there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 57. the nays are 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to h.r. 847.

the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. reid: madam president, for the benefit of senators, we're working through -- i've had a number of discussions with the republican leader. we hope that we can very quickly lay down the tax bill. mr. mcconnell: in that regard, it's my understanding it's complete and ready and actually -- we could move to that very soon in the next hour or so. mr. reid: madam president, the chairman of the armed services committee gave a speech here on the floor. i have such admiration and respect for senator levin. he does a wonderful job of protecting america in so many different ways, not only chairman of that important committee on armed services, but the committee on investigations and the other things he does.

but he gave a speech here today saying if we don't get on the defense bill today, we won't get it done this year. so in the next little bit, i'm going to make a decision on whether i'm going to move to reconsider the vote on that bill. i want everyone to know that's what i'm going to do. i've got a longer presentation i've worked on to, to make that presentation. before getting into a lot of detail on this, i appreciate everyone's help on this. senator levin, senator lieberman, senator collins who has worked with me trying to see some way to get this completed. i'll make that decision in the next little bit. having said that, we'll have more information later as to whether -- what the rest of the week holds as far as votes. if we're able to lay down the tax bill early today, i've had a number of requests -- of course, some people want something in it, some people want something out of it. not withstanding, one of the most important things we need to

do, as i have been told, is we have to make sure people don't feel they're jammed -- a word i picked up from senator kyl -- on this legislation. we have to make sure that people have the opportunity to make sure that they have had an opportunity to read it. that being the case, i'll confer with my friend, the republican leader, to find out what that means. let's assume i brought this to the floor and immediately filed cloture on it. it would be a saturday cloture vote. we'll see what we can do to make sure that people feel that they've had an opportunity to look at the legislation and to make a considered decision on what should be done with their vote on this very, very important piece of legislation. so as far as future votes, stay tuned. week, as i heard one of my colleagues say over here, we're in a normal situation here in the senate, a state of flux.

[laughter] madam president, i ask that we proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senator from utah is to be recognized for 20 minutes, or as much as you need. may we have order in the chamber. mr. bennett: thank you, madam president. i think i will wait until there's a little more order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the chamber.

mr. bennett: madam president, there used to be a very strong tradition in the senate that every new senator gave a maiden speech, and in that tradition, some senators waited as long as a year before they gave the speech, and then when the time came, the more senior senators would gather and take notes and then critique the newcomer on how well he did. life has changed a good deal there. i didn't ever give a maiden speech, plunged right into the debate when i got here. but now the tradition seems to be to give a farewell speech. and so i'm grateful to my colleagues that they will gather for that occasion as i contemplate saying farewell to the senate.

i will warn them, this is probably not my last speech because i intend to be heavily involved in the debate over whether or not we pass a continuing resolution or a -- an omnibus bill. but i have a history with the senate and it began when i was a teenager. as a summer intern, i remember sitting in the gallery and watching bob taft prowl across the back of the senate watching to make sure things were going according to his desire. he had been the majority leader. he had stepped down from that position because of the cancer that he had perfected, but he was -- he had contracted, but he was still paying attention to this body where he served with such distinction. and lyndon johnson was sprawled out with his lanky frame in the democratic leader's desk and i was watching from the gallery and thinking what an extraordinary place this was. ten years later, i came back as

a staffer and i served here, was sitting in my cubicle in the dirksen building when word came that john f. kennedy had been shot in dallas. we didn't know whether he was dead or not. we all rushed over to the sena senate, where there was a ticker tape back in the back lobby to see what was happening. i rushed in with the others to see what was there and then looked to see whom i had jostled aside in order to get to see the ticker tape and it was mike mansfield. and i quietly withdrew, realizing that i had done something that wasn't appropriate on that occasion. but i was here in washington when martin luther king gave his "i have a dream" speech. we were here -- was here as a staffer when the historic civil rights bill of 1964 was passed and was involved in the drafting of that bill at a very low kind of level and the conflict that occurred on that occasion. and then came back into

government as the head of the congressional relations function for a cabinet-level department and worked with senator dirksen in trying to pursue the nixon administration's goals forward and ran into a bright young senator from kansas with a sharp wit named bob dole and had the opportunity of working with dirksen and dole and others in that situation. watergate came along. i was given the dubious honor of being called to testify by a young senator from tennessee named howard baker, and he assigned me to his staffer who grilled me for four -- for three hours under oath, a fellow by the name of fred thompson. great kinds of memories there. didn't realize i would come back to the senate myself and, as a political junkie, what could be

better? i was involved in the debate. i had access to all of the activity, and they even gave me a vote. it was a great time, a great opportunity, and i have enjoyed it immensely. and say farewell to it with kind of mixed feelings. what have i learned out of all of this, both that past history and my own history in the sena senate? i won't bore you with all of the things that i have learned but i have picked out several that i want to highlight here today. the first thing that i have learned is this is, indeed, an extraordinary place filled with extraordinary people, and the caricature that we get from the press and the movies and other places, that this is filled with people who have self-serving agendas and very low standard of ethics, is simply not true. the senate has -- is filled with

people with the highest standard of ethics. we have a few clunkers. i will admit that. but overall, the highest standard of ethics that the american people could want. and, if i may dip back into my history, give you this example of how much better the present senate is than some of the older ones. i remember when i was prowling the halls in the circumstances i've described, i ran into a friend who was distraught, and i said to him, what's the problem? he said, i'm taking a group of schoolchildren through the capitol and i sent a note into a senator to ask him if he would come out and speak to them and he did, and he's drunk. and i can't get him to stop and get the schoolchildren back to the tour, and i don't know what to do. you don't see that kind of behavior in today's senate.

you don't see the kind of casualness towards personal campaign contributions that existed. why do you think when they built the dirksen building they put a safe in every senator's office? it was to hold the cash that would be brought into the office and handed to the senator, and that was a routine kind of circumstance. one of the things i enjoy about the renovation of the dirksen building was being able to say to the architect of the capitol, take the safe out because we don't need it anymore. and i notice now i started a trend. if i leave no legacy other than this, it is that the safes are all coming out of the dirksen office building. and i was the first one to do that. this is an extraordinary place filled with extraordinary people who take their jobs very seriously and deserve the kind of respect that too often they do not get. everybody says when they leave

this place, they will miss the people. i certainly will. the friendships that have been made here, the lessons that i have been taught, the mentors i have had have been all a major part of it. i will not name names, because once i get started in that, i will not be able to quit. but i do recognize the mentors i've had in the leaders, in my senior colleague, senator hatch, and i will tell a story about him. in the staff, these are all extraordinary people who go to extraordinary lengths to serve the country, and we should acknowledge that and give them the credit they deserve. now, senator hatch gave me this piece of advice. we were talking one night about an issue and we were on opposite sides. that didn't very often happen. senator hatch and i, we -- we

don't confer in advance of a vote very often. we come to our own conclusions. but both being conservative republicans, we usually end up in the same place. on this occasion, we were -- we were differing. and orrin was giving me his full-court press -- you've all been exposed to orrin's full-court press on an issue -- and finally he said to me, "bob, apply the driving home test." and i said all right, what's the driving home test? he said, "after this is all over and the lights go out and you go get in your car and you'll drive home thinking back on the day and the vote you cast. and the driving home test is, how will you feel driving home if you cast that particular vo vote?" and i said, orrin, that's some of the best advice i ever got. i voted against him and i felt great while i was driving home.

[laughter] that's one of the first things i've learned. these are -- this is an extraordinary place filled with extraordinary people who are dedicated to the country, dedicated to doing the right thing and uphold the highest ethical standard. now, the next thing i've learned is that there are two parties and that there is a difference between the two parties. there are those who say, oh, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the republicans and the democrats. they're the same people who say we're all corrupt. there is a significant difference. the democrats are the party of government. going back to their roots with franklin roosevelt, they come to the conclusion that if there is a problem, government should solve that problem. the republicans are the party of free markets and they come to the conclusion if there's a

problem, it should be left to the noorkts solv -- to the marke it. and they're both right. that's the thing i have come to understand here. there are some problems where government is the solution, but not always. there are some problems when free markets do provide the solution, but not always. and the tension between those two has run throughout the history of the republic. you can go all the way back to thomas jefferson and alexander hamilton and the arguments they had as to what the proper role of government should be, whether it should be big government or little government; whether you should have this or that kind of power. it ran through the constitutional convention and the arguments that occurred there. and it's appropriate that those who believe in government should have strong advocates on their side. and those who believe in free markets should have equally strong advocates on their side.

and because i believe in free markets, i'm a republican, and i've been happy to be a republican. and i've been careful to stand up for those things that i believe, and i've compiled a record that many of my friends on the democratic side would consider fairly miserable in terms of wisdom on voting. but let us understand in the debate that as we go back and forth between these two concepts that we do not question the motives or the patriotism of anyone on the other side. or within our own caucuses. i remember an event where someone on the republican side voted with the democrats in a way that some on this side felt was betrayal, and there was a sense of let us punish him, let us do this, that and the other.

trend lott taught me this lesson. he said, no, the most important vote is the next one. we're going to need his vote the next time, and if we punish him for this last vote, we won't get it. yes, there is a difference between the two parties. yes, we disagree. but if we can disagree in an effort to solve the problems of the country and be willing, on occasion, to say maybe the other side is right, we will move forward. let me go back to the civil rights act and that debate. barry goldwater was the republican standardbearer in the year that was passed, and barry goldwater and many of his colleagues on the republican

side believed that the civil rights act was an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty, that you were entitled to pick your own associations. and the democrats, some of them, believed that the civil rights bill had to be passed to keep faith with the 14th amendment and government's role in securing liberty. everett dirksen stood in the middle of that fight. the civil rights bill was written in dirksen's office. lyndon johnson gets historic credit for it, as he deserves, but within this body, where the cloture vote determined whether or not it would pass, the key figure was everett dirksen. and my father, with me as his chief of staff, was caught in that pressure, with the conservatives saying one thing, the liberals saying another and

dad trying to decide which way he would go. i remember a comment that he made as he made his decision, and he made his decision to go with dirksen -- vote for the bill, vote for cloture. being a businessman, he had thought it through. he believed in free markets, as well as i do, but he made this comment which i have always held on to as an example of the way you deal with this challenge. he said, you know, i've thought about it, and many of these companies that refuse -- i'm using the language of the tim time -- refuse to serve negroes are public companies, with their stock available on the stock exchange. so what we are saying is, it's all right for the negro to own the company but it's no not all

right for him to patronize it. that's unsustainable. so on this occasion, he sided with the people who believed in government to solve the problem. he voted for the civil rights act. and he got a challenger for his next nomination and the toughest primary that he ever had within the party. he overcame that challenger and he got his fourth term. i made the decision to act in concert with george bush and my leader, mitch mcconnell, and the democratic leader, harry reid, and the republican standardbearer, john mccain, to vote in favor of an act of government as opposed to free markets when i supported tarp. and i got a challenger as i

sought a fourth term and i wasn't as successful as my father. so my career was ended. my father never regretted his civil rights vote. i don't regret my tarp vote because it's the right hinge ton right thing to do. and for those who say oh, what a terrible thing it is that your career has ended, i go back again to the old senate and a senator named norris cotton from new hampshire. norris cotton, a republican, used to tell this story. three n the porch in new hampshire in their rocking chairs contemplating what would happen if they had died. the first one said after i die, i want to be buried next to george washington, the father of our country. i think it would be a great honor to be buried next to

washington. and the second one said, well, that's fine, but i'm more loyal to our state. i want to be buried next to daniel webster. they rocked for awhile and turned to the third fellow and said what about you? he said i want to be buried next to elizabeth taylor. they said, but, joe, elizabeth taylor isn't dead yet. he said neither am i. i appreciate the opportunity to give the farewell speech and your willingness to come listen to it, but i'm not dead yet. the demographers are saying within the next three or four decades, the number of americans over the age of 100 will be in the millions.

i intend to be one of that number. i have loved being in the senate. i have loved the association. i have enjoyed learning about the issues and being in the arena to try to solve them. i do not intend to leave the arena of public debate and public affairs. i simply have changed venues. i am grateful to the senate and to all of my friends for all of the things you have taught me, but i view the senate not as the end of my career but as an education and preparation for the next stage. my father lived until he was 95, my mother 96. i only have to beat the demographic odds by a very small percentage to meet my goal. i appreciate the opportunity of being here and your courtesy in listening to me here today.

thank you. mr. durbin: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, my colleagues are of course congratulating senator bennett on that wonderful farewell speech. it's been my great honor to serve with him and know his family. i wish him the very best as he approaches the century mark with great energy. in keeping with the business of the senate, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session, approved by both the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. bond: madam president, i'm humbled to follow the great good friend, the eloquent orator, the wonderful senator from utah, senator bob bennett, a man who has been a giant in this senate not only in terms of height, but of intellect. we have followed his lead for, on many, many issues, and i know

the senate will miss him. i'm going to take advantage of the attention that senator bennett brought to give some of my views on the economy and the compromise bill that we hope will be pending before the senate. my apologies for lowering the grade of discourse by moving down to such a mundane but nevertheless important subject. as we all know, it's been more than two years since the severe crisis in the housing and mortgage markets nearly brought down the financial system and with it the entire economy in the late 2008. the american people are suffering from the effects. unemployment continues to rise and is near a staggering 10%. millions of families continue to face home foreclosures. many more are having difficulties finding financing to make large purchases or run businesses. we face no more important task

than stabilizing the economy and ensuring that no one faces a tax increase in a recession and enabling small businesses to get going again after the recession and create jobs. americans sent a clear message to washington. that's what they want to us do. they want to not settle for a washington that does not make economic recovery, fiscal constraint and job creation a top priority. as i said repeatedly on this floor, government cannot create jobs but it can create conditions to allow the private sector to flourish through low taxes, commonsense regulation and enhanced trade opportunities. unfortunately, in the past two years washington has been moving in the wrong direction, seeking to raise taxes, increasing regulations at a tremendous and very dangerous and destructive

rate, allowing free trade agreements to wither on the vine. we now have an opportunity to move towards a more commonsense approach that will help in job creation, and we can start now during this lame-duck session. we must address the looming tax hikes that are scheduled to take effect on january 1. the proposal that the president outlined this week in cooperation with the republican leadership is an important step. his efforts to stop the crippling tax hike in january, hitting american families and small businesses show he's gotten the message. i only hope he convinces his colleagues and his party in congress what republicans and the american people understand. raising taxes on people in small businesses that create jobs is a really bad idea, particularly in this jobless recession we have. why is small business important? because small businesses represent 99% of all employer

firms. they employ over half of all private-sector employees and generated almost two-thirds of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. as i assume most of my colleagues know, most small businesses are taxed as individuals, as partnerships, as proprietorships or sub"s" corporations. if you raise taxes on these earning above $200,000, you're raising taxes on small business owners, particularly those who are most able to create jobs. in addition, the president's compromise also ensures that the death tax will not spring back like franken stein and come to life at a sky-high rate of 55%. if the president's plan increases the state tax exemption to $3.5 million to $5 million and maintains the 2009 rate of 35%.

it's a step in the right direction, and it will keep families with production family farms or small businesses from having to sell the farms or the small businesses to pay the estate tax. madam president, it is critical that we pass this compromise bill before we leave for the end of the session. this must be done, and it must be done next week apparently at the latest. but there's another area congress has direct control over, and that's spending. for the economy to recover and create jobs in the long term, congress simply must control spending. today our debt totals more than $13.8 trillion. the annual deficit which we are putting on our children and grandchildren's credit cards stands at roughly $1.3 trillion but could reach as high as $9 trillion if we stay on the

spending path outlined. both entitlement and discretionary spending must be cut. runaway entitlement spending is stifling our prosperity and continue to hold our economy back if not addressed promptly. i am hopeful that the next congress will make this debate their top priority and enact necessary legislation to curtail our drastic runaway spending and to raise revenue through a more fair and efficient tax regime. i believe the debt commission has come up with a reasonable proposal. i may be so bold as to suggest that we establish a brac-type commission, a brac-type proposal to deal with that commission and say it can be accepted or rejected on a simple up-or-down vote by both houses. that is one good step. the other step that has to be taken is to reform entitlements. i'm disappointed they didn't deal with that. but the health care costs,

medicare and medicaid plus social security are the things that are going to drive our spending through the roof. along with extending tax cuts and restraining spending, opening new markets to american businesses through free trade is another critical component to future economic and job growth. up until president obama's recent push for trade in korea, our pending trade agreements have been held up to safeguard the interests of labor and extreme environmentalists. i congratulate and thank the president for moving forward on this important job-creating agreement with korea. the new congress, the one that comes in in january, must renew its efforts to kpapbd and open up -- expand and open up new markets abroad particularly in asia where the most dynamic growth will take place. trips by the president have helped to elevate ties with long-standing friends and allies like korea and japan.

they have also working to forge deeper, stronger relationships with india, indonesia and malaysia and vietnam. reaching agreement on the u.s.-korea agreement signals the united states can return to the leadership position on trade and create much-needed jobs based on exports here at home. also we must play a leadership role in negotiating and pursuing new f.t.a.'s like transatlantic partnership. even the president of the chairman's export council warned failure to approve these agreements will leave the united states at a significant disadvantage to other nations working to lower barriers to trade. for example, in southeast asia where the united states exports as much as it does to china, china has already negotiated a free trade agreement with all ten asean countries.

we have the opportunity to do it. one of them is to increase jobs through the asia pacific region with the transpacific partnership, or t.p.p. the t.p.p. would ensure the united states remains fully engaged in the asia pacific region where strong economic growth will occur in the 21st century. the current partners involved in t.p.p. discussions in addition to the united states are australia, new zealand, c hi le, peru, vietnam and singapore, which represents the fastest growing regions in the world. i certainly hope that we will be able to include other countries in the southeast region, asia region, such as indonesia, thailand and the philippines. one way we ought to deal with t.p.p. and free trade agreements is a way to cash in on the peace dividends created in that region from our efforts in world war

ii. the t.p.p. will open asian markets to the united states exports in a way we've never seen. we are already the world's largest exporter. we can build on that and create millions of jobs and better income for our farmers by aggressively competing in markets abroad and by rejecting isolation here at hoefplt now, madam president -- here at home. in closing let me put these considerations in larger context. in the 24 years i've been in the united states senate, in the 8 years prior to that when i was governor, i traveled around the world. i have seen in that time frame -- and i tell these young people who are pages things have changed a lot in the last 40 years. there have been remarkable changes that came after the fall of the soviet union, with the fall of socialism in communist countries, the other countries around the world immediately began to look at the united states as the economic model. our free enterprise system has

demonstrated that successful businesses can provide job opportunities for all our citizens. this is a classic case of the rising tide lifting all boats. as the economy gets stronger, people up and down the economic scale and people in low-wage areas have the opportunity through hard work and/or education to move up the ladder. last year's stimulus program did a tremendous job of stimulating the growth of the government debt and putting more people on the government payroll. it did not d -- it did not do much. it actually stifled job creation in the private sector. the number of jobs necessarily will be far less than what the free market system could have included. if history is our guide, high taxes and excessive spending such as the new health care bill will lead to lower recovery,

continued high unemployment, a lower standard of living for all americans. there is a chance now to reverse course to stop tax hikes, put the brakes on spending, reform entitlement programs, and to pursue new trade opportunities that will create jobs. i believe that is what the american people expect us to $. i ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be included as if read, and i also -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bond: i also would like to submit for the record my discussion of the role that housing played in the bubble that we had, the crash and the recession we've gone through. i've spent all my time here in the senate either looking at housing on the banking committee or as a member and then chairman or ranking member of the bill -- of the appropriations subcommittee that funds housing. we have -- we will submit this full speech for the record.

most of my friends are not interested in hearing a full description of the housing crisis and what needs to be done. i will give them the opportunity to read it at their leisure. but i will tell you that promoting what we call -- what we think is the american dream by giving people no-down-payment homes, homes which they don't have the financial ability to afford, is not the american dream. it leads to the american night nature. -- it leads to the american nightmare. the american nightmare, unfortunately, is resulting in home foreclosures, there are a large number of homes that are deteriorating, thanks to the genius of wall street, which through its wonderful, innovative efforts vietnamed high-tech computer game derivatives that they made profits by selling around the world which crashed and brought not only our economy but the world economy down.

weigh a got to stop that trend. we need a responsible housing policy. we need to rein in fannie and freddie, keep them from buying up housing mortgages which are not subject to underwriting standards which could cause problems in the future. these i items are all laid out n the remarks -- the separate remarks i'm submitting for the floor, and if anybody reads them, i would be happy to answer any questions that they have. i thank the floor, and many a proud to yield to my good friend, fellow retiring senator from my neighboring state of kentucky, who has been known for high hard wins on the baseball diamond but also has some, i'm sure, very candid comments of what he thinks the senate has done and ought to do. so we will listen with great interest. senator bunning, i am pleased to yield the floor to you. madam president, i yield the

floor. mr. bunning: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: i thank the senator from missouri, a dear friend of mine and someone who has unusual wisdom on his remarks today, and i listened to many of them, and i just hope that i have a few here that follow as well-thought-out as my good friend from missouri. madam president, i would like to take a few moments to thank all my colleagues and other individuals who have come to the chamber to hear me bid farewell. that doesn't mean i'm not going to speak again. that just means i'm bidding farewell, and this is a farewell speech. i've had the great fortune of having three wonderful careers during my life.

one as a husband and a father of nine children and a grandfather of 40. one as a majors league baseball player for 27 years. and one in public service for 30 years. many people often talk to me about how different my baseball and public service careers are, but they really are not so different. i have been booed by 60,000 fans in yankee stadium, standing alone on the mound. so i have never really cared if i stood alone here in the congress, as long as i stood by my beliefs and my values. i have also thought that being able to throw a curveball never was a bad skill for a politician to have.

i came here to washington, d.c., in 1987 when the people of the fourth district in northern kentucky gave me a district -- the distinct honor to serve them. i did not know then that the people of kentucky would bestow upon me the privilege of representing them for 24 years. i have had the same conservative principles in 2010 that i had when i first was elected to congress. over the years i've always done what i thought was right for kentucky and my country. i did not run for public service for fame or public acclaim. when i cast my votes, i thought about how they would affect my grandchildren and the next generation of kentuckians, not where the political winds at the

time were blowing. words cannot express my gratitude to the people of kentucky for giving me the distinct honor of serving them for 12 years in the house of representatives and 12 years in the u.s. senate. here i stand, though, in the senate chamber about to say goodbye after nearly a quarter of a century in congress. i have reflected much about my time here. as i stand here at the desk of henry clay, the great kentuckian , i am proud to have had the opportunity to serve in a place in history. i thought it fitting to discuss the legislative items of which i am most proud. i have three bills that i am particularly proud that i was able to accomplish signing into

law. one of the things i am most proud of during my time in congress was helping pass legislation that repealed the earnings limit on older americans under the social security system. social security used to penalize many older americans for working by reducing their social security benefits by $1 for every $3 they earned if they made more than the earnings limit, which was about $12,000 in 1995. this was an unfair tax on seniors and punished them for continuing to work. i worked hard for many i do noters in both the -- i worked hard for many years in both the house and the senate in get this unfair earnings limit eliminated

and finally in 2000, after i had been elected to the senate, it passed and was signed into law. this law has helped many hardworking seniors stay involved in their communities, remain independent, and contribute to society. another bill i'm proud of is the 2004 flood insurance reformation act. in 2004, i wrote the last reauthorization of the national flood insurance program. that law provided significant reforms to the program just in time for the 2004-2005 hurricane season. including hurricane katrina p. had the law not been in place, homeowners all over the gulf

coast would not have had coverage for their flood damage to their homes. the 2004 law is still the framework for the program today. it was not a republican accomplishment or a democrat accomplishment. it was a bipartisan accomplishment. i worked very closely with senator sarbanes and representative bereuter and blumenthal to write and pass that law. while i believe that further changes are still needed to the program, the 2004 law made meaningful changes that put the program on a more sound financial footing. unfortunately, passage of the bill was not the end of the story. what happened -- or, more accurately, what did not happen i will strights one reason --

illustrates one reason why people are fed up with washington, because government doesn't do what it is supposed to do. despite the fact the bill passed both the senate and the house unanimously, fema refused to implement all of its provisions in a timely manner. the most glaring example was the appeals process created by the bill for property owners to appeal claims they thought were not settled fairly or correctly. the law gave fema six months to write the rules. fema, instead, took almost two years from the day the bill passed to put even out draft rules, and they probably would not have done it then if it was not for the right of one senator

to object. i had to hold the nominee to head the agency to get the attention of the bush administration and move the secretary of the homeland security to finally publish the rules. it should not have been that way. the third bill i am grateful was signed into law is the emergency employee occupational illness compensation program. the paducah, kentucky, gas did he fusion plant is the only operating uranium enrichment plant in the united states. when i came to the senate, i held the first hearing to look at cleaning up the can --

cleaning up the contamination that the department of energy left at the site. after the hearing, i focused on cleaning up the site. a lot has been cleaned up since that first hearing 10 years ago. i also worked hard to provide compensation to workers who suffered serious illnesses as a result of their employment at the d.o.e. nuclear weapons program plant. this energy employment compensation program was set up because many workers served our country in nuclear programs during the cold war, and their health was put at risk, without their knowledge. the first compensation bill passed in 2000 with the help of a bipartisan group of congressmen and senators. i then became aware that d.o.e.

was slow-walking claims processing and payments to many claim mantle pz and their portion -- claimants and their portion of the compensation program. so in 2004, again with the help of bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, i spearheaded legislation that moved the entire program over to the department of labor, which had sped up and streamlined compensation for the sick nuclear workers. along with many of my achievements, i also had time to reflect on some of the disappointments that i wish i had been able to fix during my time here. i am deeply concerned about the state of the entitlement programs: medicare, medicaid,

and social security. it is clear that our government cannot meet its future obligations and ultimately the american people will suffer, unfortunately. too many members of congress are willing to look the other way and let the financial problems of these programs fester instead of making hard decisions. congress just cannot get the courage together to address these issues head-on. in fact, after president bush's second election, congress briefly focused on the problems of social security solvency. at the time, i was a strong supporter of private investment accounts. but certainly realized that the whole system needed an overhaul

and was open to many different options. toward the end of the debate, i was willing to tackle social security reform even if we didn't do investment accounts. as long as we did something. however, it quickly became apparent that many members of congress, even some in my own party, were not willing to get serious about this. six years later, congress still hasn't touched social security reform and the program is even in worse financial shape. medicare and medicaid are in the same position. in 2006, congress finally got serious about spending in these programs and passed the deficit-reduction act. this bill slowed the rate of

growth -- the rait of growth in medicare by $6 billion and in medicaid by $5 billion over five years. let me be clear about this. we weren't cutting spending in these programs, we were just slowing the growth. well, you would have thought the sky was falling when we did this. the longer congress takes to honestly tackle these fiscal challenges, the harder it will be to fix these programs. this means bigger cuts, bigger deficits and bigger tax increases. health care is another area where congress should have done better. on the other side of the aisle's

stubborn refusal to compromise and, more importantly, listen to the desires of the american people on health care reform led to the passage of a bill that is one of the worst pieces of legislation that i have seen in congress in 24 years. the health care bill is clearly unconstitutional, will force millions of americans to lose the health insurance they currently enjoy, give the i.r.s. -- that's the internal revenue service -- the power to police and tax americans who don't have health insurance, and takes over $500 billion out of medicare programs to pay for new spending.

despite all the rhetoric from the administration and democrat leaders about being transparent and open and willing to compromise, it quickly became clear that they only wanted republican support if we agreed to everything they wanted to do. well, compromise doesn't work like that. a compromise means you actually have to take ideas from other people instead of just giving lip service. one of the other recent disappointments was the financial regulation bill passed earlier this year. before my first election, i spent 31 years working in the security business. that was back when baseball players did not make millions of dollars a year and had to have

jobs in the off season to pay the bills. and i spent nearly all of my time in congress on either the old house banking committee or the senate banking committee, so this was something i know a great deal about and care about. there were and are real problems in our financial system, but that bill does not -- that bill is not going to fix them and almost certainly sows the seeds for the next banking and financial crisis while at the same time adding more burdens on the economies struggling to -- on the economy's struggling to recover. that bill did not replace bailouts with bankruptcy. it made bailouts a permanent part of the financial system. the bill did not force the

too-big-to-fail banks to get smaller. it gave them special status. the bill ignored the role of housing finance and left fannie mae and freddie mac alone. the housing crisis could not have happened without fannie mae and freddie mac. the senate failed to act on a bill to reform fannie and freddie passed by the banking committee in 2006 and that failure is going to end up costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. congress has to do something soon to get them off the taxpayers' life support they have been on since 2008. but, unfortunately, that did not

happen in the financial reform bill. the bill also ignores the federal reserve's failures as a regulator and instead gave them more power. and worst of all, the bill did nothing to rein in the largest single cause of the current financial crisis and most other financial crisis in the past: flawed monetary policy by the federal reserve. nothing congress has done will stop the next bubble or collapse if the fed continues with its easy money policies. cheap money will always distort prices and lead to dangerous behavior no matter -- no matter -- no amount of regulation can contain it. for many years, i was a lone critic of the federal reserve,

particularly no one questioned alan greenspan despite his policies causing two recessions and two asset bubbles. i was the lone vote against ben bernanke in 2006. i was the lone vote because i thought he would continue the greenspan monetary and regulatory policies. well, he did. he kept it up, the flawed monetary policy, and was slow to regulate. and then in 2008, he took the federal reserve into fiscal policy by bailing out bear stearns and later a.i.g. and just about every other major financial institution in the country. and as we saw even last week

around the world, chairman bernanke compromised the independence of the fed and turned it into an arm of the u.s. treasury. things have not gotten better since then either. chairman bernanke is continuing with the easy monetary -- easy money monetary policy and just a month ago started the printing presses again to buy up more treasury debt. while the fed may be propping up the banks with plenty of cheap money, he is undermining our currency. other central banks are moving away from the dollar and gold is continuing to climb. just like the soaring national debt and entitlement cost, the destruction of the dollar is not sustainable. congress must act to rein in the

chairman of the federal reserve and the fed about they destroy our currency and permanently damage our economy and financial system. public awareness of what the fed is doing is increasing while public opinion of the fed is falling. chairman bernanke had nearly twice as many votes cast against him in the senate earlier this year than any other fed chairman in history, and it's just not outside the fed that opposition is growing. regional federal reserve bank presidents are speaking up and voting against fed policy. and even some members of the fed board are recognizing the dangers of chairman bernanke's

policies. i am more hopeful now than ever that the chairman of the fed will not allow -- be allowed to continue their flawed policies and act as an arm of the treasury and the major banks. as i stand here and reflect upon my time in congress, i can honestly say i am gratified despite the ups and downs to have had the opportunity to serve my country and serve the people of the commonwealth of kentucky. 24 years is a very large portion of my life and my family's life. i thank my nine children -- barb, jim, joan, kathy, bill, barrage et,bridgette, mark, amyd

david -- and my 40 grandchildren, who inspired notice try to make this countr country -- who inspired me to try to make this country better and better for the next generation to live. i also want to give a special thanks to my wife, the mother of my nine children, and my childhood sweet hard from the fourth grade. i thank her for being at my side through all of the road trips, the late nights i spent in the house and the senate. she's my better half who supported and stood by me. she's my lighthouse that always shined in the dark during the good and the bad times of public service. she prayed me to my wins in public service and in baseball,

and i never could have done anything of these achievements without her. as this chapter in my life comes to an end and i flip the page into a new chapter, i want to thank very much all the other people in my life who have stood by me. without the friendship and support of so many over the years, i never would have been able and had the privilege to represent kentucky in the house and the senate. as i leave here today, i offer a little prayer for the next congress. pope john paul ii once said, "freedom consists not in doing what we like but in having the right to do what we ought." this is the motto i have tried

to live by during my time in congress. i pray that the members of the next congress do what is right for the country, not what is right for their fame and their future aspirations. my hope is that congress will focus on the astronomical debt instead of continuing down the path of spending our future generations into higher taxes and a lower standard of living than we have now. godspeed and god bless. with a sense of pride and gratitude, i will say for the last time, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: thank you.

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

1

quorum call:

mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: mr. president, those of us who are leaving the congress at the end of this year are given the opportunity to make a farewell speech but more it's an opportunity to say thank you to a lot of people that we owe a thank you to and to colleagues, to family, to the staff here in the senate, and on our staffs, and the people of north dakota in case who gave me the opportunity to serve. it's the opportunity for me to say thank you. one of my colleagues the other day talked about the number of people who have served in the united states senate since the beginning of our country. there have been 1,918 people who have served in the united states senate. when i signed in -- you sign on

a line -- i was number 1,802. and there was been 212 senators with whom i have served in the years that i have been in the senate. it's hard to get here, and it's also hard to leave here. but all of us do leave, and the senate always continues. and when finally you do leave, you understand that this is the most unique legislative body in the world. now, i arrived here 30 years ago in congress, and when we all show up the first day, we feel so very important, and we believe that the weight of the world rests on our shoulders. and then we begin getting mail from home, and i have long described a letter that was sort of levinning to me, sent moo -- leavining to me, is sengtsz to me by a school teacher. her class was to do a project to write according to nonwashington, d.c. and i paged through the 20

letters from fourth grade students and one of them said, "dear mr. dorgan: i know who you are. i see you on television sometimes. my dad watches you on television, too. boy, does he get mad." and so i knew -- so i knew the interest of public service of trying to satisfy all of the very interests in our country. it is important, it seems to me, that we do the right thing as best we can and as best we see it. that dad from that letter showed up at a good many of my meetings over the years, i think -- didn't introduce himself. but in most cases, the people that i've represented over these many years were people that -- ordinary folks who loved their country, raised their families, paid their bills, and wanted us to do the right thing for our country's future. now, i have a lot of really interesting memories from having served here. 12 years in the u.s. house and 18 years in the u.s. senate. the first week i came to

washington in the u.s. house, i stopped to see the oldest member of the house, claude pepper. i'd read so much about him, wanted to meet him. walked into his office. his office was like a museum with a lot of old things in it really interesting things. he'd been here for a long, longs, long time. and i have never forgotten what i saw behind his chairs -- two photographs. the first photograph was of or ville and wilbur wright, 1903, making the first airplane flight the. signed:-to-"to congressman claude pepper with admiration." and beneath it, a photograph of neil armstrong, signed "to congressman pepper, with regards." and i'm thinking to myself, here's a living american in one life time, has an autographed picture of the person who learned to fly and the person who flew to the moon. think of the unbelievable progress in a lifetime. and what is the distance between

learning to fly and flying to the moon? well it wasn't measured on that wall in inches, although those photographs were only four or five inches apart. it is measured in education, in knowledge, in a burst of accomplishments, in an unprecedented century. and this country has been enormously blessed during this period. the hallmark, it seems to me, of the century that we just completed was self-sacrifice and common purpose, a sense of community, commitment to country, and especially -- especially -- leadership. in america, leadership has been so important in this government we call "self-government." and there was a book written by mccullough about john adams and john adams described that question of leadership. he would travel in europe representing this new country, and he would write letters back to abigail and in his letters to abigail he would plaintiffly ask

the question, where will the leadership come for this new country we're starting? who will become the leaders? who will be the leaders for this new nation? then in the next letter to abigail he would again ask, where will the leadership come from? and then he would say, there's only us, really only us. there's me, there's george washington, there's ben franklin, there's thomas jefferson, there's hamilton, mason and madison, but there is only us, he would plaintiffly say to abigail. in the rearview mir he of history, the only us is some of the greatest human talent probably ever assembled. but it is interesting to me that every generation has asked the same question that john adams asked: where will the leadership come from for this country? who will be the leaders? and the answer to that question now is here in this room. it's always been in this room. my colleagues, men and women tested by the rirgs of a

campaign -- tested by the riggers of a exairntion chosen by disefns their state, told, you provide leadership for this country. now, for all of the crit simple about this chamber and chose in which -- those who serve in this chamber, for all of that crit cinches i say that the most talented men and women with whom i have ever worked are the men and women of the united states senate, from both sides of this aisle. they live in glass houses, their mistakes are obvious and painful, they fight, they disagree, then they agree, they dance around issues, posture, delay, but always, always there is that moment, the moment of being part of something big, consequential, important, the moment of being part of something bigger than yourself. and at that moment, for all of

us, at different times there is this a cute awareness of why we were sent here and the role the u.s. senate plays in the destiny of this cufnlt you know, the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world. but i wonder really if it's so exclusive. if someone from a town of 300 people and a high school senior class of nine students can travel from a desk in that small school to a desk on the floor of the united states senate, i think it's more like a quiltwork of all that's american, of all the experiences in our country. it allowed someone from a small town with big ideas to sit in this chamber among the desks that were occupied by henry clay, daniel webster, harry truman, lyndon johnson, and so many more, and feel like you belong. theals the genius of self-government. -- that's the genius of

self-govment now, i announced about a year ago that i would not seek reelection after serving here 30 years, 12 in the u.s. house and 18 years in the u.s. senate. i am repeatedly asked, as is my clerks senator dodd, i'm sure, who is leaving at the end of this year, what is your most significant accomplishment? and while i'm proud of so many things i have done legislatively, the answer is not legislative. i have always answered it by saying, well, the first month i was here 30 years ago next month, i stepped into an elevator on the ground floor of the cannon office building of the u.s. house of representatives. that step into that elevator changed my life. between the ground floor and the fourth floor, i got her name, and that's a pretty significant accomplishment for a lutheran norwegian, and this year we

celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. my life has been so enriched by my wife kim and children scott and shelly and bren done and haley and my grand southern. they serve, too. families are committed, too, to this life of public service, weekends alone, and i am forever grateful to the commitment and sacrifice of my family. and i want to say a few things about some other people as well. first there is our staff. all of us would probably say -- but of course i say with much greater credibility -- i have the finest staff in the united states senate. i have been so enormously blessed. i am so prated of all of them. they are talented. they are dedicated to this country. and i have been blessed to work with most of them for many, many years. then i want to say to the floor

staff of the united states senate, i come here, as do my colleagues, and we say our piece and we get involved in the debates and the floor staff does such an unbelievable job. when we're done speaking, we often leave. they're still here. they're the ones that turn out the lights. they refrain from rolling their eyes when i know they want to during these debates, but, boy, are they professional. and all of us owe them -- just such a great debt of gratitude. and to my colleagues, i -- i just -- there's nobody in here -- i kind of feel like will rogers, "nobody in here i don't like." a great place with some terrific colleagues, especially kent conrad. we've been friends for 40 years. 40 years we've been involved in the politifights and the political battles in north dakota. a great senator. and i said last night at a reception, the best u.s. senator in the united states senate come january.

but i -- but i should have said right now, he's an outstanding senator and makes a great contribution to this country. and congressman pomeroy with whom i have served, the other part of team north dakota, three of us who worked together on campaigns 40 years ago, 35 years ago in north dakota, and then for 18 years became three members of the -- the only three members of north dakota's congressional delegation. it's been a great, great pleasure and it's -- we will continue these friendships but i say thanks to senator conrad especially for the work we've done together. now, you know and it shows that i love politics and i love public service. always have. john f. kennedy used to say that every mother kind of hopes that their child might grow up to be president as long as they don't have to be active in politics. but, of course, politics is the way we make decisions about america. it's an honorable thing. i've always been enormously proud of being in politics. i've run 12 times in statewide

elections since age 26. i've served continuously in statewide elective office since the age of 26. never outside of elective office statewide. a long, long, long time. 40 years. it's been a great gift to me to be able to serve and i -- i'm so forever grateful to the people of north dakota, who have said to me, we want to you us. -- we want you to represent us. and now it's time for me to do some other things that i have long wanted to do and that's why i have chosen not to seek reelection this year. let me be clear to you. i didn't decide not to run for the senate because i'm despondent about the state of affairs here. it's just not the case. these are difficult and troubling times, however, but i didn't decide not to run and choose to criticize this institution, although there's plenty to be critical of. i just don't want to add to the burdens of this institution. this institution is too important to the future of this country. and i could talk, by the way, for hours about the joys of

serving here with individuals. you know, i was thinking about the late ted kennedy when i was jotting a few notes standing at his desk back in that row over these years. i think -- and no one will mind me saying this -- i think he's the best legislator i've ever seen in terms of getting things done. but ted kennedy, full of passi passion. and on certain days when he was agitated and full-throated, you could hear him out on the street fighting and shouting for the things he knew were important for america. i think of bob dole, who would saunter on to this floor and he almost seemed to have an antenna that knew exactly what was going on, what the mood service and what he could and couldn't do and how you must compromise at certain times. he had a knack for that unlike any others that i've seen. i think of a strom thurmond who left us i think at age 100.

what -- if everybody could know his life story, what a -- an unbelievable, courageous story. and one of the things that happened with strom thurmond is i was very involved and have always been involved in organ transplantation, to save people's lives. and i did a press corches a bill i was introduce -- conference on a bill i was doing on organ transplants. and strom thurmond showed up. i think he was 90 years old. and he signed an organ donor card. and he said, after he signed the organ donor card at age 90, he said, i don't know if i've got anything anybody wants, but if i'm gone, they're welcome to it. [laughter] and robert c. byrd, who sat where my colleague is sitting now, and they just don't make him -- they don't make them like robert c. byrd anymore. i recall one day when another colleague was on the floor and robert c. byrd got very angry about what the other colleague was saying. he felt it was disrespectful and so he rushed up to the chamber and the other colleague had left by that time, and i don't know that he ever understood what

happened. but senator byrd, being very angry at what another colleague had said that he felt was disrespectful to the president, senator byrd was recognized and he said simply this. "i've been here long enough to watch pi pygmes strut like colasses. he said they, like the fly in aesop's fable sitting on the axle of a chariot, observe, my, what dust i do raise." and then he sat down. and i thought, you know, they don't make speakers like that anymore. the senator who left didn't understand what senator byrd had just done, cutting him off at the knees. but i take a treasury of memories. i should mention as well one of my best friends, tom daschle, who served here, a wonderful friend and i think a great leader for a long while as well. i just take a treasury of memories from this place. this place, however, has substantial burdens ahead of it. and if we're going to make good

decisions, tough decisions and exhibit the courage needed for the kind of future we want, we're going to have to put some sacrifice on the line here for our country's future. so i want to talk just for a bit about a couple of those issues. while there are always big issues -- and i've always been interested in debating the big issues -- my principal passion has been to support family farmers and small business folks and the people that go to work every morning at a job. the family farmers out there, who live on hope, plant a seed and hope it grows. and they risk everything. the main street business owner that this morning got up and turned the key in the front door and went in and waited because they've got everything in their financial lives on the line, hoping their small business works. and the worker that goes to a job in the morning every day -- every day -- and they're the ones that know seconds. you know, those workers at the

bottom of the economic ladder, they know second shift, she she secondhand, second mortgage, they know it all. and the question is: who speaks for them? the halls of this chamber aren't crowded with people saying let me speak for those folks. the first book i wrote, the first page, a book called "take this journal of proceedings and shithis job and ship it," the ft page i wrote about franklin delano roosevelt's funeral. and as they lined up in this capitol to file past the casket of the deceased president, a journalist was trying capture the mood of people who were waiting in line. and he walked up to a man, a worker, who was holding his cap in front of him, standing there with tears in his eyes. and the journalist said to this working man, well, did you know franklin delano roosevelt? and the man said, no, i didn't, but he knew me. and the question is, it seems to me, for every generation in this chamber: who knows american workers and who stands up for

the people that go to work every morning in this country? as i said, there are big, big issues that relate to workers and farmers and business people and others in this country. and let me just mention a couple. you all know and we know for america to succeed, we've got to fix our schools. 30% of the kids going to school aren't graduating in our high schools. that can't continue. we can't have schools that are called dropout factories. we need the best schools in the world with the best teachers in the world if we're going to compete. we need substantial education reform. we also have to get rid of this crushing debt. we know that we can't borrow 40% of everything we spend. we know better than that. all of us know that. we've been on a binge and it's got to change. we can't -- we can't borrow money from china, for example, to give tax cuts to the

wealthiest americans. somehow we have to change all of these issues. it's time for this country to sober up on fiscal policy and leadership from this chamber as well. we need a financial industry -- a financial industry that stops gambling and starts lending, lending especially to those businesses that want to create jobs and want to expand. we need a fair trade policy that stands up for american workers for a change and promotes "made in america" again. we're not going to be a world economic power if we don't have world-class manufacturing capability. and it's dissipating before our eyes. this is all about creating good jobs and expanding opportunities in this country. it's not happening with our current trade policy. it's trading away america's future. and we know better than that. on energy, we've ridden into a box canyon. 60% of the oil we use comes from other countries, some of it from countries to don't like us very much that. holds us hossage and we can't continue -- hostage and we can't continue that. we need to produce here at home of all kinds of energy.

we need to conserve month, we need more -- conserve more, we need more energy efficiency, we need to do all of these things to promote stability and security in this country. and let me just say on one other issue that i've intent a lot of time -- spent a lot of time working on, deals with american indians. they were here first. we're talking about the first americans. they greeted all of us. they now live in third world conditions in much of this country. and we've got to do better, we've got to keep our promises and we've got to honor our treaties. this congress, let me just say -- and i've had the privilege of chairing the indian affairs committee -- this congress, however, as tough as it has been, has done more on indian issues than in the previous 40 years. we passed the indian health care improvement act, the first time in 17 years. we passed the tribal law and order act that i and others helped write which is so very important. we just passed yesterday the special diabetes provisions that are so important to the indians. we put $2.5 billion in the

economic recovery act to invest in health care facilities and education and the other things that are necessary in indian country. we just passed the cobell settlement which deals with the problem that's existed for 150 years in which looting and stealing from indian trust accounts went on routinely. and president obama signed the bill last night at the white house at 5:30. those five things are the most important elements together that have been done in 40 years by a congress dealing with indian issues. but it is not nearly over and we have to keep our promises and honor our trust agreements. so the point is that we face some pretty big challenges, but the fact is, our grandparents and great-grandparents, they faced challenges that were much more significant as well and they prevailed. the noise of democracy, as you know -- all of us in politics, especially know -- the noise of democracy is unbelievable. it is relentless, incessantly

negative and it goes 24/7. and we've got bloviaters onth out there all over the country trying to make sounds from the chest be important messages from the brain. they take everything from anything from all corners of the country that seems stupid and ugly and way over the line and they hold it up on their program and say, isn't this ugly? sure, it's ugly but it isn't america. it's just some little obscene gesture somewhere in the corner of our country. it's not america. there's this old saying, bad news travels halfway around the world before good news gets its shoes o. that happens all the time. this country is full of good. it's full of good things, good people, and good news. every day people go to work on build, create and invent and they hope the future will be better than the past. you know, there was a book called "you can't go home again" by thomas wolfe and he said there's a peculiar quality of

the american soul, a peculiar quality of the american soul, that they have an almost indestructible belief, a quenchless hope that things are going to be better, that something's going to turn up, that tomorrow's going to work out. and somehow that has been what has been the hallmark of american aspirations. i want to just finally say this. when i graduated from college with an m.b.a. degree and got my first job in the aerospace industry at a very young age, the first program or project i worked on was called the voyager project. and we were, with martin marietta corporation, building a landing vehicle for mars. that was 40 years ago. that program was discontinued after about four years. but five years ago, the new program resulted in firing two missiles, two rockets from our

country, one week apart. we aimed them at mars. one week aparts, the rockets lifted off with a payload. when they landed 200 million miles later, they landed one week apart on the surface of mars. the payload had a shroud and it opened up, and a dune buggy drove off the shroud. a dune buggy about that big. started driving on the surface of mars. first one did and then a week later, the second arrived and they were named spirit and opportunity. five years ago. spirit and opportunity. we drove them on the surface of mars. it was an american vehicle. it was supposed to last for 90 days. we're still driving those dune buggies on the surface of mars five years later. spirit -- very much like old m men -- got arthritis of the arm and so they say it hangs at kind

of a permanent half salute. and spirit also has five wheels and one wheel broke and so the wheel didn't break off but now it is digging a trench about two inches deep around the surface of mars. and the arthritic arm just barely gets back there, and it buries slightly deeper into the surface. and opportunity fell asleep a few weeks ago. it takes nine minutes to get a signal to mars. so they sent a signal to a satellite that we have circling mars and had the satellite send a signal to spirit and spirit woke right up. and so it is that two dune-buggy sizessed vehicles are driven on the surface of mars driven by american genius.

my point is, first of all, they were aptly named during challenging times, spirit and opportunity. manufactured to last 90 days and driving on the surface of mars five years later. if american invention and american initiative can build rockets and dune buggies and drive them on the surface of mars, surely we can fix the things that are important here on planet earth. i'm about to say this isn't rocket science, but i guess it really is. this country, it seems to me, is an unbelievable place. and this is all it seems to me a call to america's future. where we've been and what we've done, all of these things together ought to inspire us that we can do so much more. george bernard shaw once said life is no brief candle to me, it's a splendid torch which i'm

able to hold but for a moment. well, this is our moment. this is it. i have -- i have -- if i might tell you that about 15 years ago i was leading a delegation of american congressmen and senators to meet with a group of european members of parliament about our disputes in trade. and about an hour into the meet, the man who led the european delegation slid back in his chair and he leaned across to me and he said, mr. senator, we've been speaking for an hour about how we disagree. but he said, i want to tell you something, i think i should -- you should know how i feel about your country. he said, i was a 14-year-old boy on a street corner in paris, france, when the u.s. liberation army marched, and he said an american soldier reached out his hand and gave that 14-year-old boy an apple as he marched past. he said, i will go to my grave

remembering that moment, what it meant to me, what it meant to my family, what it meant to my country. and i just sort of sat back in my chair thinking, here's this guy telling me about who we are, what we've been, and what we've meant to others. it's pretty unbelievable. but it's nothing compared to where we can go and what we can be as a country if we just do the right thing. this senate has a lot to offer the american people. and i know its best days are ahead. that splendide torch, that momet is here. and i feel unbelievably proud to have been able to have served here with these men and women for so long and i'm going to go on to do other things, but i will always watch this chamber and those who will continue to work in this chamber and do what's important for this country's future and i'll be one of the cheerleaders that say, yay, good for you.

good for you. you know what's important and you've steered america toward a better future. i thank my colleagues. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president unti -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. a senator: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: mr. president, we have just heard from senator dorgan, an extraordinary senator, and even more extraordinary as a friend. he has served in the congress of the united states for 30 years. he has served in public office in my state for 40 years. more than 40 years. and it's been my privilege to call him my best friend for 42 years. i think we just heard the remarkable ability that he has -- really a gift to paint word pictures that communicate with people. that help us understand the consequences of the actions that we take here. in recent weeks i've become very interested in the universe and the vastness of what surrounds

us. one of the things i found most striking is that one light year takes light one year it goes 5.8 trillion miles. and the universe is 12 billion to 15 billion light years across. this is a vastness that is hard for us to calculate. now, the scientists tell us that it all started with a big bang almost 14 billion years ago. now scientists are saying it may not be just one big bang, but there is a cycle that takes place over a trillion years that leads to repeated big bangs. byron dorgan has been a big bang in the united states senate. he's made a difference here.

he's made an enormous difference in our home state of north dakota. he really helped build a foundation that has made north dakota today the most successful state in the country, the lowest unemployment, the best financial situation, the fastest economic growth. byron dorgan helped build a foundation that has transformed our state and we are forever in his debt. and as his friend and his colleague, we are forever grateful for the contributions he's made to north dakota and to the nation. i thank the chair and yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i just want to associate myself with the remarks of the senator from north dakota and add my voice as well to celebrate senator dorgan's tenure here in the senate. i wish he was going to stay. he was always someone who is about getting things done and is somebody who -- as somebody who sat in that presiding chair a number of times, i heard senator dorgan even when i don't fully agree with him, no one has been more persuasive on the floor of this senate in arguing his case than byron dorgan. we will all miss him. with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: we're in a quorum call; is that true? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: i ask consent that it be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm

sorry i was tied up in other matters today and not able to hear speeches of some of our senators who are departing. i do want to say to two of the senators i watched some of their remarks. senator bennett from utah is a very dear friend of mine. we've traveled around the world as members of the senate visiting places all over the world. his wife joyce is really an accomplished artist. she's a flutist, well known here and in utah. senator bennett is a very, very courageous man. what a disappointment that he was not reelected. i'm not used to giving speeches for my republican colleagues, but really a loss to the country that senator bennett will not return to the senate. he's a very courageous man. he represents the ideals of the state of utah. he is a very devout member of

his church. he's a person who calls his political issues the way that he sees them. for his having been criticized for supporting his president, republican president, on the toxic asset relief program is really unfair. this was one of the most important issues that we faced in ages in this country, and i think the proof is in the pudding of the hundreds of billions of dollars, almost $1 trillion that was put out for that fund, all about $25 billion was paid back and most of the economists say we'll get more than that back from the things we invested in. so i admire the public service of senator bennett. it has been outstanding. it meets the accomplishments of his father, who also served very well in the united states senate. and i'm going to miss him a

great deal. what a wonderful human being. he's an author. he has in the past been a very successful businessman. and i think one of the most accomplished legislators that i've had the pleasure to deal with. byron dorgan. byron dorgan from north dakota is such a fine person. he for many years has had the same job that i had under senator daschle, head of the democratic policy committee, and he rendered valuable service to the caucus, to the senate and the whole country in his capacity there. he served -- we served together in the house of representatives. we've traveled together. his wife, kim, is such a fine human being i'm going to miss byron. he has been one of my close advisors, close friends. i hope i'm not being boastful here, but i don't think tom daschle had two better friends

in the senate than dorgan and reid. we are very close to him. we admired our friend tom daschle and did everything we could to make his life here as pleasant as possible. as far as being a good speaker, he is very good. he has a way of communicating that very few people i've known have that unique ability. he is someone who is, as far as the finances of this country and the world, is without peer as a legislator. he knows it all and has a way of articulating his views that are unique and i think very, very powerful. so i'm going to miss byron dorgan very, investment he's a wonderful human being. i care a great deal about him. i watched his son and daughter grow up, in college now -- i remember them when they were little kids. my son, key, a fine athlete at the university of virginia, when he was plague on those national

champion soccer teams for the university of virginia gave byron's son, brendon, a few soccer lessons. so, mr. president, i'm grateful for the friendship of senator bennett and senator dorgan. senator bunning, i of course admire because of his great athletic skills. a member of the baseball hall of fame. i think i've had the opportunity to serve with one of the great pitchers of all taoeufplt i love talking -- of all time. i love talking to jim bunning about his baseball days. some of the stories he's told i repeated many times and i'll never forget them. one of the things he said that i've repeated on a number of occasions, jim bunning was a great pitcher, all star, no hitters in both leagues. but he had -- he has some

humility because he said there was sandy kofax and there was the rest of us. so jim bunning is a person -- he and i don't vote often the same way, but he is a man who has a strong opinion. and i really am going to miss jim bunning and his ability for me to talk to him, his athletic feats. and i certainly wish him well on whatever his endeavors may be in the future. mr. president, discrimination has never served america very well. when it applies to those who serve america in the armed forces it's both disgraceful and counterproductive. the theory behind don't ask, don't tell is a thing that happened way in the past. the theory behind this should be a thing in the past and we should put the policy behind us. it's obsolete, it's

embarrassing, weakens our military and offends the values we ask our troops to defend. we need to match our policy with our principle and say in the united states everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcome. if that were the only argument it is the right thing to do, it should be enough. but that is not the only reason we should repeal it. repealing it will make our military stronger. it does make america safer to discharge those with critically needed skills. that is what happened. this policy is responsible for the discharge of 14,000 highly skilled men and women, people we spent millions of dollars training. we never know how many signed up but said away because of the don't ask, don't tell. don't ask, don't tell doesn't help the morale. it hurts the morale. the other side feels passionately that our military

should sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation but they are clearly in the minority. they should have run out of excuses. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff supports repealing it. so does the secretary of defense. the vast majority of the military said it should never -- that it would not oppose repeal. the majority of americans support repealing it too. there is simply no evidence and no justification, legal, military or otherwise, for keeping this policy in place. there is no traoepb keep -- no reason to keep american citizens from fighting for the country they love because of whom they love. the next speaker of the house asked why we would get into this debate. he says why should we get into this debate during a time of two wars and ongoing security concerns? i think wartime is exactly the right time to do everything we can to strengthen our military. there couldn't be a better time.

what opponents of don't ask, don't tell really don't want to ask is what this policy tells us about the equality between our principle and our practice. we can no longer ask our troops to die for a flag that represents justice and ask them to be false to themselves while they do it. the other side knows it doesn't have the votes to take this repeal out of the defense authorization act. they have been holding up this bill for a long, long time, for months. the latest -- the chair certainly has known about it -- is a letter from 42 senators in a further effort to stall this legislation saying we've got to finish the tax bill and we have to finish the spending bill before we can do anything legislative in nature. what kind of sense is that? when we are as crammed with things to do as we have to do, why would they do something other than simply try to avoid it?

and they have been doing that for a long, long, long time. we tried every possible way to move forward on this. and when they refuse to debate it, they hold up the other good and urgently needed parts of the bill. it's not only don't ask, don't tell. the bill before us contains an across-the-board pay raise for members of the military. it reauthorizes over 35 different bonuses and special pay incentives that our troops depend on to make ends meet. let me be clear, failure to pass this bill means our troops will lose these benefits. the chairman of the armed services committee was on the floor today saying if we don't do it today, we can't do it. everyone knows they've stalled this so long, mr. president, they've stalled this so long that meeting cloture -- the average time for a conference committee on this bill is 70 days. 70 days. not 7. 70 days. the bill also contains

provisions that would expand health care for their troops and their families and significantly expand mental health care for service members returning from iraq and afghanistan. it would fund critical troop protection needs such as mrap's and humvees disprattly needed on the -- desperately needed on the battlefield. so afghanistan can take responsibility for their own security. these are not minor or unimportant issues. these are life-and-death matters for real americans risking their lives for us, for our defense. we ask our troops to trust us and fight for us and be brave enough to stand in the line of fire. when we send our troops into battle, we do so because we believe strongly that we stand on the right side of history. we have to believe that because we know the consequences of war and the terrible burdens it brings. not far from here, mr. president, i hope that you have the opportunity to see this during your tenure here in the

senate as the -- is the congressional cemetery. it is worth going and looking. it's two miles southeast of where we stand right now on the banks of the anacostia river. it's the final resting place of veterans of every war this nation has ever fought. it's not arlington. it's the congressional cemetery. it is also where 19 united states senators, more than 70 congressmen, former speaker of the house and former vice president are buried. one tombstone belongs to an air force sergeant who fought in vietnam. he became famous shortly after the war ended when he tried to be in the military and out of the closet at the same time. he lost that fight. his tombstone at the congressional cemetery reads as follows: "when i was in the military rkt they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one." america is better than that, mr. president. when it comes to equality in the military, we know which side is

the right side of the history. the only question is whether we're brave enough to stand there. in a few minutes i'll move to reconsider the motion to proceed to this bill. this legislation is cruet cal for our troops and -- this legislation is critical for our troops and it will be unconscionable to leave here without passing it. i've pent over backwards to get this bill done, but it's clear that republicans, led by a few of them, don't want to is have a vote on repealing don't ask, don't tell. they're all doing what they can to stand? the way of the bill. they want to block a vote on this issue at all costs even if it means we don't pass the defense authorization bill for the first time in 48 years. even if if means our troops don't get the funding and the protections they need. what we've gone through to try to get this bill on the floor reminds me of a story -- it is not a storks it is an experience that i had as a boy; i don't know how old i was. let's say is 11. i was born in a little town in

the southern tip of the state of nevada. i never traveled anyplace. i was a teenager before i went to california, 50 miles from searchlight. my brother who was ten years older than me, when he got out of high school, he got a job in arizona working for standard station. and a big deal was to take his little brother there and spend a week. i was excited about going there. it was wonderful. ashfork was quite a ways from searchlight. i don't know, a couple hundred miles. i don't know how far. but the reason i'm telling you this little story is my brother was busy after he worked with his girlfriend, more so than his little brokers so he pawned me off on his girlfriend's brother, who was a little bit older than me. there wasn't a thing in the world that her little brother

could do as well as me. all the games. you know, we played these games. and the you know something? i never won a single game. why? because he kept changing the rules during the game. didn't matter what the game was, he kept change the rules. so i was always the loser. well, mr. president, that's what's happened here in this bill. doesn't matter what i do, before we get to the end of it, they get the rules again. how about four amendments, two on each side? no. anyway, we've gone through all of these different iterations on amendments and everything. nah, can't do it. i've already tried to bring this bill to the floor twice this year. in fact i offered to bring it up this summer with no restrictions but republicans refused this request. just like i talked to, my little trip to ashfork, arizona. no matter what i did, i couldn't win because the rules kept being

changed. because my friends on the other side of the aisle blocked both of these attempts we're now trying to get this bill done in the lame-duck session when everybody knows that we've much to do and we don't have time for unlimited debate. some of the requests have been really unusual. seven days of debate. think about that, seven days of debate in this lame-duck session. i've tried my way to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity for my completion on the other side to vote on amendments. over the last 20 years we've had roll call votes on the defense authorization bill. in earchts to be as fair as possible -- in an effort to be as fair as possible, i have made it clear to my colleagues that i'm willing to vote on 15 amendments, 10 from republicans, five from the democrats. the republicans don't like that. never can get enough enough.

we start out with an hour, nah, that's not enough. so, mr. president, my colleagues on this side of the aisle are demanding more each time. there are not enough days on the calendar to do what they're asking. at the same time they say we need to wait, they say they need as much possible to consider the bill. it is illogical, unreasonable. mr. president, it is quite clear that they're trying to running out the clock. as senator levin said this morning, they've probably already done it anyway. that's just too bad. i want to be clear that my remarks should in no way be taken as a crit simple of my colleague from maine, senator collins. cite the contrary. she has tried. i have respect for her. i have worked with her as the only republican on a number of occasions, one of two or three

republicans on other occasions to try to move forward on our nation's top priorities. so i believe she's been doing her very best. i don't want her to receive any criticism. but for her, i wouldn't even be ail to get any of these arrangements that they turned down. but at the same time members of our caucus are working equally as hard to defeat this measure at all costs. so in my effort to get this done, i don't know how i could have been more reasonable. but despite the critical importance for our troops, for our nation, for justice to get this done, we haven't been able to reach agreement. so i regret to say, it is our troops who will pay the price for our inability to overcome partisan political posturing. i would move to career the vote that's previously been made on this matter. ms. collins: mr. president? mr. reid: it is nondebatable. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. reid: i ask that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which

cloture was not invoked be agreed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and the senate now vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 3353454. -- s. 3454. the presiding officer: is there objection? objection is heard. ms. collins: mr. president, if i could ask the majority leader a question through the chair, unfortunately i was not able to hear the majority leader's speech for which i apologize. i was in a meeting and as soon as i found out he was speaking, i rushed to the floor. i want to make sure, since this is an important bill and an important issue, that i understand precisely what it is that the majority leader is proposing. so i would ask, through the chair, whether the majority leader is proposing a procedure

where there would be no amendments and the tree would be filled or whether the majority leader is proposing an agreement that he and i and senator lieberman discussed yesterday that would have allowed for 15 amendments, ten on the republican side and five on the democratic side? and again if the majority leader explained this and i missed it, i apologize, but i've received conflicting information about how the majority leader intends to proceed on this important bill. i would note that we've been in quorum calls for hours during which we could have proceeded to the tax bill and started working on it, and we could be working this weekend as well. but i would very much appreciate hearing from the majority leader

exactly what his intent is. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i hope my friend at least heard the nice things i heard about her in my statement. icle kill missed those as well. mr. reid:. ms. collins: i missed those as well. mr. reid: they were pretty good. i want to be very candid with my friend. in an effort to do the things that the senator from maine and i talked about with senator lieberman on a number of occasions, on a number of occasions, including yesterday or the day before, all of those require filling the tree, every one of them. it's junior just the way it is. the only way we can have some control over the amendments is that's how we would do t society answer to my question -- i think the question was, would i fill the tree? and the answer is yes. ms. collins: mr. president, if i could pose a further question to the majority leader through the chair, i understand what the

majority leader is saying, but as he discussed his plan with me, he would in fact ahow 15 amendments, ten to be offered on the republican side, that would be amendments of the republican side's choice as long as they were relevant to the bill. and he would ensure that there would be votes on those amendments. so i'm confused when i hear that he's going to fill the tree because that implies to me that he would not be allowing those 15 amendments that we discussed, ten one our -- ten on our side of our choirks as long as they were relevant to the bill. so i'm truly trying to find out what the agreement is.

mr. reid: well, the agreement is that i have made a number of different offers. you've made other suggestions. and the reason -- in direct answer to your question, i would say that the reason we've to fill the tree, of course we've to do that and come up with some agreement. thea's that's how we always do things around here. and i would also say this, mr. president: h.i.v. kind of a hard thing to work through -- i have had kind of a hard thing to work through because all that i've worked on in the last three weeks has been with the overhanging problem of not allowing -- i'm so, the republicans have said -- 42 have signed a letter saying they're not going to do anything legislatively. when they have something to say, mr. president, they've proved it. they're not allowing us to do anything legislatively. certainly this is a legislative

matter. so i think i've been as clear as i can. i am -- i of course would be willing to work on the amendment process. -- with my friend. but as far as agreeing to something right now, i can't do that. ms. collins: mr. president? mr. president, it seems he have donate me that unfortunately -- evident to me that unfortunately the majority leader is not pursuing the path that we discussed, or at least that's my interpretation of what he's saying. i think that's so unfortunate. i want to vote to proceed to this bill. i was the first republican to announce my support for the carefully constructed language in the armed services committee that would repeal don't ask, don't tell, but that's not all that's in this bill. this is an enormously important bill to our troops in afghanistan and iraq. it authorizes a pay raise.

it's important to my home state. it's a vitally important bill. and i just do not understand why we can't proceed along a path that will bring us to success and that will allow us to get the 60 votes to proceed, which i am willing to be one of those 60 votes. i thought we were extremely close to getting a reasonable agreement yesterday that would allow us to proceed. i was even willing to consider a proposal by the majority leader that we would start on the d.o.d. bill, then go to the tax bill, finish the tax bill, and then return to finish the d.o.d. bill. so i think there was such a clear path for us to be able to get this bill done, and i am

perplexed and frustrated that this important bill a going to become a victim of politics. we should be able to do better, and senator lieberman and i have been bargaining in good faith with the majority leader. he, too, has been creative in his approaches. so i just want to say that i'm perplexed as to what has happened and why we're not going forward in a constructive way that would lead to success. thank you, mr. president. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president, as i stated in my remarks earlier, this is not any kind of legislative wrangle that i'm having with my friend from maine. she has been the only person that i could talk to do this

legislation, and i appreciate her time and efforts. but the only way we can do it -- we do it all the time -- is i fill the tree and we try to work through the amendments with some agreement after that's done. this is -- this has been taking months to do this, months. and the time has gone, as senator levin has said, to stop playing around with t so, mr. president, i would simply make the following request: that if upon reconsideration cloture is invoked -- and i reason i do this, we can get to where i want to go. it takes three votes. we can do it with three votes or one vote. upon reconsideration, if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed, then the senate can proceed to the bill. we would be able to enter into an orderly process for consideration of the bill, allowing different amendments that we've already been through that. there's no need to go through

that number but we talked about 15, five from us, the democrats. so i make my request. i ask consent that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to s. 3454, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider agreed to and the senate now vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 3454 upon reconsideration. note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: did the chair rule on my request? we're in a quorum call so i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: did the chair rule on my request? the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 414, s. 3454, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011. signed by 17 senators.

the presiding officer: the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 3454, the department of defense authorization bill, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? hearing none, on this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 40. three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the

motion is not agreed to. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president. the presiding officer: can we have order in the chamber, please? the presiding officer: can we please have order in the chamber so that we can hear from the senator from vermont. i would ask you to take your conversations outside, please. mr. leahy: could i have order?

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, -- and i have alerted the other side i'm about to make a unanimous consent request on an important piece of legislation. unfortunately, the last couple of years we have got into this habit of nobody wants to vote yes or no. they want to vote maybe. it's easier to block things from even being considered. frankly, madam president, in my state of vermont, people expect that if you are elected to the senate that you have the courage to vote yes or no, but not maybe that we just see another example of this, we can't even get a yes or no vote on defense authorization at a time when our nation is in two wars, we can't get a yes or no -- a yes or no vote, we get a maybe.

i have been frustrated over and over again. we have done it today, people prepared to vote yes or no, but the other side says no, it's easier to vote maybe, then you never have to explain anything. now, we know what has happened with the deepwater horizon, the b.p. spill, a number of family members who were lost. i would note, madam president, for the sake of the senate when if they had been building the deepwater horizon drilling platform, they were assembling it on land and something was negligently done and somebody lost their life, they could

recover. because of a quirk in the law, because it happened at sea, even though it might have been caused by the same thing, these people's lives are almost valueless. we have fixed that. we have put together a very tightly put together piece of legislation that will only affect the 11 -- the families of the 11 hired working men who died at the deepwater horizon -- when deepwater horizon was destroyed. in fact, here's one of the families. so i would ask unanimous consent that the senate committee on commerce -- i make this so we can vote yes or no and not maybe. i ask unanimous consent that the senate committee on commerce, science and transportation be discharged and further

consideration of the survivors equality act, s. 3463, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the rockefeller and leahy amendment that's at the desk be adopted, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. all the statements in relation to the bill be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object, madam president. this is a nation of laws, not of men. it destroys that whole foundation of our legal system when we make retroactive law. this bill has not been vetted properly by a committee. again, it undermines our whole system of the rule of law, so i am compelled to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, of course this bill has been given enormous -- an enormous amount

of scrutiny by both republicans and democrats. six months ago, i introduced the survivors equality act with senator durbin. senator whitehouse helped the families of those who died on the high seas. we see one of those families right here in the picture beside me. in fact, the day of the hearing, we had michelle jones pictured here, we held that hearing. the same day, june 8, the judiciary committee held a hearing on the liability caps that harm victims' families, and we heard testimony from michelle jones' brother-in-law, chris jones. he's the brother of gordon jones, one of those who died aboard the deepwater horizon. very, very moving testimony, madam president. i think everybody, both parties,

felt the emotion in that room. a few weeks later, the commerce committee also held a hearing on the same matter. i think it's an unfortunate slam to the families to say this has not been vetted. the commerce committee also held a hearing. and then we had months and months of work, republicans and democrats meeting, trying to make as tightly drawn a piece of legislation as possible. after these months and months of work, i hope the senate is finally going to do justice to the families of the men who died when the deepwater horizon exploded in the gulf of mexico. at least stand up and say yes or no. vote either to give them justice or vote not to give them justice. don't do this unfortunate habit we're getting into of voting

maybe. let's -- let's not vote on this bill. let's not take a position one way or the other. we'll object to the bill coming up. it allows everybody to be maybe. it allows people to go and say we're so sympathetic for your family, we wish we could help your family, and certainly if the bill comes up, we may vote. we have all our people ready to vote for the bill, vote yes, vote no. that's what i have been trying to do since the catastrophic event. and we did have a lot of negotiation, and we did have to whittle back at the request of people on the other side of the aisle, and the proposal has been so narrow to help only the families of the 11 working men who died when the deepwater horizon oil rig exploded last april. so i was saying there could be a lot of things that could be done for them if one second before that oil rig left land when it was being constructed, if it exploded there, they lost their

lives, it was a different rule if you had gone 100 yards further, a few seconds later and you're at sea. that's why i came to the floor today to seek the senate's consent to pass this legislation without further delay. designed to provide a more equitable remedy of the death on the high seas act, the jones act with the survivors of those killed at deepwater horizon. and i referred to the difference between whether it's on land or on sea, as the law is now, the families be given far less protection simply because their loved ones died on the open sea rather than they died at a well. for example, they are working at a well that is an explosion but the well is on land. that's not fair. it's an an anachronism from an entirely different era in our history. the law should be modernized for these families without further

delay. i would ask the modernization be broader to cover the victims on cruise ships, for instance. but some here in this body have objected to covering victims on cruise ships. they will say okay, you might not be willing to cover victims of other accidents on the high seas, but at least the united states senate should not turn its back on the families of these 11 men. it's interesting, too, the victims' families' claims have been unnecessarily delayed. they have been thoughtlessly lumped in with thousands of other claims for economic damage. thousands of other claims. it should be pretty easy to spot the 11 for the people who died. this proposal i've worked on with senator rockefeller and senator whitehouse and others

would ensure fairness and timeliness for these families. we've had strong bipartisan support. we have a number of republicans who support this legislation. senators on both sides of the aisle heard from these families. they understand the inequities they face. the proposal has been circulating through the senate for more than a week. let's vote yes or no. vote yes or no. if you don't like this legislation, vote against it. but don't vote "maybe." don't have the united states senate give that kind of procedural slap in the face to these families by saying we don't have the courage to vote yes or no, so we're going to vote maybe. maybe. time's running out for 11 tpaeupls to know they're --

families to know if they're going to be treated fairly. the legislation only applies to deepwater horizon as a disaster, the largest oil spill in our nation's history. let us act for the widows and children of these men before we head home to be with our own families during this holiday season. they need our help now. we should at least be able to agree to this limited fix. again vote yes or vote no. don't vote maybe. stop this month of delay. because there's no justification for the failure to act on this deeply personal and tragic issue that's been pending for months, both sides have been running hotlines on it for more than a week. it's a five-page proposal. it's easy to understand. i will never forget the testimony of chris jones before the senate judiciary committee. his father was sitting there,

and he talked about his brother losing his life and meeting his brother's widow, michelle jones. michelle lost the love of her life. her two young sons have lost their father. this is not about politics. this shouldn't be partisan. this is about justice for these kids who are facing a christmas without their fathers, justice for widows who want closure, who are bravely fighting for their family. madam president, can we not at least once in this body, not vote maybe but have the courage to vote yes or no? not hide behind the objection of a bill coming up that many republicans and many democrats support; at least allow people

to be on record, look at this family and say i'm going to vote yes or no. not, gee, i don't have time, we just voted maybe. continuing's unfortunate. -- i think it shows disdain for these families and i regret the objection. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, may i ask unanimous consent to engage the chairman in a brief colloquy regarding this legislation. but as we consider that, i'd also like to thank him for his leadership, for his compassion. i was very proud to join him as a cosponsor of his legislation, and it is disturbing to me that his effort to come to the floor and speak for these families who have lost their loved one have fallen on such deaf ears, has fallen on a procedural objection that could just as easily have not stood.

as we stand here in this empty room where right now we could be voting on the help for these 11 families, but instead we're just milling about killing time and waiting for something to happen. the presiding officer: without objection, the senators may engage in colloquy. mr. whitehouse: thank you. i just wanted to ask the chairman, if this oil rig that exploded and burned had been on land and these same 11 workers had been killed, they would be treated differently and far more generously, and their families would be treated differently and far more generously than in this actual case just because it happened to be out in the ocean as a deepwater drilling rig? mr. leahy: madam president, the senator from rhode island is absolutely correct. we held these hearings. he was an indispensable part of the hearings. it is an inexplicable anomaly of

law that reflects a different era. had they been assembling, for example, this oil rig, had they had it on land, exploded, they would be able to recover as anybody could from such an explosion. if it was an onshore oil rig -- of course we had many, many in this country and throughout the world, but in this country. and if they had been working on that and there had been an explosion and they lost their lives, they would have remedies available to them. but because it is at sea, and even if it's just barely at sea, the remedies are entirely different to. put it in layman's terms, basically limited to the value of what's left. of course there's nothing left. mr. whitehouse: under the

circumstances of this case, i know that the objection was founded upon concern that this would, i guess, defeat the expectations of potential defendants who might otherwise have to pay this verdict as i understand it, the two most likely responsible parties, indeed the one already created by the government for pollution purposes to be the responsibility party, are b.p. and halliburton, two enormous multinational corporations. and so if i'm not mistaken, what we have done today is to send 11 american families whose father, brother, husband was lost through no fault of that individual, from a tragic accident that has been described as being the result of real

ineptitude and very poor safety practices out on that rig by big corporations. and we're now taking the side of b.p. and halliburton against those 11 families here on the eve of the christmas holidays, taking away rights that they would have if this accident had happened on the land. and i guess my question is: don't we think that b.p. and halliburton could afford this? it's not like it's little sisters of mercy who we're going to put out of business here if we allow this to go forward. mr. leahy: madam president, the senator from rhode island is correct. basically what the united states senate has said, we will protect british petroleum and halliburton over the rights and needs of the families of the 11 men who died because of the

negligence of british petroleum and halliburton. madam president, is this what the senate has come to? is this what it has come to? our failure to even vote our unwillingness to stand up and vote, our effort to do a maybe instead of a yes or no. we are sending a christmas present. i suppose we should say merry christmas, british petroleum. merry christmas, halliburton. we protected you and saved you from having to pay for your negligence. it's a pretty cold signal to send to these families of the 11 men who died. frankly, as i've often said, the senate should be the conscience of the nation. tkhou we suppress -- how do we express our conscience when we don't have the courage to vote

yes or no on a matter of this significance? mr. whitehouse: i thank the chairman for his leadership and his compassion, and i'm proud to join him today in this effort, and i yield the floor. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i'd ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. udall: madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i thank the president. madam president, i rise today,

and i hate to say it, to point out that we've again witnessed gridlock at its worst on the heels of this vote that just concluded. when the senate was given a chance to lead on critical issues crucial to our national security, to our troops and to our leadership in the 21st century, i hate again to say it, the senate let politics obstruct progress that we should make. madam president, this is the second time this year that we prevented ourselves, if you will, from debating critical national security issues. like so many other debates that we've wanted to have this year, this one was derailed by obstruction, i believe, before it even began. the last time the minority party blocked debate of the national defense authorization act, they argued that the "dream" act should not be considered as amendment to the bill and that we needed to wait on the report of the pentagon study group on how to repeal don't ask, don't tell before we could vote on the

broader bill. well, this time we've already -- we did consider the "dream" act in a separate vote. this time after voting today, we voted after the pentagon's task force on don't ask, don't tell has weighed in with the most comprehensive review of a personnel policy that d.o.d. has ever conducted on any policy that was being proposed. but obstruction continues still. and there are new excuses this time. opponents now say that we need to extend tax breaks before we can consider legislation necessary to ensure our national security. it doesn't seem to matter to those who voted no today that the pentagon study group looking at repeal confirm what many of us have been saying for years, that don't ask, don't tell can be overturned without disrupting our nation's military readiness. and it doesn't seem to matter to these opponents that secretary

gates, admiral mullen and a host, literally a host of other military and civilian leaders believe that repeal by a federal judge would be far more disruptive and damaging to readiness and morale than repeal through the legislation that's been thoughtfully and comprehensively drafted by the congress. this wide-ranging and highly-respected group of military and civilian leaders has strongly urged us, the senate, to act on this defense authorization bill this will month. unlike what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, the repeal language in this legislation respects the pentagon's time line and it gives our military leaders the flexibility they say they need to implement repeal in a way that tracks with military standards and guidelines. and the best way to change the policies for elected representatives -- that's us -- to pass the legislation before us now and to do it this year.

but the vote we just had means that we'll have no debate on don't ask, don't tell. and just as importantly -- and i know the presiding officer serves on the foreign relations committee -- it thwarts a serious discussion about pressing national security issues. imagine that. we're prevented from debating fundamental national security concerns at a time of two wars. people in my state of colorado, they don't understand such obstruction, and i don't think americans all across the country do. this is further illuminated because every year for nearly a half-century congress has taken up and passed a bill renewing our defense policies for the nation, for the coming year. that's 48 years consecutively. and this defense authorization bill, like all those that came before it, is as important as the 49 that have preceded it. it provides funding for our military operations in afghanistan, in pakistan, and

iraq. it supports our service members and it keeps americans safe through needed resources and policies, including fair and competitive pay and benefits for our medical malpractice in uniform. the bill also includes many important provisions directed at the health and needs of our service members' families. specifically, if i might, madam president, i want to mention a provision that i authored from help from other of my colleagues, which would extend health insurance for military families enabling children of active duty service members and retirees to stay on their parents' policies until they turn age 26. it's similar to what we did in the affordable care act last year and this year, more broadly for men's. and also importantly this legislation provides improved care for our wounded service members and their fathers not just the physical wounds of war but also the mental wounds of war. so, madam president, as i conclude, i have to tell you that i remain hopeful that

somehow this congress can find a way, even in the midst of this partisan rancor, to pass this defense authorization bill for the 49th consecutive year. i'm willing to stay until christmas, even through christmas and the week after, to get this done. and i'll tell you, if we can't get don't ask, don't tell repealed as a part of the defense authorization bill, i'm willing to stay through the holidays to debate it on the floor as a stand-alone measure, and i'll urge my completion to join me in that debate. -- my colleagues to join me in that debate. so despite the vote today, i have to say i'm optimistic about our future, and i'm committed, as i know the presiding officer is, to a new kind of politics where we can find consensus among our disagreement. i know the members of our states, and americans at large, want us to tackle tough decisions. it is why they sent us here, to resolve the tough problems that i -- and the opportunities that

are inherent in those problems that led us to want to serve in the nation's capital. so let's creep out to each other, let's find -- so let's reach out to each other, let's find common ground and demonstrate support for our armed forces. after all, they're standing up for us. we can stand up for them. americans sent us here to do no less. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mrs. lincoln: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. lincoln: thank you, madam president. madam president, i would just like to note that on the last vote, vote number 270, due to circumstances way beyond my control, i was unable to be here and would like to be recorded or considered as having voted -- voting on the reconsideration of the motion to proceed to s. 3454 -- aid like to be considered -- i would like to have been recorded as voting "yes."

parntsly i can't be recorded and i understand that. i just wanted to make thought that had i been here, i would have voted "yes." the presiding officer: the record will so note. mrs. lincoln: great. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

work: quorum call:

quorum call: