a true gentleman. There was a man. I am proud to share his name. I think that is one of the greatest compliments that any child can give to his or her father--that proud inflection in their voice when they say: This is my dad.

Like fathers everywhere, I delight in their every triumph, from the first breath onward, just as I mourn their every setback and disappointment. In speaking from my own experience, no father ever ceases to worry about his children and the kind of world they are inheriting. That is why I suppose it is whatever hair fathers are allowed to keep turns white.

So on this Father's Day, I remember the old coal miner dad that I had. I could see him coming from the mines. I watched him as he walked down the railroad tracks, and I ran to meet him. As I came near, he put down that dinner bucket he had carried into the bowels of the Earth there in the darkness--the darkness of the coal mine. He put down that dinner bucket and lifted the lid, and he took out a little cake that my mom had put into the dinner bucket, and he always saved the cake for me. He gave me that cake. Yes, he took the cake into the mine, but he didn't eat the cake. He always saved the cake for me.

So on this Father's Day, I wish I could tell fathers across America to relax and enjoy the day, to sleep well, basking in the love and affection of their families. I wish I could, but I know they are still worried. That is what a father does.

Madam President, I close with a bit of verse that I memorized as a little boy. Over the years, I have come to appreciate its lesson more and more. I am sure that old coal miner dad knew it, too, for he lived with simple wisdom. It is called ``The Little Chap Who Follows Me.''

A careful man I ought to be,

A little fellow follows me,

I do not dare to go astray

For fear he'll go the selfsame way.

I cannot once escape his eyes,

Whate'er he sees me do, he tries;

Like me, he says, he's going to be,

The little chap who follows me.

He thinks that I am good and fine,

Believes in every word of mine.

The base in me he must not see,

The little chap that follows me.

I must remember as I go,

Through summer's sun and winter's snow,

In building for the years to be

The little chap who follows me.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Arizona.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Republican side for yielding me 10 minutes. So I yield myself 10 minutes.

(The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.''

Mr. President, this coming Monday, Americans across the Nation will hang flags at their doors and place small flags and flowers on the gravesites of loved ones and soldiers in a tradition that stretches deep into history, perhaps back to the advent of warfare.

The selection of the last Monday in May is unique to the United States, but remembering and honoring those fallen in battle is deeply ingrained in the human heart. On this day, these sons and fathers, uncles and brothers and, more recently, daughters and mothers, aunts and nieces are family members to us all. Lost to us too early, their images remain frozen in time, young faces trying to look stern in crisp uniforms. Their sacrifices on battlefields from the Argonne to Tripoli, Pearl Harbor to Iwo Jima, Porkchop Hill to Hamburger Hill, Kabul to Baghdad have kept the Nation safe and carried the American ideals of liberty and democracy across the surface of the globe.

This week, as the Senate struggled and ultimately overcame an arcane but fundamental challenge to our constitutional system of checks and balances, we have, I believe, honored the memory of all of those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They defended the Nation and the Constitution from without; a bipartisan group of Senators this week defended it from within, thank God.

I rejoice that 14 Senators could rise above partisan politics to understand and preserve the carefully crafted balance of powers inscribed in our Constitution. Without the Constitution, the millions of lives and billions of dollars spent over the years on our Nation's defense, the flower of our youth and our hard-earned treasure, would have gone for naught. Our form of Government, acknowledging the might of the majority but protecting the rights of the minority, balancing populous States against States with smaller populations, preserving the voice and will of the people as the ultimate check against the rise of a tyrant king, that is our greatest treasure. It is the preservation of our form of Government that merits committing our young to the bloody horrors of battle.

It is perhaps appropriate, in this context, that the Senate's battle is concluded just before Memorial Day, which originated after our Nation's most divisive and bloody war ever fought on our home soil. The Civil War pit over 2.2 million Union soldiers against just over 1 million Confederate soldiers, resulting in almost 600,000 deaths, a third in battle and the rest from war's accompanying furies of disease and privation. It is a tribute to the heart's powers of healing that soon after the war, individuals and communities could put aside their differences in the graveyard and simply mourn their losses together.

Over 42 million American patriots have risked their lives for our Nation since the Revolutionary War. Over 17 million war veterans, of among over 25 million veterans of military service, live among us still. I salute them all, and thank them and their families for their bravery and their patriotism.

Of the 42 million Americans who saw battle during their military service, over 650,000 died in battle. That is 650,000 families who received the terrible news that their loved one had been killed. In World War II, the tragic news often came by telegram, and Americans learned to dread the sight of those envelopes.

As of May 23, 2005, in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom, 1,623 families have answered the door to the solemn faces of two officers whose hard duty it is to report the tragic news that another life has been lost. Another 186 families have gotten the same sad news coming from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. My prayers go out to these families. There are no words that can console the grieving heart at times like these. The widow's flag, folded with care after a military ceremony, offers little comfort. But these brave men and women, and the families they leave behind, are part of a long chain of sacrifice and grief that firm the resolve of the Nation. Never should we forget their service to the Nation and the Constitution. Never should we squander their sacrifice on momentary partisan advantages that erode the integrity of the Constitution and, in turn, the continued health and vitality of our form of government.

On this Memorial Day, and on every Memorial Day, I urge Americans to put out their flags and to honor the fallen. I further urge them, in the spirit of those first Memorial Days, to put aside partisanship in favor of true patriotism, and to love and preserve our Nation and our Constitution in a lasting tribute to those who have given their lives in its defense.

As is my custom on these occasions, I would like to close with a poem. This piece is by Edgar Guest, and is called, ``Memorial Day.''

Memorial Day

The finest tribute we can pay

Unto our hero dead today,

Is not a rose wreath, white and red,

In memory of the blood they shed;

It is to stand beside each mound,

Each couch of consecrated ground,

And pledge ourselves as warriors true

Unto the work they died to do.

Into God's valleys where they lie

At rest, beneath the open sky,

Triumphant now o'er every foe,

As living tributes let us go.

No wreath of rose or immortelles

Or spoken word or tolling bells

Will do today, unless we give

Our pledge that liberty shall live.

Our hearts must be the roses red

We place above our hero dead;

Today beside their graves we must

Renew allegiance to their trust;

Must bare our heads and humbly say

We hold the Flag as dear as they,

And stand, as once they stood, to die

To keep the Stars and Stripes on high.

The finest tribute we can pay

Unto our hero dead today

Is not of speech or roses red,

But living, throbbing hearts instead,

That shall renew the pledge they sealed

With death upon the battlefield;

That freedom's flag shall bear no stain

And free men wear no tyrant's chain.

``No Tyrant's Chain.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing S. 1133, the Clean Coal Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Act of 2005. I am proud to have Senators Rockefeller and Specter as cosponsors of my bill. This comprehensive clean coal technology legislation will help provide for a new era for coal. I have looked into the past; I recognize the enormous challenges that are before us; and I see coal's future.

The bill authorizes important programs at the Department of Energy as

well as provides a major package of targeted federal energy tax incentives. It supports a research and development program and tax incentives to encourage the use of advanced coal technologies at coal- fired power plants. The bill also promotes a major investment in a national industrial gasification program. It is a balanced and financially sound proposal, and it recognizes that there are new horizons opening for coal.

The Byrd-Rockefeller-Specter bill works to balance these ever expanding opportunities in a very reasonable and responsible way. We must move forward with the development and deployment of advanced power generation and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Coal also has a future in producing chemicals, alternative transportation fuels, and other important products for use in the economy. My legislation can begin to initiate that effort.

There are those who have wanted to push coal aside like stove wood and horse power as novelties from a bygone era. But we cannot ignore coal as part of the solution to our future energy challenges. Over the past several years, I have been diligently assembling a set of proposals that can provide a comprehensive approach for the near- and long-term viability for coal, both at home and abroad. It is time that we reexamine the opportunities for coal, and let the past be our guide to the future.

Mr. President, I hope other Senators will review S. 1133, and I urge them to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing S. 1133, the Clean Coal Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Act of 2005. I am proud to have Senators Rockefeller and Specter as cosponsors of my bill. This comprehensive clean coal technology legislation will help provide for a new era for coal. I have looked into the past; I recognize the enormous challenges that are before us; and I see coal's future.

The bill authorizes important programs at the Department of Energy as

well as provides a major package of targeted federal energy tax incentives. It supports a research and development program and tax incentives to encourage the use of advanced coal technologies at coal- fired power plants. The bill also promotes a major investment in a national industrial gasification program. It is a balanced and financially sound proposal, and it recognizes that there are new horizons opening for coal.

The Byrd-Rockefeller-Specter bill works to balance these ever expanding opportunities in a very reasonable and responsible way. We must move forward with the development and deployment of advanced power generation and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Coal also has a future in producing chemicals, alternative transportation fuels, and other important products for use in the economy. My legislation can begin to initiate that effort.

There are those who have wanted to push coal aside like stove wood and horse power as novelties from a bygone era. But we cannot ignore coal as part of the solution to our future energy challenges. Over the past several years, I have been diligently assembling a set of proposals that can provide a comprehensive approach for the near- and long-term viability for coal, both at home and abroad. It is time that we reexamine the opportunities for coal, and let the past be our guide to the future.

Mr. President, I hope other Senators will review S. 1133, and I urge them to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, yesterday I voted to invoke cloture on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Today I shall vote to confirm her nomination by an up-or-down vote.

I voted to invoke cloture on this nominee and have committed to do so on a number of other pending nominees to preserve the right of extended debate in the Senate. For 200 years, Senators have enjoyed the right to speak at length on matters dear to them. This essential right has been rightfully employed for generations to protect minority rights--both in the Senate and nationwide.

It would have been a travesty to have permitted this cherished right of extended debate to be extinguished simply as the result of a political squabble

over a handful of judges. While passions over these seven judges have run high, it is necessary for the Senate to look at the bigger picture and stop this partisan bickering over these few judges. Now is the time for logic and reason. Now is the time for cooler heads to prevail to address the truly weighty matters that confront our nation--matters like the need of every American to obtain necessary health care, sufficient pension benefits, and affordable energy.

I voted four times previously not to invoke cloture on Priscilla Owen because I respected the right of the Senate to hear further debate concerning her qualifications, her philosophy, her temperament, and exactly what she would be like if she were confirmed to fill this lifetime position on the Federal bench. Having examined these aspects, as well as her prior record as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, I shall vote in support of her nomination.

I know that some critics assail Justice Owen's belief that, in certain circumstances, minors should be required to notify their parents prior to obtaining an abortion. However, I cannot help but believe that in many, but perhaps not all, cases, young women would do well to seek guidance from their parents or legal guardians, who would have their best interests at heart when these young women are confronted with making such a difficult decision--a life-altering decision that carries with it extraordinary consequences. I have a long history of support for parental notification in these kinds of difficult circumstances. For example, in 1991, I supported legislation that would have required entities receiving grants under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide parental notification in the case of minor patients who seek an abortion. Based on my examination of the totality of circumstances that surround this nomination, I have decided to support the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Mr. President, I read from the King James version of the Holy Bible, from the 22nd chapter of Proverbs, the 28th verse:

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have

set.

Mr. President, in his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln observed that:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with

firmness in the right, as God give us to see the right, let

us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the

nation's wounds. . . .

Mr. President, I have always believed that the Senate, by its nature, attracts and probably also creates men and

women of the quality and character who are able to step up when faced with crises that threaten the ship of state, to calm the dangerous seas which, from time to time, threaten to dash our Republic against rocky shoals and jagged shores.

The Senate proved it to be true again yesterday, when 14 Members-- from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats; 14 Members--of this revered institution came together to avert the disaster referred to as the ``nuclear option'' or the ``constitutional option''--these men and women of great courage.

As William Gladstone said, in referring to the Senate of the United States, the Senate is

that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the

inventions of modern politics.

I thank all of those Republicans and Democrats who worked together to keep faith with the Framers and the Founding Fathers. We have kept the faith with those whose collective vision gave us this marvelous piece of work, the Constitution of the United States. Thank God--thank God-- that this work has been done and that it has been preserved, that a catastrophe has been averted.

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate, and ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' to ``appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. . . .''

There are two parts to that phrase: the ``advice'' on the one hand, and the ``consent'' on the other, and both must be present before any President can appoint any nominee to the Supreme Court or any other Federal court. It is, therefore, a shared responsibility between the U.S. Senate and the President of the United States.

By its agreement yesterday, the Senate is keeping that construct alive, this shared responsibility between the President of the United States, on the one hand, and the Senate of the United States, on the other.

The agreement that was obtained yesterday by the cooperation between and among the 14 Members of the Senate--representing Republicans and Democrats--it was that agreement that reminds us of the words of our Constitution, by encouraging the President of the United States, on the one hand, to consult with the Senate of the United States, on the other. In other words, the Senate will be in on the takeoff, meaning prior to sending up his nominees for our consideration. In recent times--and by that I mean under Presidents of both parties--there has not been all that much consultation by the President with the Senate.

So here we are, in the Senate, offering the hand of partnership to the Chief Executive and saying: Consult with us. That is what the Framers intended, that the President of the United States should consult with the Senate. You don't have to take our advice, but here it is. And by considering that advice, it only stands to reason that any President will be more assured that his nominees will enjoy a kinder reception in the Senate.

The agreement, which references the need for ``advice and consent,'' as contained in the Constitution, proves once again, as has been true for over 200 years, that our revered Constitution is not simply a dry piece of parchment. It is a living document.

Yesterday's agreement was a real-life illustration of how this historical document continues to be vital in our daily lives. It inspires, it teaches, and yesterday it helped the country and the Senate avoid a serious catastrophe.

Mr. President, for this reason and others, I ask that at the end of my remarks the agreement reached by the 14 Senators be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I do this so that we in the Senate and the President may all have a way of easily revisiting the text of that agreement for future reference.

On the heels of this agreement, I believe that we should now move forward, propelled by its positive energy, in a new direction. We should make every effort to restore reason to the politically partisan fervor that has overtaken our Senate, this city, and our country. We must stop arguing and start legislating.

Divisive political agendas are not America's goals. The right course lies someplace in the middle. It is our job to work as elected representatives of a reasonable people to do what is right, regardless of threats from any of the angry groups that seem dedicated to intimidation. The skeptics, the cynics, the doubters, the Pharisees, those who are intoxicated by the juice of sour grapes did not prevail and must not prevail. The 14 Republican and Democratic Senators rose above those who do not wish to see accord but prefer discord.

Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales''--we have all read Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales'' in high school--contains ``The Pardoner's Tale.''

The story tells about the journey by the pilgrims to Canterbury, to the shrine of Canterbury. The scene took place in Flanders, where once there sat drinking in a tavern three young men who were much given to folly. As they sat, they heard a small bell clink before a corpse that was being carried to the grave. Whereupon, one of the three called to his knave and ordered him to go and find out the name of the corpse that was passing by.

The boy answered that he already knew and that it was an old comrade of the roisterers who had been slain, while drunk, by an unseen thief called ``Death,'' who had slain others in recent days.

And so out into the road the three young ruffians went in search of this monster called Death. They came upon an old man and seized him, and with rough language they demanded that he tell them where they could find this cowardly adversary who was taking the lives of their good friends around the countryside.

The old man pointed to a great oak tree on a nearby knoll, saying, ``There, under that tree you will find Death,'' that monster. In a drunken rage, the three roisterers set off in a run until they came to the tree, and there they found a pile of gold--eight basketfuls of florins, newly minted, round, gold coins. Forgotten was the monster called Death, as the three pondered their good fortune. And they decided that they should remain with the gold until nightfall, when they would divide it among themselves and take it to their respective homes. It would be unsafe, they reasoned, to attempt to do so in broad daylight, as they might be fallen upon by thieves who would take their treasure from them.

It was proposed that the three draw straws, and the person who drew the shortest straw would go into the nearby village and purchase some bread and wine and cheese, which they could then enjoy as they whiled away the daylight hours. So off toward the village the young man who drew the shortest straw went. When he was out of sight, the remaining two decided that there was no good reason why this fortune, this pile of gold, should be divided among three individuals. So one of them said to the other, ``When he returns, you throw your arm around him as if in good sport, as in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger, and with your dagger, you can do the same. Then all of this gold will be divided not among three of us but just between two of us--you and me.''

Meanwhile, while the two were planning the demise of the third, the youngest rogue, as he made his way into the town, thought to himself what a shame it would be that the gold would be divided among three, when it just as well could be so easily belong only to the ownership of one, himself. Therefore, in town the young man went directly to an apothecary and asked to be sold some poison for the large rats and a polecat that had been killing his chickens. The apothecary--the pharmacist--quickly provided some poison, saying that as much as equaled only a tiny grain of wheat would result immediately in sudden death for the creature that drank the mixture.

Having purchased the poison, the young villain crossed the street to a winery, where he purchased three bottles--two for his friends, one for himself. After he left the village, he sat down, opened two bottles of wine and deposited an equal portion in each, and then returned to the oak tree, where the two older villains did as they had planned. One threw his arm, as if in jest, around the shoulders of the third, and both buried their daggers in him. He fell dead on the pile of gold. The

other two villains then sat down, broke the bread, cut the cheese, and opened the two bottles of wine. Each took a good, deep swallow, and then, suffering a most excruciating pain, both fell dead upon the pile of gold and upon the body of the third. So there they were across the pile of gold, all three of them dead.

Their avarice, their greed for gain, their love of material things had destroyed them. There is a lesson here in Chaucer's Tales, as given to us by ``The Pardoner.'' The strong temptation for political partisanship that has prevailed in the Senate can tear this Senate apart and can tear the Nation apart and confront all of us with destruction, so that in the end we three--the President, the Senate, and the people--will all be destroyed, as it were.

So we almost saw that happen here on the Senate floor--until yesterday, when that catastrophe, looming as it was before the Senate, was averted. I applaud the fact that the center, the anchor, held, and we stood together for the good of the country against mean-spirited, shallow, political ends.

Mr. President, I implore all of us to endeavor to lift our eyes to the higher things. We can perform some much needed healing on the body politic. If we can come together in a dignified way to orderly and expeditiously move forward on these nominations, perhaps we can yet salvage a bit of respect and trust from the American people for all of us, for the Senate, and for our institutions of free government.

We have a duty, at this critical time, to rise above politics as usual, in which we savage one another, and in so doing, destroy ourselves, like the three villains in ``The Pardoner's Tale.''

Let us put the Nation first. The American people want us to do that. In the long run, that is how we will be judged and, more importantly, it is how the Senate will be judged.

It is easy to tear down; it is difficult to build.

I saw them tearing a building down,

A group of men in a busy town.

With a ``Ho, Heave, Ho and a lusty yell,

They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.

I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled?

The type you would hire if you had to build.''

He laughed, and then he said, ``No indeed,

Just common labor is all I need;

I can easily erect in a day or two,

That which takes builders years to do.''

I said to myself as I walked away,

``Which of these roles am I trying to play?

Am I a builder who works with care,

Building my life by the rule and square?

Am I shaping my deeds by well-laid plan,

Patiently building the best I can?

Or am I a wrecker who walks the town

Content with the labor of tearing down.''

Mr. President, it is easy to tear down, but it takes a long time to build. We have been 217 years in building this Senate, making it what it was intended to be by the Framers who wrote it 219 years ago, who established three equal coordinate branches of Government, who established a separation of powers, who established checks and balances in this Constitution of the United States.

The work of those Framers and the work of the larger group of Founders took 219 years. It was about to be destroyed in a single day, this day. But thank God 14 Senators from both sides of the aisle met and rose above partisan politics and kept the faith with the Framers and with the Founders so that our posterity might enjoy the blessings of liberty, the blessings of freedom of speech, the roots of which go all the way back to the reign of Henry IV, who reigned from 1399 to 1413 and who in 1407 proclaimed that the members of Parliament--the House of Lords and the House of Commons--could speak freely and without fear.

And those words were written into the Declaration of Rights, which declaration was submitted to William III of Orange and Mary, a Declaration of Rights which included freedom of speech in Parliament. That declaration was presented on February 13, 1689, to William III and Mary. They both accepted it and were then proclaimed by the House of Commons joint sovereigns of the nation.

Then, on December 18, 1689, those words were included in a statute, the English Bill of Rights--freedom of speech, the roots going back a long way. That freedom of speech then was provided to those of us in the Senate, provided by the Constitution, and since 1806, when the provision for the previous question was discarded upon the recommendation of Vice President Aaron Burr, since 1806 that provision for the previous question or the sudden cutting off debate was discarded. Since 1806, until the year 1917, the year in which I was born during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, that freedom of speech has prevailed in the Senate, and it has lived since then except for unanimous consent agreements and the cloture provision which was first agreed to in 1917, the cloture provision shutting off debate under the rules of the Senate.

Freedom of speech has reigned in this body, and it still lives, thanks again to the 14 Republicans and Democrats who rose above politics yesterday and came forward with this accord.

So, Mr. President, let us be true to the faith of our fathers and to the expectation of those who founded this Republic. The coming days will test us again and again, but let us go forward together hoping that in the end, the Senate will be perceived as having stood the test, and may we, both Republicans and Democrats and Independents, when our work is done, be judged by the American people and by the pages of history as having done our duty and as having done it well.

Our supreme duty is not to any particular person, not to any particular President, not to any political party, but to the Constitution, to the people of the Nation, and to the future of this Republic. It is in that spirit that we may do well to remember the words of Benjamin Hill, a great Senator, a great orator from the State of Georgia, his words being inscribed on a statue in Atlanta, GA, as they are and as they appear today upon that monument:

Who saves his country saves himself, saves all things, and

all things saved do bless him. Who let's his country die dies

himself ignobly, and all things dying curse him.

Remember that ancient proverb: Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

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

Exhibit 1

Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date,

rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and

Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an

understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust

and confidence, related to pending and future judicial

nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the

currently pending judicial nominations; Part II relates to

subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President

and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke

cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers

Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and

Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment

to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial

nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th

Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their

responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the

United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should

only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and

each signatory must use his or her own discretion and

judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing

commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the

rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to

be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the

Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by

means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United

States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to

consultation between the Senate and the President with regard

to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We

encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with

members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior

to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for

consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may

well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately

accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the

traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators

seek to uphold.

E. Benjamin Nelson, Mike DeWine, Joe Lieberman, Susan

Collins, Mark Pryor, Lindsey Graham, Lincoln Chafee,

John

McCain, John Warner, Robert C. Byrd, Mary Landrieu,

Olympia Snowe, Ken Salazar, and Daniel Inouye.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak sadly. I have been a Member of Congress--now I am in my 53rd year. Two other members have served longer than I. Only 11,752 men and women have served in the Congress of the United States since the Republic began in 1789. That is 217 years. Those two Members were the late Senator Carl Hayden of Arizona, who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee when I came to this body, and Representative Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, who was a member of the House Appropriations Committee, a man with whom I served. So only two others have served longer in the Congress, meaning the House of Representatives or the Senate or both--only two.

I say to Senators and you, Mr. President, can you imagine my feelings as I stand now to speak in this Senate, which tomorrow--24 to 36 to 48 hours from now--may be changed from what it was when it began, when it first met in April of 1789 and from what it was when I came here to the Senate now going on 47 years ago.

I can see Everett Dirksen as he stood at that desk. He was the then- minority leader. Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas was the majority leader. Yes, I can see Norris Cotton. I can see George Aiken. I can see Jack Javits. I can see Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, the only woman in the Senate at that time, as she sat on the front row of the Republican side of the aisle. I can see others, yes.

How would they have voted? How would they have voted on this question which will confront us tomorrow? How would they have voted? I have no doubt as to how they would have voted. I have no doubt as to how they would vote were they here tomorrow. And so my heart is sad that we would even come to a moment such as this. Sad, sad, sad, sad it is.

I rise today to make a request of my fellow Senators. In so doing, I reach out to all Senators on both sides of the aisle, respectful of the institution of the Senate and of the opinions of all Senators, respectful of the institution of the Presidency as well. I ask each Senator to pause for a moment and reflect seriously on the role of the Senate as it has existed now for 217 years, and on the role that it will play in the future if the so-called nuclear option or the so- called constitutional option--one in the same--is invoked.

I implore Senators to step back--step back, step back, step back-- from the precipice. Step back away from the cameras and the commentators and contemplate the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Things are not right, and the American people know that things are not right. The political discourse in our country has become so distorted, so unpleasant, so strident, so unbelievable, it is no wonder, then, that people are turning to a place of serenity, a place that they trust to seek the truth. They are turning to their religious faith in a time of ever-quickening contradictory messages transmitted by e-mail, by BlackBerrys, by Palm Pilots, answering machines, Tivo, voice mail, satellite TV, cell phones, Fox News, and so many other media outlets. America is suffering sensory overload.

We hear a lot of talk, but we do not know what to make of it. So some are turning to a place of quiet, a secure place, a place where they can find peace. They are turning to their faith, their religious faith.

Our Nation seems to be at a crossroads. People are seeking answers to legitimate questions about the future of our country, the future of our judiciary, and what role religions play in public lives. But it is difficult to find the quiet time to contemplate or to build a consensus in response to these profound questions when the venues for serious discussion of these issues often amount to little more than ``shoutfests,'' ``hardball,'' and ``Crossfire.''

Mr. President, what is next, ``Slash and Burn'' ``Your faith or mine?'' Perhaps because so few traditional channels of communication even now in the Senate provide a venue for thoughtful discussion, Americans are seeking answers to political and legal questions not in Congress or in the courts but through a higher power, through their religious faith.

In fact, it is the reaction of some to recent court decisions that has fueled the drive by a sincere minority, perhaps, in this country, the drive, where it might be a majority in this country, the drive toward the pillars of faith.

Many American citizens since the early religious people are angered and alienated by a belief that their views are not respected in the political process. They are deeply frustrated, and I am in sympathy with such feelings. I do not agree with many of the decisions that have come from the courts concerning prayer in school or concerning prohibitions on the display of religious items in public places.

For example, concerning freedom of religion, the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses but have focused only on the first clause which prohibits the establishment of religion, with too little attention and at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was never to suppress religion but to ensure that our Government favors no single religion over another. This is reflected in Thomas Jefferson's insistence on religious liberty in the founding of our Republic. In his Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Jefferson wrote that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinion or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Engel v. Vitale. In that case, a group of politically appointed State officials drafted a prayer to be recited every day in the New York public schools, but the Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that the practice violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. While I strongly support voluntary prayer in schools, I can understand how the Supreme Court refused to require schoolchildren to recite a prayer that was drafted by government bureaucrats to be force-fed to every child. That decision rested on a principle that makes a lot of sense to me--namely, that government itself may not seek either to discourage or to promote religion.

In response to a question about the role of religion in society, President Bush recently stated that he believes religion is a personal matter--and it is a personal matter. It is a personal matter, something that must be revered but not imposed by the Government. The Federal Government must not prevent us from praying, but it should not tell us how to pray, either. That is a personal matter. That is a personal decision.

On May 5, our National Day of Prayer, the President reminded us that this special day was an annual event established in 1952 by an act of Congress. Yet, as said, it is part of a broader tradition that reaches back to the beginnings of America. So the President reminded us that from the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock to the launch of the American Revolution, the men and women who founded this Nation in freedom relied on prayer to protect and to preserve it. And, of course, the President was right.

Thus, we can all understand the outrage of many good people of faith who decry the nature of our popular culture with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism.

They have every reason to seek some sort of remedy, but these frustrations, great as they are, must not be allowed to destroy crucial institutional mechanisms in the Senate that have protected minority rights for over 200 years and, when necessary, must be available to curtail the power of a power-hungry Executive. Yet this is the outcome sought by those who propose to attack the filibuster.

At such times as these, the character of the leaders of this country is sorely tested. Our best leaders search for ways to avert such crises, not ways to accelerate the plunge toward the brink. Overheated partisan rhetoric is always available, of course, but the majority of Americans want a healthy two-party system built on mutual respect, and they want leaders who know how to work together. In fact, Americans admire most leaders who seek to do right, even when doing so does not prove politically advantageous in the short term.

The so-called nuclear option has been around for a long time. It didn't require a genius to figure that one out. Any cabbagehead who fell off of a turnip truck could have done that. That is easy to figure out. It has been around since the cloture rule was adopted in 1917-- yes. I call it the turnip truck option, not the nuclear option, not the constitutional option. I call it the turnip truck option. It could have been talked about and suggested by someone who fell off a turnip truck and got up and dusted himself off and got back on the truck and fell off the turnip truck again--so turnip truck No. 2. Let it be that.

The nuclear option, as I say, has been around for a long time, but previous leaders of the Senate and previous Presidents, previous White Houses, did not seek to foist this turnip truck option upon the Senate and upon the right of the American people to have freedom of speech on the part of their representatives in the Senate.

So the nuclear option--yes, it has been around for a long time. Nobody wanted to resort to such a suicidal weapon. But until today, wisdom and cooler heads prevailed. In 1841, for example, a Democratic minority tried to block a bank bill supported by Henry Clay. Clay threatened to change the Senate's rules to allow the majority--have you heard that before?--to allow the majority to stop debate, just like our current majority leader. I say this respectfully. But Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, Henry Clay, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

There is no need to tamper with the Senate's right of extended debate. It has been around for a long time. In 1806, the Senate left it out of the Senate's rules. In the 1806 version of the Senate's rules, ``the previous question,'' as it now is still being used in the House, ``the previous question'' was left out, left behind. It had only been used a few times prior to 1806. It was in the 1789 rules of the Senate, yes. It was in the rules of the Continental Congress, ``the previous question.'' It is in the rules of the British Parliament, yes. But the Senate, in 1806, decided, on the basis and upon the advisement of the Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr, to discard it.

The text of the actual cloture rule, rule XXII, was not adopted by the Senate until 1917, the year in which I was born. Today, rule XXII allows the Senate to end a debate with 60 votes, what we call invoking cloture. I offered that resolution, to provide for a supermajority of 60 votes to invoke cloture. I believe it was 1975. That was a resolution which I introduced. So that is what we have today. But from 1919 to 1962, the Senate voted on cloture petitions only 27 times and invoked cloture only 5 times.

Political invective and efforts to divide America along religious lines may distract the electorate for the moment, but if, heaven forbid, there should be a true crisis or calamity in our country, the American people will stand shoulder to shoulder to support our country. Why can't we, then, their Senators, their leaders, find the courage to come together and solve this problem?

Nearly 4 years ago, our Nation was attacked by al-Qaida. In a Herculean effort, we came together to help the good people of New York and the patriotic citizens who worked at the Pentagon. Why can't we find some of that spirit today in the Senate? The time-honored role of the Senate as protector of minority views is at risk, and those who are in the majority today may be in the minority tomorrow. Don't forget that--the worm turns.

Our country has serious problems. Baby boomers are facing retirement with sorely diminished savings, savings hard to accrue in the face of exploding prices for gasoline, prescription drugs, housing, fuel, medicine and shelter--not frivolous purchases, all essential to survival. Alarmingly, all are becoming less affordable, even for affluent Americans. But beyond them, what is happening to America's poor today? Has anybody noticed? Has anybody noticed?

The point is that the current uproar over the filibuster serves only to underscore the mounting number of real problems--real problems--not being addressed by this Government of ours. Over 45 million persons in our country, some 15 percent of our population, cannot afford health insurance. Is your father included? Is your mother included in that number? Is your grandfather included? Is your grandmother included in that number?

Our veterans lack adequate medical care after they have risked life and limb for all of us. Our education system produces 8th graders ranked 19 out of 38 countries in the world in mathematics and 12th graders ranked 19 out of 21 countries in both math and science. Poverty in these United States is rising, with 34 million people or 12.4 percent of the population living below the poverty level. Think of it. Our infant mortality rate is the second highest of the major industrialized countries of the world.

Yet we debate and we seek solutions to none--none--none of these critical problems. Instead, what do we focus on? We focus all energy-- we sweat, we perspire, we weaken ourselves, we focus all energy on the frenzy over whether to confirm seven previously considered nominees who were not confirmed by the Senate in the 108th Congress. Doesn't that seem kind of odd? Isn't that kind of odd? That seems a bit irrational, doesn't it, I say. Hear me. Maybe it sounds crazy. If I wanted to go crazy, I would do it in Washington because nobody would take notice, at least, so said Irvin S. Cobb. Would anyone apply such thinking to their own lives? My colleagues, would you insist on resubmitting the same lottery ticket if you knew it was not a winner?

Unfortunately, many Americans seek as an anecdote to their frustrations with our current system a confrontation--yes, we have to have it--a confrontation over these seven nominees and the preposterous solution of permanently crippling freedom of speech and debate and the right of a minority to dissent in the Senate.

I ask the Senate, please, I ask the Senate majority leader, please, I ask the Senator minority leader, please, I ask the White House.

I noticed the other day, I believe last Thursday, in the Washington Post--I will bring it with me tomorrow--I noticed that the White House did not want to compromise on this matter. The White House did not want to compromise. Here we have the executive branch talking to the legislative branch, two of the three branches, two of the three equal coordinate branches of Government, talking through the newspapers that it does not want to compromise.

I ask the Senate to take a moment today to reflect on the potentially disastrous consequences that could flow from invoking the so-called nuclear option. Anger will erupt. It may not be the next day or immediately. One may not see these things come about immediately, but in time they will come. They will come, they will come, they will come. Anger will erupt in the Chamber and it will be difficult to address real problems.

I implore, I beseech, I importune, I beg the Senate to consider how posterity will review such a significant occurrence, destroying 217 years of checks and balances established so carefully by the Founding Fathers 219 years ago. Will the light of posterity shine favorably on the shattering of Senate precedent solely to confirm these seven nominees, nominees whose names have been before the Senate for consideration in the previous administration? Won't this maneuver be viewed for what it really is, a misguided attempt to strong-arm the Senate for a political purpose driven by

anger and raw ambition and lust for power? Will that be remembered as a profile in courage?

What has happened to the quality of leadership in this country that will allow us even to consider provoking a constitutional crisis of such magnitude?

I tell you, I am deeply, deeply troubled. I am almost sick about it, the frustration that I have had over thinking about this, this awful thing that is about to happen, unless we draw back.

Have we lost our ability to look toward the larger good? Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure and whether it be right. That is according to Proverbs, 20th chapter, 11th verse.

I ask the Senate to come together and to work toward a compromise. Yes, the Washington Post last Thursday said the White House doesn't want a compromise. But I beg the Senate, I beg those on the other side of the aisle and those on my side of the aisle to reach a compromise, work toward a compromise.

What the current majority seeks to employ against the minority today can be turned against the majority tomorrow.

John Adams once said:

Even mankind will, in time, discover that unbridled

majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.

Does not history prove as much? I ask the Senate to seek a compromise. Where is the gentle art of compromise? Edmund Burke once stated:

All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment,

every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise

and barter.

Let the Senate step away from this abyss and see the wisdom of coming together to preserve the checks and balances. May we stop and draw back and remember that we are all Americans before we permanently damage this institution, the Senate of the United States, and in doing so, permanently damage the Constitution as we permanently damage this institution, the Senate of the United States, and the country we love.

I yield the floor.