Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we are resuming our work on the Department of Defense authorization bill. This afternoon provides a good opportunity for Senators to come to the floor and offer Defense- related amendments. Under last week's order, at 4 o'clock today the Senate will proceed to executive session to begin consideration of Sandra Ikuta to be a circuit court judge for the Ninth Circuit. We have allocated an hour of debate on the nomination and, therefore, the vote will occur at 5 p.m. on the Ikuta nomination.

Tomorrow we will return to Defense authorization again. I encourage Members to work with the two bill managers to determine the best time to debate their amendments. I hope the Senate will maintain focus on the pending issue of authorizing appropriations for our military activities. We can complete this bill in a reasonable period of time this week if Senators will work with the chairman and ranking member on relevant amendments. Our two managers have a great deal of experience in shepherding this bill through on the floor and have already done a great job working together to clear amendments on both sides of the aisle.

Having said that, I look forward to moving forward on this bill and completing our work on it at the earliest possible time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, a lot of discussion has been going on in the Senate with regard to a shift that we are making that I don't entirely agree with. That is a shift off of the underlying bill--not literally off the bill but in terms of substance--addressing the issue of minimum wage that my colleague from Massachusetts has addressed.

Personally, as I have explained to my colleagues, I don't believe this is the appropriate bill on which to be addressing the minimum wage. We should be debating the war on terror and the progress that has been achieved in Iraq and the way we can further that success in the future.

We have agreed to set aside amendments so that the Senator from Massachusetts can offer an amendment on the minimum wage, and I second- degreed that amendment with a child custody protection amendment.

Our discussions have led to the understanding that after we figure out how we are going to address both the minimum wage and child custody protection over the course of this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow, we will get around to having a vote on the minimum wage issue.

There has been some discussion whether we had to file cloture on the minimum wage or on child custody protection, but we agree that, after further discussion, we will figure out the most appropriate manner to bring to the floor and address these issues over the next--I am not sure how long it will take, but figure out exactly how long that is. I do encourage our Members to come to the floor and to continue debating the underlying bill as well, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Again, I wish that neither one of these issues that we just offered were going to be debated on this particular bill, but I understand it is the right of each Senator to come forward and offer those two bills.

Again, I will turn to my colleague from Massachusetts to make a statement as to whether that is the general understanding of where we are.

That is correct.

The challenge with the Department of Defense authorization bill is really just this, what is playing out; that is, for us to address what is the issue, I believe, that is most important to the United States today. That is supporting our men and women who are fighting so bravely and gallantly for us right now in this war on terror.

Thus, I believe that a minimum wage amendment should not be debated on this particular bill, but it looks like it will be debated on this particular bill. In the colloquy that was just entertained, it is clear we will be debating it on the bill.

It was clear last week the other side did not really want to stay on this issue of debating Iraq, surrounding Iraq. And by offering this amendment, they made it clear they do want to shift debate off to an entirely different issue, an issue that does have a time and a place that is more appropriate for it to be addressed. At that time, we should be debating the overall economy and the impact that it would have on small business and on jobs in this country.

We need to also have that debate on how to maintain, to continue the strong economic growth that we are seeing in this country today because of President Bush's strong progrowth economic policies which have created 5.3 million jobs in the last 3 years. We have unemployment that is down to 4.7 percent, which is lower than the average of the 1990s and 1980s and 1970s.

In order to keep the economy growing, we need to continue to debate how to open new markets, how to reduce the burden on our economy of taxation and regulation, how we make education more affordable, how we tackle health care costs--all of which are very important issues.

Again, I prefer not to debate all those issues on this important bill, the Department of Defense authorization bill. We need to look, at some point, at the issues surrounding our overall economy, a progrowth package, and look at the issues surrounding the minimum wage, but to do it in isolation on a totally unrelated bill I don't think is the way to go.

On this bill, I do believe America can do better.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, at 10:45, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. The bill's two managers, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, will be here to continue to work on this important bill. Although there will be no votes during today's session, Senators are encouraged to come today and speak on the bill. Senators who are intending to offer amendments should be consulting with the managers on getting their amendments in the queue.

Senators are reminded there is a scheduled vote for 5:30 on Monday on a U.S. circuit judge nomination. We could possibly have additional votes on Monday evening on amendments to the Defense bill.

Mr. President, just very briefly, I want to comment on the supplemental appropriations bill we passed yesterday morning.

I commend Senator Cochran and really both of the managers, and all of our colleagues, as well as the House, and especially Congressman Lewis, for their leadership in crafting a package that reflects our commitment to economic growth, that keeps America moving forward, that is fiscally responsible.

As the majority says time and time again, the Federal budget is not the Government's money. It is the taxpayers' money. Americans work hard to get what they earn. And it is our responsibility to spend that money wisely, appropriately.

That is why we are working hard to crack down on excessive Washington spending. And I think the way that supplemental bill was handled from the beginning, and especially at the end, reflects that fiscal responsibility. As we all know, that bill did reflect a lot of priorities of this body, but it grew and grew and grew. Once that bill was taken to conference, under the leadership of Chairman Cochran and Congressman Lewis, it was scaled back down to meet the specific guidelines and request of the President of the United States. I think we exercised fiscal restraint and responsibility, but still there is a lot more we do need to do in terms of demonstrating that fiscal restraint and that responsibility.

One of our big challenges is the fact that much of our spending is on autopilot. We see that in our entitlement programs. Also, our budgetary process--the way it is conducted--leaves little time for oversight as to the spending.

I mention that because I want to express my strong support for the efforts of our budget chairman, Senator Gregg, for an act that is called the SOS Act, called the Stop Overspending Act, that will be marked up by his committee, addressed in his committee next week. What it is--and he introduced it to many of us this week--is a broad package on the budgetary process. It is a package of reforms that will tamp down on and give us the tools and ways to control excessive spending.

It adopts the President's proposal to establish a legislative line- item veto. It would reestablish spending caps which have been used effectively in the past. It initiates across-the-board reductions in entitlement spending if the Federal deficit fails to meet specific established targets.

It includes a proposal I have been very supportive of and introduced actually when I first arrived in the Senate to put the budget on a 2- year budget cycle, thereby giving us time for appropriate oversight.

I realize enacting this entire bold package--comprehensive in many ways, this SOS package--would be a huge challenge, particularly in Washington where the forces of spending from below, from within, remain so strong. But achieving even one of the reforms or, hopefully, several of the reforms of this package would be a major

victory in the battle to control spending. It is my goal to accomplish just that before I leave the Senate.

So just like every family has to make tough tradeoffs and live within their means, Congress should, too.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, in a few moments we will be closing for the week. Before we leave, I want to take just a few moments to reflect on a very special holiday coming up this weekend, and that is Father's Day.

On Sunday, families all across America will celebrate their dads with dinners and lunches and gifts and, if my

family is typical, some gentle teasing over the course of the day.

It is a day that we show our gratitude and how important our dads are--and have been and continue to be--in our lives.

In my own case, I cherish my memories of my dad. I think of him each and every day. He was my mentor in medicine, mentor in public service, mentor in humanitarian efforts, and my friend. It was his love and his wisdom and his encouragement that gave me the confidence to work outside of the box, to take risks, and to set high goals.

As I was thinking back a few moments ago as to what I would say, I remembered and recall most vividly, after returning back to Nashville, TN, and working at Vanderbilt--after having been away from Nashville for a long period of time with college and medical school and my internship and residency and training and moving back to Nashville-- every day I would drive by my parents' home on the way to work at Vanderbilt Hospital.

As I would go by that house--and, ironically, it is the same house I live in today, but as I would go by that house, I would think, each day, about the values that dad--both parents and really the entire family--instilled in each of us.

I also used it as a marker place in coming home every night. As I drove by that white house, I would call. That number would be dialed as I was driving by. And by the time I got home, we would complete our conversation, on a daily basis--each and every day.

Indeed, he was an extraordinary man in many ways, not in his accomplishments or just being a great physician, a humble physician treating people throughout middle Tennessee, but in his acts of generosity and in his kindness, known throughout the community for his good works.

My father died in 1998. Mother and Dad both died within about 36 hours of each other of totally independent causes. In truth, it was referred at the funeral as a great love story. A lot of people arrived for the funeral of my dad--my mother died about 30 hours later--and there were two caskets there. Thinking about how tragic it was, in truth it was a manifestation of what was a great love story, a marriage of over 65 years.

Dad, not too long before he died, wrote a letter to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren that he would never know--that is the way he opened the letter to them--passing on in about a two-page letter the insights he had in very simple ways, humble ways. It is a long letter, and I won't read the whole of it but just a few paragraphs.

Again, this is a letter he left to be passed on to future generations. His advice was:

Be happy in your family life. Your family is the most

important thing you can ever have. Love your wife or your

husband. Tell your children how great they are. Encourage

them in everything they do.

Be happy in your community. Charity is so important.

There's so much good to do in the world and so many different

ways to do it.

A little bit later in the letter he wrote:

The world is always changing, and that's a good thing. It's

how you carry yourself in the world that doesn't change.

Morality, integrity, warmth, and kindness are the same things

in 1910, when I was born, or in 2010 or later when you will

be reading this. And that's a good thing, too.

Dad is the one who had the high ideals. I have done my best to try to live up to those ideals and to that sterling example he set before us. I have worked hard as a dad to instill those same values and commitments in my own sons.

This weekend, as we celebrate our fathers and the good news that America's fathers are more present in their children's lives than ever, we all realize that they have a huge impact. Children involved with loving fathers are more likely to do well in school, to have healthy self-esteem, to show empathy, to avoid destructive behaviors. Kids do better with their dads around.

For a while, America seemed to forget this. But now we know in our kids what we have always known in our hearts: America's dads deserve our respect and our support, dads on the frontline who risk their lives for our freedom, dads on the home front who work hard to support their families.

Fatherhood is the most important responsibility a man will ever take on. It is also the most rewarding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 514, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony and representation in a criminal trespass action in Municipal Court in Eugene, OR. In this action, an antiwar protestor has been charged with criminally trespassing on the building housing Senator Ron Wyden's Eugene, OR, office on March 20, 2006, for refusing repeated requests by building management to leave the premises. A trial on the charge of trespass is scheduled to commence on June 20, 2006. The defendant has subpoenaed a member of the Senator's staff who had conversations with the defendant and other protestors before and during the charged events. The enclosed resolution would authorize that staff member to testify in connection with this action, with representation by the Senate legal counsel.

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

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 2 p.m. today for submission of statements only.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 19. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 2766, the Defense authorization bill; further, that the previous order for executive session be changed so that at 4 p.m. on Monday, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Sandra Ikuta; I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided as provided earlier, with the vote now occurring at 5 p.m., and that the remaining provisions of the order stay in effect.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the first vote of the week will occur on Monday afternoon at 5:00. The vote is on a U.S. circuit judge nomination previously scheduled for 5:30. We have moved that up 30 minutes to 5 o'clock. We will extend the length of that vote slightly to allow for Members' arrival based on the previously ordered time.

Next week, we will continue to work through the amendments to the Defense authorization bill. Votes will be scheduled each day.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.