quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my intern, bria justice, who's participating in a shadow day, have the privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you.

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 270, senate bill 2165, a bill to permanently authorize the land, water and conservation fund, that the bill be read a third and i'm passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. lankford: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: reserving the right to object, i'd like to ask that the consent be modified to pass a short-term extension, s. 2169, with my amendment, which is at the desk. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: does the senator want to modify his request? mr. merkley: reserving the right to object. i'll note that we secured this language an hour ago, have no

complete insight on the impact of the language and this is language more appropriately debated in the committee proce process. and i would ask my colleague to consider introducing it for action on the floor at some future point and not, in fact, use it to obstruct funding or authorization of the land and water conservation fund. and if my colleague is not comfortable with such a suggestion, than i would object. the presiding officer: the senator declines to modify his request. is there an objection to the original request? mr. lankford: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: this first request was to get this bill done right now and reauthorized and so i'm going to turn to a different possibility, which is to secure a debate here on the floor which

would afford my colleague from oklahoma the opportunity to present his thoughts. i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the democratic leader, but no later than thursday, november 12, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar item number 270, s. 2165, that there be one hour of debate equally divide between the proponents and opponents. than upon the use or yielding back of time, the senat -- the e read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill. that the vote be subject to a 60-vote threshold and finally, there be no motions or points of order in order to the bill. the presiding officer: is there an objection? thmr. lankford: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, we have now seen a demonstration --

and i want to talk to senator merkley about this. i'd ask permission to engage in a colloquy with him, i ask consent. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. udall: the land and water conservation fund is a piece of legislation that has been in place and been law for 50 years, senator merkley, as you know. it's been in place for 50 years and it's expired. and there is overwhelming support for this. a number of us have signed letters. senator burr, who's here, i know has been a leader in terms of working on the republican side. and we have a huge amount of support. but a small, little group is -- is objecting to this moving forward. and, senator merkley, this is showing the dysfunction of here we have a bill and the leadership cannot get the bill on to the floor. and i just wanted to ask you in terms of your state, i know my

state, people love their parks, they love the land and water conservation fund. i think the same's true in oregon, isn't it? and this is something that we shouldn't have let lapse and we've got to put it in place. many merkley: to my colleague from new mexico, he is absolutely correct. for these 50 years that he noted, the land and water conservation fund has protected millions of acres of our land, including playgrounds and parks, our most treasured national landscapes all without costing our taxpayers a single dime. it is without question our nation's most important and successful conservation outdoor recreation program. and oregon specifically has received about $300 million over the past five decades, safeguarding areas that are now complete treasures for our state, such as oregon dunes and the hell's canyon national

recreation area. these special places are part of our heritage and protecting them has been made possible through this -- this fund. it's a commitment to preserving these places for future generations in oregon and throughout the nation. and it also serves to really strengthen the outdoor recreation economy in our state. so what is a win for our heritage is also a win for our rural economy. so this earth -- so this effort to torpedo something of great value in terms of protection of special places and our rural economy is just a step or a stride in absolutely the wrong direction. mr. udall: senator merkley, one of the things we face here is that because the land and water conservation fund has not been reauthorized, then there are members, senators who are trying to atamattach this to other pief

legislation. you and i worked very well on the toxic control substances act, which now has over 60 votes. and so this is really -- this has really held down both pieces of legislation, land and water conservation fund can't be reauthorized, we can't pass the toxic substances control act, which has overwhelming support. and so we're in a -- in a situation where the leadership needs to step in and say, both of these have huge support in the senate, bipartisan support. let's get a vote on them. let's not continue to have this gridlock and dysfunction. do you -- do you see it that way in terms of how this is playing out on the floor right now? mr. merkley: well, i absolutely share your perspective on this. in terms of the toxic substances control act, tsca, or the lautenberg act, as we now call it, this is an effort to remov remove -- and you have championed this in a bipartisan

way, you've brought this forward and it has been improved through an extensive committee process and we have really a shot finally to have a process in which we can take and remove toxic items from everyday products. and a really good example, we're standing here on a carpet and the carpet's full of flame retardants that don't really retard flames but definitely cause cancer. and so having those scientifically analyzed in the senate as to whether they should be in our carpets or not makes a lot of sense. you think of our little -- little babies crawling in their first months of life on these carpets, their nose right down there to the dust that's -- the dust is attached to these toxic chemicals. and so it has now -- i believe your bill, this bill has now -- not only is it bipartisan, it has more than 60, or at least 60 cosponsors. mr. udall: yeah. mr. merkley: and so here we are with this paralyzed process

where a few individuals say, well, you know, i guess it's not important to get toxic cancer-causing items out of our household products and also not important that our states get flexible funds to preserve special places. i would just suggest that rather than blocking such legislation, that folks who have that mind come to the floor and make their case. if they want more cancer for our children, come to make your case. if you want to not preserve special places in america, come and make your case. but do not obstruct this body from being able to have the conversation. mr. lankford: would the senator consent to join the colloquy? mr. udall: please, senator lankford. mr. lankford: thank you for letting me be able to join the conversation. the argument here is not against whether i would want or other members would want cancer-causing items or would want to have the degradation. the problem is the degradation in our public pass and lands. we have $11.5 billion backlog in our national parks right now.

and inexplicably, the land and water conservation fund does not allow for the maintenance of what we have. the united states government currently manages 29% of the land pass this the united states. and we have a multibillion-dollar backlog, including in our national treasure, that is the national parks that are out there. this amendment that i have and that others are proposing is to simply say, before we keep adding land, at least at the same rate we're adding more land, we should be maintaining that land. equivalent to if you're going to buy a car, you need to at least set aside some money to pay for gas in it. so all that we're asking for is something that's been asked for through a long time through multiple committees and multiple hearings, that is, as we engage in purchasing new property, we also make sure we're setting aside dollars from the land and water conservation fund to actually maintaining what we're purchasing. the dollars that are there already, there's a $20 billion amount that's set aside for land and water conservation fund. the fund continues to function under the current c.r. appropriations have already been planned and put in place by the

committees to be able to put it out there. so this doesn't affect the current ongoing functioning. it only affects new dollars coming into the land and water conservation fund. it's already functioning as it is. in fact, it has a 65-year account set aside for it. the challenge now is, are we going to maintain what we have or are we just going to keep purchasing new lands and not maintaining what we have? so i would say, we can protect us from cancer-causing agents and we can maintain what we have as well. mr. udall: thank you, senator lankford, for that -- that intervention. i think the important point herr is here on the floor and so i'm going to make a unanimous consent request with regard to tsca. but the -- let me just say, i can't agree with the amendment that senator lankford's talked about. i know it's very controversial, the idea of taking money out of the land and water conservation fund, which is going to the

stateside for parks, to the federal side for parks, and dedicating that to maintenance. that's something we should have done in budgets long ago. and the problem is, we haven't had adequate budgets for our parks and so we have -- we have a backlog. but senator merkley, you mentioned in terms of tsca, th the -- the health and safety of children. there's one person i just want to talk about, a woman by the name of dominik browning, who worked with an organization called moms clean air force. and she worries about her kids and the toys and the products they use. she herself survived kidney cancer. when she was asked by her doctor what caused the kidney cancer, he said -- and i quote -- "it's one of those environmental ones. who knows? we're full of chemicals." so this is -- this is about people like dominik browning that want to see a cop on the beat that's going to do something about chemicals. and so i -- i think this

dysfunction, this inability to deal with two very popular bills is something that we need the leadership to step in and -- and the leadership has the control of the floor and is able to move forward. so i would ask unanimou unanimos consent, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 121, s. 697, a bill to reauthorize and modernize the toxic substances control act, that the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment to be offered by senator inhofe, that will be up to two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. that following the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on adoption of the inhofe amendment. that upon disposition of the

substitute amendment, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i would ask the author of this unanimous consent request to modify the unanimous consent request to allow an amendment to be considered in the debate where we would take up the cantwell-murkowski bipartisan language on the reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? the senator from oklahoma objects. is there objection to the original request.

mr. burr: i object to the underlying unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. and senator -- mr. udall: and we have been joined by senator markey. mr. udall: if senator markey would want to participate in this colloquy, i would ask consent to do that. we have a situation where we have two pieces of legislation, very popular pieces of legislation that have enough votes to get them on the floor and to deal with the filibuster and we don't have the ability to do that, so that's where we are, and it's time that this place abandon dysfunction, abandon the kind of gridlock that we see here and get these bills on the floor, and as you said, senator merkley, if people have an objection, if they have an amendment like the senator from oklahoma, they can come down here and offer it.

i don't know what your thoughts are, but senator markey's there, and i'm sure willing to speak on this issue also. mr. merkley: i think what is extraordinary in this situation is that both of these bills have more than 60 cosponsors or at least 60 cosponsors. which as you point out is enough to close debate and get to a final vote. there was a time not very long ago when even controversial bills were voted on by a single majority. unfortunately, we're now at the point where virtually every bill has to get cloture because some individual objects to -- to completing debate even if they're not willing to stand on the floor and debate, which is another topic. you and i have suggested that indeed we need to change that, so if people object, they have to be on the floor actually speaking to the bill so it's transparent to the american public. but nonetheless, in this situation, we already have 60 supporters for both of these

bills. 60 supporters, cosponsors in the land water conservation fund, 60 supporters for tsca, lautenberg act, your act, and they're both very important to our country. so for us to fail to get this bill on the floor and act is really a drama particular example of the failure of this institution to be able to operate as a legislature. now, this can be cured. the majority leader could arrange to bring these bills to the floor. we will get cloture to bring them to the floor with his support and the current cosponsors, and that would be certainly a tribute to the functioning of the u.s. senate, but it would also do important work for the people of america. reauthorizing the funds to protect our special places and creating the system that will operate effectively to get toxic chemicals out of our everyday

products, i think it comes as a shock to people across america that we have not regulated a single chemical and toxic products since 1991. it's just absolutely unacceptable. they believe and expect that the things that they handle every day have gone through a process of being safe, that we're not poisoning ourselves. it's very shocking to discover that that is simply not the case. so two very important bills to our country, bills that both have 60 supporters. let's get them to the floor. let's show that the senate can actually be a deliberative body and that we can do good work for the future of america. mr. udall: thank you. senator markey. mr. markey: i thank the senator from new mexico and the senator from oregon for their leadership on this issue. it was the best of times. it was the worst of times. it was the age of wisdom. it was the age of foolishness. it was the epoch of belief.

it was the epoch of incredulity. there is a certain dekeynesian quality on the senate floor today. we rarely have debate on senate bills that enjoy token bipartisan support but overwhelming bipartisan support. today is the best of times, the age of wisdom and the epoch of belief because we can debate not just one environmental bill that has overwhelming bipartisan support but two bills that have overwhelming bipartisan support. yet today is also the worst of times, the age of foolishness and the epoch of incredulity because a handful of senate republicans have just prevented both of these bills from even getting a vote. first, we had a request to

reauthorize the land and water conservation fund, a program conceived of by john f. kennedy who presented congress with draft legislation for it in 1963. and i am proud to be counted among the more than 60 senate supporters of the land and water conservation fund. next, we had a request to consider reform of the toxic substances control act to protect the american people against these dangerous toxic chemicals, and i am proud to be a supporter of the language the senate is expected to vote on and some have predicted upwards of 85 senate votes in favor of that environmental bill. so first, a handful of senate republicans won't allow a vote on the land and water conservation fund because they don't like the program, and then other senate republicans who do

like the land and water conservation fund won't allow a vote on tsca because we couldn't act on the land and water conservation fund. so this is nothing short of absurd. it is hard enough to reach a consensus in the united states senate on any issues, much less environmental issues, but we have yet some of our colleagues who seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. shouldn't we be able to make this the best of times on both of these bills while we have the chance to do so instead of perpetuating the worst of times view americans increasingly have of the ability of congress to get its job done? i hope that all of my colleagues can come together so that we can agree that here where there are far more than 60 votes on the senate floor for two historic

environmental bills, that we do not allow for a small handful of members to be able to stop both bills from being able to even be considered here on the senate floor. yesterday's agreement on -- on the debt ceiling, on the budget going forward, that is how congress should be operating. we should take the big issues, try to work together, understand that there are going to be differences of opinion, but when there is overwhelming support for us to be able to move forward. so i thank the gentleman from new mexico. i thank all who have worked on this issue on a bipartisan basis, and i might say that this bill is just vastly improved, the tsca bill, from where it was months ago, and i highly recommend it to my colleagues here on the senate floor. but the land and water

conservation fund, well, it's something that really goes back so many decades, and it is central to a continuation of the commitment that each and every state in our country is able to make to environmental programs. and so for me, i hope that we can find a way of resolving this issue because it is time for us to take action here on the senate floor on these two critical environmental issues, and i yield back to the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, senator markey. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. burr: i thank the presiding officer. let me just stand up and take all the blame. i'm the guy holding up the chemical bill, it. sca. this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. this is an institution that has never shied away from any debate or any vote. we've proved it last night as we passed a very technical, difficult cybersecurity vote. we can take on tough things and we can weed through it. but what we're doing today is a charade. we set 12:00 where we would come down here and there would be competitive unanimous consent requests. it's a joke. it's an absolute joke. and we force the presiding officer to be here to object. he strongly objects to the legislation. there's one guy that's tried to help facilitate this, senator inhofe. throughout the whole process,

he's tried, worked and suggested, and the fact is that maybe we're at a stalemate. and to suggest that i shouldn't have the amendment, i shouldn't have the opportunity to amend any piece of legislation is to take every right that i have as a united states senator. so to come down here and chastise any member because they would like to amend legislation, that's why they were sent here by their constituents and their state. because they look at over 200 years of history where this body doesn't allow just the biggest state to win. it allows every state to have their voice and every member to provide the input for their constituents. so let me just say to the authors on both sides, i'm going to hold up the chemical bill until there's an opportunity for me to either amend it or to

offer land and water conservation fund permanently extend it on another piece of legislation. it's plain and simple. so we can come here, we can do these unanimous consent requests and we can feel good and we can go home and look and say here's what i did, i'm on both sides of an issue. if that works for you, do it. i'll be brave enough to come here and tell you i'm the guy holding it up. i'm holding it up because i'm an equal member of the united states senate and i'm not scared to debate tsca, i'm not scared to debate land and water conservation fund, because that's what this institution was created to do. now, i sort of get the impression that we've set this up to determine who is more committed to something. that's what the vote's for. it's not the talk, it's not the debate.

it's the vote. if we can't get to the vote, it's really difficult to determine who's really for something and who's against it. now, let me just say for my colleagues land and water conservation fund set up over 50 years ago receives its funding off of the royalties of exploration on offshore oil and gas. 87.5% of it goes to the general revenue fund of the federal government and 12.5% goes to the land and water conservation fund. land and water conservation fund was never set up to handle maintenance at any state or federal facilities. it was set up to allow individual treasures to be preserved by leveraging federal dollars against private and state dollars to take in parcels and things like the appalachian trail, to take buffer pieces

against things like the blue ridge parkway, to protect a certain treasure in a state where the land and water conservation fund went in and matched with private dollars and then took -- turned around and turned it over to the state for state park. the benefit is private and land no access, now public land held by the state that fishermen and hunters, recreational use can now go in on that state park. i'm exactly where the presiding officer is. i don't want to increase the federal footprint of what we own, whether it's land or whether it's buildings. i want to get out of the business of ownership. i only want to preserve those things that up to this point we have determined are valuable to future generations. and that's not by increasing the size of those federal holdings. it's just about protecting those federal holdings. and when we talk about protecting them being the

maintenance, let me suggest to you it's a conversation we need to have with appropriators because they're getting 87.5% of the royalty split. you see land and water conservation fund when we originally conceived it, and i admit, i was not here 50 years ago. i think john mccain was the only person that might have been around. it was envisioned when that fund was created that when you take something from the land, you put something back. so when we take resources, we're going to protect something over here. it was also the direction of the legislation that $900 million a year go into this land and water conservation fund. we have averaged over those 50 years somewhere in the neighborhood of about $385 million a year. the presiding officer stopped me one day and he said well, what about the $20 billion in the

fund? there isn't any $20 billion in the fund. appropriators spent that every year. they get the royalties split 100%, 20% goes over into this fund, they appropriate x, what's left over they spend, along with the other 87.5%. you want to do maintenance in national parks? appropriate. the money's there, and it's not taxpayer money. we're collecting it off of royalties on exploration, and it really is important that we do that maintenance. it's also important that the national national park service prioritize maintenance over every other thing that is funded when maintenance is eliminated. but i think that we've got to understand it's not an either/or. you can be good stewards and invest in how you leverage federal dollars with private

dollars and also invest in the maintenance of existing facilities. if that wasn't the case, states would be up here crying for more money, more money, more money to maintain their parks. but they understand that's their responsibility and they budget for it. i was waiting for somebody to go beam me up, scotty. this is crazy. i'll agree with my good friend from new mexico, maybe it does take leadership, making a decision hey, we're going to do both of these, but the leader doesn't control when we get the debt ceiling from the house. he doesn't control what legislation we have to do. let's face it. we don't have to do either one

of these. if we did, the land and water conservation fund after 50 years would not have expired. and i might say i came to the floor and i begged at the time that i would be satisfied if we just extended for 60 days the land and water conservation fund in tsca. we could have debated it, we could have voted it, we could have had just one amendment. but some some said no, not a 60y extension, we want it to expire. well, it's expired. and the price to bring it back is permanent reauthorization. it's no longer 60 days or 90 days, it is permanent reauthorization. why? why? because this may be the best federal program we've ever run. it's not funded with taxpayer money. it takes those royalties moneys and it leverages against state and private dollars to maximize the preservation for the next generation.

name another program that does that. name another program that doesn't stick their hand in the taxpayers' pocket, that leverages it with private dollars to maximize the impact of it. this program does it day in and day out in all the states in the united states. i could argue today that i'd love to see as part of the amendment that north carolina gets a bigger share of that. but as the presiding officer knows, with me, that's sort of left up to appropriators. because they -- they're the ones that decide where the money goes. i'm not here to prosecute them. but i am here to say to my colleagues, let's quit being foolish. let's have an honest debate on two different bills or put them together. i've heard that we can't amend tsca and put permanent reauthorization in because then it stands a chance of not

passing in the house. bull. i just say bull to that. give the house a chance. there are just as many people over there that support the permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. they are not all captured in the united states senate. why? because a majority of america is for permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. why wouldn't they be? it's their future. it's about their children and their grandchildren. i'll end on this. to all my colleagues, this is not about us. no piece of legislation that we bring on this floor, we debate and we vote on it about us. if it is, we're nothing better than a crisis management institution. this is about generations to come. this is about our children and our grandchildren.

and when you look through that window at the issue, you understand the stewardship that we assume. we assume stewar stewardship iny we spend taxpayers' money, we assume stewardship in the direction of this company, we assume stewardship in the impact we have globally around the world, and we assume stewardship when we talk about taking care of this footprint god gave us. i remember the debate as we got ready to build a visitor's center outside. and i remember the history lessons that the more senior members gave me at the time when i said, a lot of money. you can build it up on top of the ground for about half the cost you can build it underneath the ground. and i was given that history of this building being the by-product of a bill through congress called the residence act in 1790. congress appropriated $500,000 taxpayer money, dollars, to build it.

when the british came, the building wasn't finished but they were nice enough to burn what we had built. most of the exterior was saved. the interior needed to be totally redone. congress ended up appropriating another chunk of change and the original capitol designed was not completed until 1823. and by 1823, the footprint needed to increase because the size of the senate and the house had grown. therefore, we needed more space. i remind my colleagues that the original time you had housed in this building the house, the senate, the library of congress and the supreme court. and we started this wing that we're in in the senate and the wing in the house, outside they look identical. inside they're very different. but when they did that, they doubled the length of the capitol and they actually had to then take off the bull finch dome of wooden copper sitting on

a sandstone base and they built the dome we know today -- cast iron, 9 million pounds, still suspended on that original limestone base. since 1863 when the statue of freedom was lowered on top of this capitol, it has looked exactly the same. and i have said for 21 years that my responsibility is to make sure a hundred years from now and 200 years from now it looks exactly like this on the outside. that was the compelling reason for spending twice as much money to put the capitol visitor's center underground, where it didn't obstruct what is an historic footprint of america's history. this building. walk around it. it is a museum of american history. to think that an italian artist could exhibit scenes in american history probably better than americans but he understood why

this country was created and that influences his art work throughout the capitol. well, let me just suggest to my colleagues, maybe it's time for to us go back on a tour of the capitol, to realize that our founders came here not to accomplish anything for themselves but to make sure that their children and their grandchildren had something better. and when we start looking at our jobs the same way they looked at creating this country and the same way we looked at preserving this building, then i will assure you we will settle issues like this in the way that the senate functions and functions well and that's in debate and in votes. i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. merkley udall: mr. presiden? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. what -- the presiding officer: the senator is reminded we're in a quorum. mr. udall: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: what just happened here, just so that we allow the american people to understand, is -- was a really honest, sincere effort on two bills that have overwhelming support, the land and water conservation furntiond thfund, the frank laug 21st century chemical safety act, we wanted to get these on the floor so we can have a debate and we can have amendments. it's exactly what just happened in the last week and part of this week on the cybersecurity bill. we got a bill on the floor. there were amendments. we invoked cloture. and we passed the bill at the end of the day. that's what we're trying to do. individual senators don't have

control of the floor. they do have the ability to come down and ask to put bills on the floor and that's what happened here. senator merkley showed up and asked to put the land and water conservation fund on the floor with the specific outlines and it was objected to. i asked to put the frank lautenberg 21st century chemical safety act on the floor and it was objected to. and that's the only power we have. the leadership has the ability to control the floor and that's why we're down here talking about this. so this was in no way a charade. this was an honest, sincere effort to try to do everything we can to make sure that everything's transparent here in terms of who's objecting, who doesn't want things to move forward and who's for moving forward on two very, very popular bills. now, i spoke earlier about tsca

and i didn't put my entire speech in the record, so i would ask that my speech be in the record as if spoken, ask consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call : quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate's in a period of morning business. mr. leahy: mr. president, i would ask -- i know that the 10-minute limits. i do not see others seeking the floor so i ask unanimous consent to be able to continue for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, this is really a personal speech.

i was very grateful for the indulgences of my fellow senators who allowed me yesterday to make a few observations after i cast my 15,000th vote. i also appreciated the comments from both the republican and democratic leader about that vote.i might like to elaborate just a bit more. i've never lost sight of what a great opportunity and responsibility the senate aaffords this senator from vermont. day after day, to make things better for vermonters and i hope for all americans. the strength in our country. ensure its vitality into the future. to forge solutions in the unending quest begun by the founders of this country to form a more perfect union.and over

the last 40 years, i've been lessed to be able to serve -- i've been blessed to be able to serve with some of the giants of the senate, like mansfield, howard baker, bob byrd, robert mondale, hubert humphrey, bob dole, george mitchell and my mentor when i came here, the then-senior senator from vermont, senator bob stafford. i would note that i became the only democrat ever elected from my state. senator stafford was really mr. republican in vermont. and i wondered what the relationship would be. he immediately took me under his arm and guided me me and worked for me and there wasn't a day that went by that we didn't consult and i didn't gain from his wisdom and experience. there are so many others. we made close friendships on

both sides of the aisle traveling with senator john blendon and his wife annie who were democrats. and senator cochran and senator lugar, republicans. i had the privilege and have had the privilege to serve with 370 senators in all, different walks of life, every corner of this nation. and what has been wonderful is having the different -- a chance to meet them, know their different l background, different stories, different life experiences, both parties. and this has made this institution the greatest deliberative body in the world. i cast my first vote in this chamber in 1975. it was a resolution to establish the church committee. critical issues postwatergate era parallel some issues we face today. i also had a front row seat, a bit part in an historic effort

initiated by democrats, senator mondale of minnesota and republican senator pearson of kansas to change the senator's earlier cloture rule which had been abused for decades afording the will of the american people on such crucial issues such as civil rights reform. the project might sound difficult, but changing the way the senate operates is somewhat akin to trying to change the weather. late, actually very late one night in a lengthy, difficult debate -- and we sometimes went around the clock -- senator mondale and majority leader mansfield enlisted me, the most junior senator, to play a role. they asked me to stay on the floor one night around 2:00 in the morning, to take the gavel as the presiding officer. they expected a lot of tight

rulings were coming up. i felt so honored, but i did feel the honor kind of drain away as senator mansfield explained, no, no, they needed somebody big, 6'3", 200 pounds. and who was still awake, to be the chair for those rulings in case tempers flared. just be able to hang on to that chair and rule as the parliamentarian tells me to. sometimes the senator is no more than a conscious body in the right place at the right time. but among those 15,000 votes i've been proud to cast on behalf of vermonters, some were vermont-oriented, some national, some global. the organic farm bill, the charter for it has become a

thriving $30 billion industry. i fought for that for years and got it through with bipartisan support. and stronger regulations of mercury pollution, combatting the effects of global warming. emergency relief for the devastation caused by tropical storm irene. in that case senator grassley spoke on the floor yesterday. i recall the morning after that storm flying around the devastated state of vermont. the first call i got was from senator grassley saying, "you vermonters stood with us when we were hit by hurricanes. we will stand with you." and how much that meant based on relationships that built over the years. then we adopted price support programs for small dairy farms. we fought for the privacy and

civil liberties of all americans. i remember supporting the reagan-o'neill deal to save social security. president ronald reagan and democrat speaker tip o'neill. fought for nutrition bills to help americans below the poverty line, joined by people like bob dole and george mcgovern. and bipartisan, strongly bipartisan campaign reform in mccain-feingold. with the bipartisan leahy-smith act on patent reform, the first reform in 50 years. working with mike crapo from idaho to reauthorize and greatly expand the strength of the violence against women act, bringing it into today's world. i was proud to oppose the war in iraq, a venture that cost so many lives and trillions in taxpayer dollars.

serving on the armed services committee in april of 1975, i became the first and only vermonter to cast a vote to end the war in vietnam, and by a one-vote margin i caught off authorization for the war in vietnam. every significant legislative success i've had has been through the often slow process and methodically building bipartisan coalitions. a breakthrough in the senate judiciary committee last week in beginning to come to grips with criminal justice reform as a fresh example of this. and so was enactment of some of the electronic surveillance reforms of the u.s.a. freedom act. you know, i would remind everybody no one alone in this body, legislative work in a democracy in large part is the

art of compromise. compromise is essential, assimilateing and digesting competing points of view which are all the more diverse in a large heterogeneous nation like ours. we are not just some small nation made up of just one particular class of people. the remarkable strength of the united states is we have people from -- who came here from all over the world and made us a strong nation. and i think we senators can keep faith that our core values, as we listen to the perspective of others, insisting on our way or no way at all is a sure-fire recipe for stalemate but not just in this body, but to the great detriment of the entire nation, the people we represent. winston churchill once said the maxim nothing avails but perfection may be spelled

shorter: paralysis. some measure of self-restraint is essential for a democratic body and a democrat republic like ours to function. louis brandeis said democracy represents external restraint. it is more difficult to maintain than to achieve. he was right. self-restraint in a democracy is not always an easy virtue. in the previous congress, as president pro tempore, i had the pleasure each day of accompanying chaplain barry black to the podium. as he offered the morning invocation. i like to think -- i like to hope that some of his inspiration rubs off on us a little bit each day. one morning years ago, for instance, he said give these senators the stature to see above the wall of prideful

opinion. we can each point to every other, the other 99 and say see, that's for you. we have to remember it's for us too, each one of us. so i was talking, my wife and i marcel and i last night about 15,000 votes didn't seem possible when i came here as a junior member of the senate. i also know there is a lot more work to do. i p hope we can restore the bipartisan campaign finance reform that so many in this body, republicans and democrats supported. i hope we can restore the historic and bipartisan foundational voting rights act. i hope we continue to fight to support our farmers. after all, it gives us food security. we are a nation that can feed ourselves. that's the very fabric of our

country. i think we should fight against government overreach in the wake of national security threats. sometimes going into all our privacy is itself a national security threat. we should do more to support our veterans and their families when they come back from war and continue the support, which is expand education opportunity for all. my family came to vermont in the 1850's. i probably became the first leahy to get a college degree, my sister the second one. we never thought -- we hope our children and grandchildren would have the same educational opportunities. we should build the middle class, offer helping hands to lift all americans out of poverty. we fund our roads and bridges. we build roads and bridges in other countries in wars where

they sometimes get blown up. let's build some in our own country where we need them. we should pass appropriations bills, not continuing resolutions. pass them every year, each year. it's a lot of work but not an insurmountable goal. it takes goodwill and bipartisan cooperation to achieve these goals. and we 100 senators should never forget we're the public face of an institution that is supported by thousands of hardworking staff. our office aides and policy experts -- my own of course -- are among the best of the senate. the capitol police, the folks who keep order to help to showcase this great building to millions of tourists keep all of us safe. and those bright and dutyful senate pages in the well of this chamber, you're all a part of the senate family. the senate is at its best when

it can be the conscience of this nation. and i've seen that happen over the years when we've risen up together and expressed the conscience of the nation. and i marvel at the fundamental soundness of wisdom of our system every time we do. we can't afford to put any part of the mechanism on automatic pilot. it takes constant work and vigilance to keep our society working. it's easy for a politician to appeal to our worst instincts and to our selfishness. the best political leaders serve best when they appeal to the best in us to lift our sights and summon our will and raise us to a higher level. you know, i still get a thrill every time i walk in this building and walk on the floor knowing the history of this place. just knowing i'm going to be part of that history. and senators have come and gone.

i've had one partner through these 15,000 votes. my wife marcel. we came here in 1975 with three wonderful children: kevin, alicia and mark. alicia was here in the chamber yesterday representing her husband lawrence and their children. and i remember my parents and marcel's parents visiting often. i remember how much they enjoyed visiting here seeing what we're doing. but i think they especially wanted to visit their three grandchildren. well, now i look at our grandchildren: fran chess ca,

sophia, patrick and fiona and i understand how my parents felt. so i'm so grateful to my fellow vermonters for the confidence they show in me. it's the major trust that urges me on which i'll never betray or take for granted. as i've reflected on these 15,000 votes, it reminds me about the significance every time we vote and why i feel energized about what votes lie ahead and how we can make a difference. i thank the distinguished presiding officer for his forebearance, and i yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to reflect on the comments that the senior senator from vermont has shared, and i want to say to senator leahy what he has reflected in the course of

his career of casting 15,000 votes spanned over four decades in the senate. some would say, the courtliness, the gentlemanliness, the bipartisanship, the deference, the respect, the honor -- some would say these are old-fashioned ideas. well, this senator happens to feel that they are american values, and how often have we seen those characteristics not on display? tonight the house of representatives is going to pass not only raising the debt ceiling so we can pay