Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua

Handler, a fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the duration of Senate consideration of Executive Calendar No. 1, the Resolution of Ratification accompanying the Moscow Treaty.

Mr. President, I rise today to welcome Dr. Michael J. Flavin to the Senate. Dr. Flavin comes to us from New Providence, NJ and we are very happy that he is joining us today as the Senate's Guest Chaplain. Dr. Flavin received his Bachelor's Degree from Bemidji State University and he currently serves as Associate Pastor at New Providence Presbyterian Church in New Providence. He received his theology degree from Bethel Seminary and his doctorate from Eastern Theological Seminary. He spends much of his time working with students.

I am always excited when we can welcome someone from New Jersey to the Senate Chamber and I am honored to welcome Dr. Michael J. Flavin to lead us in our morning prayer.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send the resolution to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be held there.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution condemning the recent selection of Libya to chair the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. If it was not so tragic, this selection would be a joke. That session begins in just a few days, on March 17.

Joining me as cosponsors are Senators Smith, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Corzine.

The reason I say it would almost be a joke is that it is unconscionable that a human rights abuser such as Libya, and a country that has been the subject of United Nations sanctions because of its links to terrorist activities, would be selected to lead an international human rights organization. Talk about the fox in the chicken coop, this is an exact replication of what that old saw is. Libya has not even complied with the Commission's own recommendations on how to improve its own dismal human rights record.

We are talking about a country that was responsible for downing a passenger airliner and the bombing of a discotheque in Europe.

Libya's selection to the chairmanship undermines the credibility of this Commission and threatens the international community's responsibility to protect human rights. How can the Commission retain any credibility with Libya at the helm?

I want to review Libya's human rights record over the past three decades, which Human Rights Watch characterizes as ``appalling.'' This record includes the abduction, forced disappearance, and assassination of political opponents. In Libya today, hundreds of people remain arbitrarily detained, and some have been so for over a decade. Human rights monitors have registered concern about the use of physical and psychological torture in detainment, leading to the deaths of some detainees.

Additionally, the Libyan Government restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion.

Does a government with such a record merit the chair of a Commission that was established in 1946, in the wake of the atrocities of World War II, specifically to protect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Libya should not chair this Commission. If anything, it should be under investigation by it.

In 2000, after years of investigations and appeals, two Libyan intelligence officers were found guilty by Scottish judges in the attack on Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people, including 38 from New Jersey and citizens from over 20 other countries.

Just as the international community was finally sentencing the Libyans responsible for this 1988 tragedy, and beginning to bring them to justice, General Qadhafi was planning Libya's ascent to lead the Commission on Human Rights. He gained the African nomination for chair against the wishes of many fellow African leaders, some of whom are making genuine strides toward improving their countries' human rights records.

At the time, a spokeswoman from South Africa's opposition group, the Democratic Alliance, said:

African countries should have supported a candidate of whom

all Africans could be proud.

For the first time in the history of the Commission on Human Rights, the United States--appalled by the African Union's nomination of Libya--called for a vote. On January 20 of this year, only Canada and one other country joined the United States in voting against Libya's chairmanship. Many of the 33 countries that voted in favor of Libya are recipients of United States direct foreign assistance. Imagine, we are giving them aid, and these countries are supporting the chairmanship

of a country that is an abuser of human rights of the first order. Many of our European allies abstained from the vote.

The resolution I am introducing with my colleagues, Senators Smith, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Corzine, condemns Libya's selection as chair. It asserts that the manipulation of the Commission by a gross human rights violator undermines the credibility of the body while legitimizing regimes that continue their oppressive activities.

This resolution calls on countries throughout the world to renew their commitment to human rights. The resolution also calls on the President and the Secretary of State to object strongly to the United Nations' current suspension of its sanctions against Libya. These sanctions should remain in place until Libya complies with the requirements of multiple U.N. resolutions, one of which calls on Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi to acknowledge responsibility for the 1988 Pan Am terrorism attack--something he has refused to do so far, despite the incontrovertible evidence.

Finally, in this resolution, I call on the Secretary of State to work with other members of the United Nations to reform that Commission and to ensure that governments that violate human rights, sponsor terrorist activities, and are subject to U.N. sanctions cannot be elected to leadership positions in the Commission and other U.N. bodies in the future.

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

Mr. President, today is the 12th day, as remarkable as that seems, that the Senate is debating this nomination instead of doing what it has to for the important business of the American people, as I see it. It is quite clear the other side is just not going to get cloture on this nomination. So the choice is either bring forward a cloture motion or move on to other business.

The Nation's Governors are in Washington meeting with President Bush and Members of Congress to discuss critically important issues, such as homeland security, rising unemployment, and increasing State deficits. These are serious issues that need attention, but we are delaying tending to the needs of the American people with endless debate on a judicial nominee who is refusing to tell the Senate almost anything about his judicial philosophy or decisionmaking process.

This hide-the-ball strategy being used by Mr. Estrada, frankly, I think is an affront to the Senate and the American people. We have the right to get complete and thoughtful answers to legitimate concerns about his approach to his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the country.

I was formerly a businessman. Sometimes there are processes that are not dissimilar to our functions here. One of them is to be able to understand what a nominee or an appointment of a high-ranking executive might include and a review of that person's potential, that person's experience, that person's attitude before you put him to work.

My fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle would have the Senate, considered the most deliberative body in world history--and, I assume, also considered one of the most thoughtful places in the world in terms of Government and deliberative bodies--vote to confirm a nominee to a lifetime--lifetime, and it is important people realize that means you cannot be fired from the job; this means you can go as long as you want to, and when you are finished with your service, your salary continues at exactly the same level it did when you went to work every day--a lifetime appointment without disclosure of what I and my colleagues consider required information.

In the business world, this practice would have been unheard of, and the American people deserve better. If someone were seeking a post and they appeared before a congressional committee or a department head and said, I would like the job, but I am not willing to answer that questionnaire, that would make that aspirant unacceptable under any condition. It should be a requirement when a lifetime-tenured job is under discussion, something so important as the circuit court of appeals where people, after getting a decision from district court, go to get the judgment of wise and experienced people. His unwillingness to answer questions, to talk about what he stands for, and what he believes is a shocking disregard for appropriate behavior.

Responsible business owners do not hire senior managers without first conducting a complete and thorough review of that candidate's job application. The candidate would answer questions that give interviewers an opportunity to measure the candidate's decisionmaking process and views on work-related issues. A candidate cannot simply refuse to answer important questions of fitness, philosophy, or temperament. No business executive would hire a candidate who refused to answer basic inquiries. These are not private matters. They become the matters of the employer, be it government or business. Those in business would put their businesses at risk and leave themselves susceptible to future lawsuits based on negligent hiring practices.

No one is doubting the fact Mr. Estrada is bright and intelligent, but his repeated refusal to provide the Senate with any insight into his views on the law and the U.S. Constitution is incomprehensible. I just cannot understand it. How can we make an informed decision about a judicial nominee if the nominee refuses to provide the Senate with sufficient information about his judicial philosophy and, therefore, his temperament?

The questions being asked are not prohibited by law or judicial or professional ethics codes. Instead of entertaining continuing with these dilatory tactics, the Senate should simply move on to the important business of the American people concerned about the protection of their homeland; move on to repair a hemorrhaging Federal budget that under this administration has been converted from a $5.6 trillion surplus into a 2.$1 trillion deficit; move on to provide States that are experiencing dire economic conditions with more Federal assistance that would help them weather the storms during these times of increasing unemployment, threatening war with Iraq, and a sustained fear of potential terrorist acts.

In the most recent CNN Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans believe the economy is the most pressing issue confronting the Nation. Thirty percent of Americans believe the war with Iraq is the most important issue, second to jobs and the economy.

The nomination of Mr. Estrada did not make the list of important concerns facing the Nation. Since January 2001, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by nearly 40 percent, with nearly 8.3 million Americans out of work.

Since President Bush took office, 2.3 million private sector jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate for Latinos by way of example has increased 33 percent. According to the Department of Labor, there are now 2.4 jobseekers for every job opening. So rather than focusing on creating jobs for 8.3 million Americans, the Senate is targeted on the job of one attorney, a very successful attorney who made a lot of money. But how does that influence what the American people see as their need?

This is the same thinking that has produced an economic stimulus package that overwhelmingly favors the top 1 percent of American taxpayers while giving very little to those who really need some economic help.

The Senate needs to move on to the important work of protecting the homeland. CIA Director Tenet and FBI Director Mueller have both testified that America is still vulnerable to terrorist attack, and we keep on hearing alarms described in different colors. The American public does not understand what the difference between red and yellow is. They just know it scares them. It panics them. They do not know what to do. I get phone calls from people in New Jersey asking, Should we stay out of New York City? Should we not take our children on a trip? Should we stay home? The answer to all of those is that we do not really know, but we ought to get on with finding out.

The omnibus appropriations bill provides less than half of the $3.5 billion in funding promised to law enforcement people, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Meanwhile, America's ports, borders, and critical infrastructure remain dangerously unprotected.

Once again, instead of focusing on protecting the homeland and funding our first responders, the work of the Senate is being delayed in order to secure the appointment of a judicial nominee who refuses to share his views with the American people.

I do not intend to demean or diminish the importance of this nomination. It is very important. To the contrary, the nomination at issue is to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is the most powerful intermediate Federal appellate court, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. The DC Circuit is more powerful, it is observed, than other Federal courts because it has exclusive jurisdiction over a broad array of far-reaching Federal regulations that enforce critical environment, consumer, and worker protection laws.

As history has shown, DC Circuit Court judges are often tapped to serve on the Supreme Court. Presently, three of the nine Supreme Court Justices--Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg--previously served on the DC Circuit.

The Senate has a constitutional responsibility. The constitutional judicial confirmation process grants authority to the President of the United States to make the nominations and gives the Senate an equally significant role to agree by advising and consenting with the President's recommendation before a nominee can sit on the Federal bench. These important, mutually coexisting roles of the President and the Senate are central to the democratic system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Mr. Estrada must provide the Senate with a full and complete understanding of his views of the law and the Constitution, including important civil rights laws that protect all Americans, especially minorities, women, the elderly, and the disabled. However, if he is unwilling or the White House is unwilling to nominate judicial nominees who are willing to answer reasonable, nonintrusive, and legitimate inquiries of the Senate, then these nominees should not be confirmed.

The role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advise and consent. It does not say anyplace to rubberstamp all Presidential nominations. The Senate should not abdicate its responsibility to thoroughly review judicial nominations. It is a responsibility, it is an obligation, for each one of us. Rather, the Senate is dutybound to ensure that each nominee maintains the utmost commitment to upholding the Constitution of our country--following precedent, listening to arguments without fear or favor, and rendering judgment without personal bias. Miguel Estrada has failed to respond to legitimate inquiries to the Senate and the American people.

As I said before, it is time to move on to the important work of the American people, and let this appointment fall as it should unless Mr. Estrada has a reckoning with himself and his obligation and comes to the Senate to discuss his views in response to questions posed by the Senate.

Yes.

It is a very important paper, yes.

I am aware of that.

I do not know precisely, but it is in the----

I am sorry?

Over a million certainly on the weekends.

I am. I am also aware of the fact that there are Latino organizations that are unalterably opposed to this nomination.

I am aware of all that.

I absolutely agree that there would typically be a determination by them to support the nomination, but they are not. If the Senator will help sharpen my memory, I think they said keep on talking in the close of that editorial piece.

I would be happy to.

I agree with the Senator and wish I had written it as well.

Yes.

I agree with it fully. I read that editorial. I was in total agreement with their logic, coming from New Jersey where we had candidates who were recommended for the

appeals court languish--nothing happening for months and months and months. The protests we hear now from our friends on the other side about the process are a bit shameless because we had a nominee from California, Mr. Paez, who waited, I believe, 1,500 days.

Waiting for a review by the committee, and could not get that.

If we talk about obstinate approaches to the process about deliberate obstruction, the record is very clear.

When we presented candidates, when the Democrats were a majority, they could not move them because the Republican side of the Senate would not permit any action at all.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.

I agree 100 percent with that statement, and I think we ought to get on with the business of the American people.

Indeed, that is true.

I just got a letter from a district court judge in New Jersey, considered one of the most brilliant and able district court judges, who was recommended for the circuit court of appeals in our district and decided after a long wait that he was not going to get a chance to be heard for a circuit court job. He informs me in his letter that he is going back to the law firm after 10 years on the Federal bench--a distinguished jurist, a great loss. He could not get a hearing, so he decided to withdraw rather than sit there and be dangled like a kite in the wind.

I am fully aware of that. I listened when the distinguished Democratic whip read that list the first time, and I took the liberty of reading the list a second time to make sure it was clearly understood.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to welcome the Reverend Monsignor Robert J. Fuhrman to the Senate. Monsignor Fuhrman hails from Saddle River, NJ, and we are very happy that he is joining us today as the Senate's guest Chaplain. Monsignor Fuhrman was ordained to the priesthood in 1981. He received his bachelor's degree from Seton Hall University in 1977 and he currently serves as pastor at St. Gabriel the Archangel Church in Saddle River. He is also currently on the board of directors of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, which is a mission support agency of the Catholic Church. In this capacity he has daily contact with missionaries providing important services in developing countries around the world.

I am always excited when we can welcome someone from New Jersey to the Senate Chamber and I am honored to welcome Monsignor Robert J. Fuhrman to lead us in our morning prayer.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I wish to take an opportunity to discuss the appointment of Miguel Estrada to the circuit court and to raise an objection I share with other colleagues on this side of the aisle.

I come out of the business world. I think of how I might react if I were interviewing a senior executive candidate, and if that individual refused to answer relevant questions about his experience or her views, or what kind of a life attitude had developed in that person's mind, I sure would not be putting them on my payroll.

To respond to our colleague from Georgia who raises legitimate questions about why there is opposition on our side, the Senator challenges the fact that Mr. Estrada's lack of experience--I think if I heard him correctly--could even be an asset.

The Senator also alluded to the fact he came here without experience. I certainly did. I came here directly from the business community. I came here without experience. He and I and the occupant of the Chair have a job that is less than permanent. My colleague from Georgia and my colleague in the Chair got here because they terminated someone else's tenure in office. If that was the condition, if we were not talking about a lifetime appointment, we would not be having this debate, in my view. I am sure we would have had a vote and probably approved for Mr. Estrada to assume the appeals court bench.

That is not the case. Nor is it the case that the advise and consent relationship of a recommendation that comes from the President means automatic consent. We are supposed to take these responsibilities seriously. I am not a lawyer, but I feel the full measure of a democracy is the way justice is dispensed. We have a separation of powers to make sure there are checks and balances. That is why we protect the judiciary from being tossed out of office willy-nilly. They are able to exercise their will and exercise it to the best of their ability. But we have an obligation to confirm what the best of their ability is.

I am not happy about entering this discussion like this because I do have respect for colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think they should have every right to add their views of support, to register those views as diligently and as forcefully as we have seen.

This is a two-way street. When a Democratic President sent up nominations, the delays were interminable. We heard last night about 1,500-day delays without being able to get a hearing. That is over 4 years.

I register my opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Estrada for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. My opposition stems from several reasons, particularly questions about his unwillingness to come forward to discuss his views, to say to the American people--because they are ultimately the folks who are listening--that he is unwilling to participate in the system as it exists; that he is challenging the advice and consent aspect of the Senate's approval of asserting himself as a viable candidate for the United States Court of Appeals; that he is unwilling to open up his views to the people who are responsible for making the judgment.

Last night, I listened eagerly to the debate that took place. I listened to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee--a friend, someone I have known for a long time--talk about how unfair we are being to the President of the United States in not giving him full recognition of the fact he is the President and he is entitled to make his recommendation. The Constitution is so clear. The Constitution says the nomination has to come to the Senate for advice and consent. That is the process. We are not violating any rule by raising these questions.

Last night, it was even insinuated there might be some racial issue tied up here, and that borders on the ludicrous. I point out that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, NAACP, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus all oppose Mr. Estrada's nomination. These organizations obviously are not prejudiced against Hispanics.

Any illusion, any suggestion, any insinuation that there could be a racial concern here is an outrageous claim.

So we are going to leave those comments behind. They are without merit and without consideration. I have real substantial concerns about this nominee.

His former supervisor at the Justice Department concluded:

He lacks the judgment and is too much of an ideolog to be

an appeals court judge.

We have a right to hear what his views are. It is especially troubling because we are talking about a nominee to the DC Circuit, the most important court outside the Supreme Court in this country. The DC Circuit overseas enforcement of critical environmental, consumer, and worker protection laws. Three sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justices have come from the DC Circuit. It is an enormously important position and it is, once again, a lifetime position.

If we were to do anything except fully exercise our conscience to make sure that we understood as clearly as each one of us has not only the right but the obligation to do to examine what this individual brings to the position, we would be shirking our responsibilities.

Last night we heard talk about the fact that the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and other groups, have raised concerns about Mr. Estrada's view on a subject that I am particularly concerned about: racial profiling. The concern is that Mr. Estrada's support for so-called antiloitering laws were actually a guise for racial profiling.

Racial profiling is a terrible problem. We had a very difficult time in the

State of New Jersey with that issue. I introduced racial profiling prohibition legislation in the Senate, and I am pleased to work with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, on that issue now.

Driving while black, walking while Hispanic--we have heard those phrases--should not be crimes. I think the courts must do all they can to prevent this practice. I am worried that Mr. Estrada's views go in another direction.

Another major problem with this nominee is that he seems to be hiding the ball, not playing the game the way it ought to be, refusing to discuss his basic legal theories and beliefs. The Constitution does not say the President of the United States has a unilateral right to put anybody he wants to on the Federal bench. Presidential appointments require, as I said before, the advice and consent of the Senate, and that certainly does not suggest automatic consent.

We have a constitutional obligation to evaluate the President's choices. As all judicial nominees, Mr. Estrada had his job interview before the Judiciary Committee. At his Judiciary Committee hearings, Mr. Estrada refused to answer important questions. My colleagues who serve on that committee asked the appropriate questions about his judicial philosophy, such as his views on key Supreme Court decisions, but he failed to respond or was unwilling to respond to fundamental and simple questions expected of a nominee before that committee.

I mentioned that before I came to the Senate I ran a pretty good sized company, and when we would interview people for important positions in our company we would expect them to be completely responsive to our inquiries. If someone was evasive, refused to answer reasonable questions, we would not hire them. It would not be fair to our shareholders, our customers, and the other employees of the company to hire someone who refused to answer basic questions about how they would handle the job.

In the case of Miguel Estrada, we have someone who refused to answer questions regarding his nomination for a lifetime position. We, in the Senate, have a constitutional responsibility to review the nominees fully and have our consciences clear when we decide their fate. This nomination should not move forward because Mr. Estrada has left too many questions unanswered. He has kept many of his views on important legal matters a mystery, and that is not how this process should work. That is not how it is going to work.

This has nothing to do with anyone's ethnic background. That is silly. This Democratic caucus is always looking to expand diversity, and everybody knows that. This debate is about a nominee who is not cooperating. If he thinks Roe v. Wade is unsound law, let him say it. If he thinks it is settled law and respects it as a judge, let him say that. I do not think this nominee should move forward until serious questions about his legal philosophy have been answered.

Some of my colleagues on the other side act as if this is unprecedented for a Presidential nominee to not receive a vote, but there were Clinton nominees who could not even receive a hearing, no less a vote. I wish to remind the Senate of some of the names we heard from our Democratic whip the other day, people such as Judith McConnell, John Tait, John Snodgrass, Patrick Toole, Wenona Whitfield, Leland Shurin, John Bingler, Bruce Greer, Sue Ellen Myerscough, Cheryl Wattley, Michael Schattman, James A. Beaty, Jr.; J. Rich Leonard, Anabelle Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Helene White, Jorge Rangel, Jeffrey Coleman, James Klein, Robert Freedberg, Lynette Norton, Robert Raymar, a fellow from New Jersey whose name came up, could not get a hearing, Legrome Davis, Lynne Lasry, Barry Goode, H. Alston Johnson, James Duffy, Elana Kagan, James Wynn, Kathleen McCree-Lewis, Enrique Moreno, James Lyons, Kent Markus, Robert Cindrich, and the list of those who waited for such long periods is rather lengthy. We are talking about 57 nominees who were never allowed votes by the Republican-controlled Senate: 31 circuit and 48 district judges, 57 of those never allowed votes; 31 circuit court nominees, 22 blocked from getting a vote or being confirmed. There is person after person. One person waited more than 1,500 days, Helene White, never to be allowed a hearing or a vote. Richard Paez waited more than 1,500 days, finally confirmed. The list goes on.

So when I hear the complaining about how unfair the Democrats have been, I just say look back over our shoulder not too long ago and see the number of people who waited and waited and could not get any attention at all.

Mr. Estrada is getting attention, a lot of attention, and if he was responsive appropriately, I am positive a vote would have taken place and we would all have registered our opinion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safe and Secure Skies Act of 2003, a bill that would protect the safety and security of the flying public by requiring that air traffic control remain a government function. This legislation is necessary because the Bush administration has taken several steps to privatize our Nation's air traffic control system.

On September 11 air traffic controllers across the Nation performed heroically, as they guided thousands of aircraft out of the sky. From the tower at Newark International Airport, air traffic controllers in my State could see the Twin Towers burning as they worked to return tens of thousands of Americans to the ground safely.

Like many public servants on that day, they are heroes. Along with police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel, these public employees gave 110 percent to secure the safety of the American people.

In the aftermath of these tragic events, the American people demanded one thing in particular of their government: they wanted government personnel--not private contract firms--to perform security screening of baggage at our Nation's airports. And Congress compiled with this request, as we turned the privatized baggage screening system over to Federal workers with the new Transportation Security Agency.

That is why it is so surprising to me that the administration is now taking steps to privatize the air traffic control system in this country. It makes little sense, especially after September 11. It is the opposite of what the public wants.

The safety and security of the American people should not be the responsibility of the lowest bidder. Rather, it is a core responsibility of government.

But the administration is moving rapidly in the opposite direction. Already we have seen the jobs of air traffic control specialists--those who repair, inspect, and maintain the air traffic control system-- opened up to outsourcing. And the administration just completed a ``feasibility study'' of privatizing the jobs of flight service station controllers--the experts who provide critical weather, safety, and security alerts to pilots.

Next on the agenda for the administration are the air traffic controllers, who monitor and guide thousands of aircraft every day over the United States.

The administration has already proposed air traffic controller privatization in two of its annual budgets. In

June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order stripping air traffic services of its ``inherently governmental'' status. And in December 2002, the administration issued a document designating air traffic control a ``commercial'' activity, opening the door to contracting out the jobs of air traffic controllers to the lowest bidder.

This change from ``inherently governmental'' to a ``commercial'' function is more than a technical change--``inherently governmental'' functions can never be privatized, while ``commercial'' functions may be outsourced.

The administration is trying to accomplish its privatization plan under the public's radar screen through the Office of Management and Budget's A-76 process. We in Congress have the power to stop this process and the bill I am introducing today will reverse the administration's plan.

My Safe and Secure Skies Act will return air traffic control functions to ``inherently governmental'' status, thus barring any privatization action. I do want to note, however, that my legislation will not affect the existing FAA ``Contract Tower'' program, which involves some small, visual flight rules airports.

We currently have the best air traffic control system in the world. Over 15,000 dedicated Federal air traffic controllers guide more than 2 million passengers a day home safely. Maintaining and inspecting the system are over 11,000 air traffic specialists, and nearly 3,000 flight service station controllers provide critical information and alerts to pilots. They are expert professionals who perform under pressure every day to keep our skies safe.

I believe our air traffic controllers are almost a wing of the military, and they play a major role in homeland security. When President Bush gave the State of the Union speech last month, it was the flight service station air traffic controllers who sent alerts to avoid the expanded ``no-fly'' zone around Washington. And when the space shuttle Columbia tragically disintegrated in the skies over Texas, it was the air traffic controllers who directed aircraft away from the falling debris field.

These men and women perform a critical government function.

Some claim that privatization will save money. But when you look at other countries' experiments with air traffic control privatization, all you see are financial messes and safety hazards. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have privatized systems that are now in crisis. Costs have gone up and safety has gone down.

Since Great Britain adopted privatization, near misses have increased by 50 percent and delays have increased by 20 percent. The British Government has already had to bail out the privatized air traffic control company twice.

Privatization of the air traffic control system is bad fiscal policy, bad safety policy, bad homeland security policy, and the public doesn't want it.

I therefore ask my colleagues to support my Safe and Secure Skies Act, which will declare these critical air traffic control functions to be ``inherently governmental'', and therefore not eligible for outsourcing.

The safety of our skies should not be put in the hands of the lowest bidder.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safe and Secure Skies Act of 2003, a bill that would protect the safety and security of the flying public by requiring that air traffic control remain a government function. This legislation is necessary because the Bush administration has taken several steps to privatize our Nation's air traffic control system.

On September 11 air traffic controllers across the Nation performed heroically, as they guided thousands of aircraft out of the sky. From the tower at Newark International Airport, air traffic controllers in my State could see the Twin Towers burning as they worked to return tens of thousands of Americans to the ground safely.

Like many public servants on that day, they are heroes. Along with police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel, these public employees gave 110 percent to secure the safety of the American people.

In the aftermath of these tragic events, the American people demanded one thing in particular of their government: they wanted government personnel--not private contract firms--to perform security screening of baggage at our Nation's airports. And Congress compiled with this request, as we turned the privatized baggage screening system over to Federal workers with the new Transportation Security Agency.

That is why it is so surprising to me that the administration is now taking steps to privatize the air traffic control system in this country. It makes little sense, especially after September 11. It is the opposite of what the public wants.

The safety and security of the American people should not be the responsibility of the lowest bidder. Rather, it is a core responsibility of government.

But the administration is moving rapidly in the opposite direction. Already we have seen the jobs of air traffic control specialists--those who repair, inspect, and maintain the air traffic control system-- opened up to outsourcing. And the administration just completed a ``feasibility study'' of privatizing the jobs of flight service station controllers--the experts who provide critical weather, safety, and security alerts to pilots.

Next on the agenda for the administration are the air traffic controllers, who monitor and guide thousands of aircraft every day over the United States.

The administration has already proposed air traffic controller privatization in two of its annual budgets. In

June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order stripping air traffic services of its ``inherently governmental'' status. And in December 2002, the administration issued a document designating air traffic control a ``commercial'' activity, opening the door to contracting out the jobs of air traffic controllers to the lowest bidder.

This change from ``inherently governmental'' to a ``commercial'' function is more than a technical change--``inherently governmental'' functions can never be privatized, while ``commercial'' functions may be outsourced.

The administration is trying to accomplish its privatization plan under the public's radar screen through the Office of Management and Budget's A-76 process. We in Congress have the power to stop this process and the bill I am introducing today will reverse the administration's plan.

My Safe and Secure Skies Act will return air traffic control functions to ``inherently governmental'' status, thus barring any privatization action. I do want to note, however, that my legislation will not affect the existing FAA ``Contract Tower'' program, which involves some small, visual flight rules airports.

We currently have the best air traffic control system in the world. Over 15,000 dedicated Federal air traffic controllers guide more than 2 million passengers a day home safely. Maintaining and inspecting the system are over 11,000 air traffic specialists, and nearly 3,000 flight service station controllers provide critical information and alerts to pilots. They are expert professionals who perform under pressure every day to keep our skies safe.

I believe our air traffic controllers are almost a wing of the military, and they play a major role in homeland security. When President Bush gave the State of the Union speech last month, it was the flight service station air traffic controllers who sent alerts to avoid the expanded ``no-fly'' zone around Washington. And when the space shuttle Columbia tragically disintegrated in the skies over Texas, it was the air traffic controllers who directed aircraft away from the falling debris field.

These men and women perform a critical government function.

Some claim that privatization will save money. But when you look at other countries' experiments with air traffic control privatization, all you see are financial messes and safety hazards. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have privatized systems that are now in crisis. Costs have gone up and safety has gone down.

Since Great Britain adopted privatization, near misses have increased by 50 percent and delays have increased by 20 percent. The British Government has already had to bail out the privatized air traffic control company twice.

Privatization of the air traffic control system is bad fiscal policy, bad safety policy, bad homeland security policy, and the public doesn't want it.

I therefore ask my colleagues to support my Safe and Secure Skies Act, which will declare these critical air traffic control functions to be ``inherently governmental'', and therefore not eligible for outsourcing.

The safety of our skies should not be put in the hands of the lowest bidder.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Alaska will yield, I think there is an understanding that I am going to modify the amendment I have at the desk.

I thank the manager.

Amendments Nos. 6, 83, 85, 131, 136, 144, 156, 172, 150, 199, 186, 142,

178, 57, 167, 166, and 188, As Modified

I thank the manager.

Amendment No. 192, As Modified

Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

I thank the Chair.

The authorization level under the Superfund law for this year is $11.5 billion. The bill before us provides $1.27 billion. Of that amount, 50 percent comes from the Superfund trust fund and the rest comes from general revenues.

There is now about $120 million in unobligated funds left in the Superfund trust fund. My amendment takes $100 million of that and adds it to the $1.27 billion so that we can increase the number of contaminated sites we will be cleaning up, but also to give some encouragement to a group of highly trained professionals so they can look to a continuation of a career that has been devoted to getting these sites cleaned up.

My amendment doesn't fully fund the program, but because the average cost of cleanup in a normal Superfund site is $12 million, this $100 million could help protect eight more communities from contaminated ground water and toxic soil in their neighborhoods.

From the beginning, an important principle of Superfund has been that those responsible for the contamination should pay for the cleanup. The polluters--not the general public--should pay.

In keeping with this principle, my amendment draws only from the trust fund, not from general revenues.

Unfortunately, it seems that some have lost sight of the ``polluter pays'' principle at the heart of the Superfund program.

In the appropriations bill before us, taxpayers, not polluters, would pay for 50 percent of the cleanup program. This simply isn't fair to our Nation's taxpayers.

But the ``polluter pays'' principle is fair. It has worked, and it should be preserved. Yet the tax on petroleum and chemical products-- the sources of contamination at most Superfund sites--has been allowed to lapse. We need to reauthorize the funding source and reinstate a dependable revenue stream for the program, but that is a debate for another day. In the interim, we have to do more with what we have.

In the 4 years leading up to the year 2000, an average of 87 Superfund were being cleaned up each year. Since then, the number has dropped by half: 42 sites cleaned up in 2001 and 47 sites cleaned up in 2002. This isn't acceptable nor is it responsible.

Adequate funding for Superfund is a very serious matter for the people of my home State of New Jersey. My State has 113 hazardous waste sites on the National Priority List (NPL)--more than any other State.

But I would quickly point out this isn't simply an urban-State problem. The largest Superfund site in the country right now is in Coeur d'Alene, ID, one of the most beautiful States in our country. And yet there is this blight in their midst. And we see the same thing in Montana, another rural mountain State, so beautiful with nature's blessing.

Sure.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. We have worked diligently together to try to turn these Superfund sites from environmental and health hazards into productive properties for the affected communities.

I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Yes. I yield to my colleague.

I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, nationally, one in four Americans lives within 4 miles of an NPL site. That is unacceptable. Contaminated sites endanger our environment, they endanger our health, they endanger our economy.

We have money in the trust fund. We should use it. We desperately need to clean up these sites and make them safe and productive again, especially for the sake of the communities that surround them. Having these blighted locations throughout our country is simply that; it is a plague on these communities. We ought to get on with transforming them from wastelands into industrial, commercial, and residential sites that benefit everybody.

This amendment is cosponsored by several of my colleagues, including Senator Corzine, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Kerry, and Senator Schumer.

Mr. President, I hope we will be able to use these funds for the purpose intended: cleaning up more Superfund sites faster in the coming year. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues.

Mr. President, no one would suggest that we shouldn't look for more efficient ways to do things with regard to the Superfund program. And there is always redress, unfortunately, to the court if one wants it. But the Superfund Program has been working: 87 sites a year, on average, were being cleaned up, up until the year 2000; over 800 sites in all. That is pretty darn good. We learned how to do it. The program is working. To deprive it now is really not what ought to be happening. I am sure citizens across this country would agree with us: More money, more cleanups. That is what we want out of the Superfund Program.

I yield back whatever time remains.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Governor Tom Ridge as Secretary of the newly created Department of Homeland Security, DHS, when the Senate votes later this morning to confirm him.

The Governmental Affairs Committee held its hearing on Governor Ridge on Friday and reported his nomination favorably later that afternoon. The expedited action on Governor Ridge is an illustration that when the administration seeks a consensus nominee from the start, the Senate can be very accommodating. I hope that administration officials will keep that in mind as they consider candidates for the Federal judiciary.

Governor Ridge brings strong qualifications and experience to the job. He is literally battle-tested. He has served as President Bush's first and only Director of Homeland Security. He has management experience as the Governor of one of the Nation's larger States, Pennsylvania. Moreover, he has served in Congress and so knows the importance of the task we have, which is to provide adequate funding for this new department and oversee its operations.

Having said that, his task is extraordinarily large and extraordinarily difficult. Governor Ridge will preside over the biggest Federal reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense after the end of World War II.

We feel compelled to create a Department of Homeland Security largely because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There were attacks on our soil before 9/11, but 9/11 has focused our Nation's attention much as the attack on Pearl Harbor did for the World War II generation.

We face a cunning and ruthless enemy determined to make our home

front the front lines. We face an enemy that deliberately targets civilians, not soldiers. We face an enemy that wants to disrupt our society by every means possible.

Keeping America safe will be an enormous challenge. Keeping America safe without trampling on the civil liberties that make us a free people will be an even bigger challenge.

The Department of Homeland Security's purpose is to prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S. and respond to such attacks that do occur. The DHS will consist of 22 agencies now scattered throughout the Federal Government and will contain four major divisions:

A division of information analysis and infrastructure protection, which will operate in concert with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other intelligence agencies to assess threats;

A division of science and technology that will develop and promote measures to defend against nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks;

A division of emergency preparedness and response--built on the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--which will prepare for and respond to natural and man-made disasters; and

A division for border and transportation security that will encompass what is now the Customs Service, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Border Patrol.

Additionally, the new Department will include the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and a new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is to be abolished and nearly all of its employees are being moved to the new Department from the Justice Department. The bill would also move most of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department and rename it the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The new Department will also have an Office for State and Local Coordination charged with helping state and local governments to implement the national strategy for combating terrorism.

So Governor Ridge must bring together 170,000 employees from disparate agencies and manage a budget that now totals $20 billion and is expected to reach $31 billion by 2007. That is an enormous task.

We are operating on the premise that consolidating all of these agencies and programs under one roof is a good idea. That seems like a reasonable premise, but in all candor, we will have to wait and see.

I am concerned about what will happen to the non-DHS functions of agencies moved to the new Department, such as those of the Coast Guard and FEMA. I want to make sure that that the Coast Guard's traditional functions of maritime safety, search and rescue, aid to navigation, etc., will not be hurt by the reorganization.

Port security operations accounted for 1-2 percent of Coast Guard activities before 9/11. By early October 2001, they increased to 56 percent of all operations. The Coast Guard is trying to move towards a ``new normalcy'' with port-security operations accounting for 20-25 percent of all operations. According to the Congressional Research Service, prior to 9/11, the Coast Guard already was been underfunded with regard to its expanding responsibilities. Over the last 25 years there has been a substantial growth in mission areas such as counter- drug operations, alien interception, pollution prevention, and fisheries enforcement. These functions will still need to be performed and have to be funded adequately.

Similarly, FEMA's non-DHS functions of natural disaster response and relief should not be weakened.

Another issue we will have to grapple with is oversight. Some of the oversight will rest with the Governmental Affairs Committee; some of it will be spread among several committees. That may be a good thing; but it could also prove to be unworkable. Again, we will have to wait and see. How we handle appropriations is another matter we will have to sort out.

Another issue is the labor rights of the DHS employees. When President Bush sent his DHS proposal to Congress, it contained anti- labor provisions that would have allowed him to strip civil service protections from Federal employees of the Department, so he could hire, fire and transfer employees as he wished.

On the Senate floor, Senator Lieberman offered an amendment to maintain the current collective bargaining rights of more than 40,000 Federal employees slated to move into the new Department. At the same time, in line with long-standing Presidential prerogative, the Lieberman amendment would have given the administration the ability to suspend these employees' collective bargaining rights if new job duties are related to intelligence, counterintelligence or terrorism investigations, and collective bargaining would adversely impact national security.

President Bush threatened to veto the bill if the Lieberman amendment passed and Republicans filibustered the amendment. President Bush demanded authority to strip all employees in the department of their civil service protections. Citing national security concerns, the President claimed that the labor provisions would not give him broad enough authority to hire, fire and change job assignments at the proposed agency.

I think this course of action was regrettable. The Republicans did agree to a slight compromise on the labor issue: the department is required to consult on any workplace changes with employees' unions. In the end, though, the President will have wider-ranging authority to waive union rights than ever before. This is an issue we will have to revisit.

We also need to be concerned about civil liberties. Of course, we need to be vigilant to protect the American people from those who would do us grave harm. But we can't sacrifice our freedom for security. Governor Ridge and the new department will have to balance the two. It won't be easy but it is absolutely necessary.

Speaking more parochially, because of New Jersey's proximity to New York, we suffered enormously on 9/11: nearly 700 New Jerseyans lost their lives. But it is not just our proximity to New York that concerns me. We have plenty of critical infrastructure targets: ports, airports, tunnels, rail lines, chemical plants, etc. We have 8.5 million people and several large population centers. I want to make sure that we aren't short-changed when the DHS allocates resources to the States to bolster their security.

I also want to make sure that Governor Ridge and the new department fulfill their responsibility to help keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. That means, to me, closing the ``gun show loophole''-- something President Bush pledged to do as a candidate in 2000. It is to easy for people to buy guns and other weapons at gun shows, no questions asked. We shouldn't make it easy for terrorists to buy assault weapons, .50-caliber guns, sniper rifles, etc.

In summary, the creation of the DHS has not been without controversy. As I noted, there are questions about whether the consolidation of various agencies under one roof will be an effective way to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks; whether the civil liberties of U.S. citizens--particularly immigrants--will be adequately protected with regard to border security and intelligence gathering activities; whether state and local entities will receive adequate funding for their new DHS-related responsibilities; and whether non-DHS functions of agencies will be protected.

Moving a bit farther a field, we need to consider where DHS fits in with regard to our overall priorities for fighting terrorism. The new department is responsible for preventing terrorism, but it will have nothing to do with addressing the root causes of that terrorism. Its very existence and the debate that will swirl around it could take attention and resources away from more proactive foreign policy and domestic law enforcement and social welfare efforts to reduce the impetus for terrorist acts, foreign and domestic.

While the primary responsibility to make America safer without sacrificing our freedoms will rest with Governor Ridge and the new Homeland Security Department, in fact, all Americans share that somber responsibility. We will all have to work together, and we wish Governor Ridge well in this great undertaking.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an organization that has been aiding the children of their community for fifty years. The Kiwanis Club of Hasbrouck Heights-Teterboro is celebrating its 50th anniversary.

For 50 years the club has conducted numerous projects to help sick children, abandoned children, special needs children, exceptional children and children suffering from poverty in their community. They help individuals of all ages from infants to senior citizens.

The Kiwanis Club is also honoring Dr. Burnett Eglow. Dr. Eglow is the only original charter member of the Kiwanis Club of Hasbrouck Heights- Teterboro that has been active in this club for all 50 years.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Dr. Burnett Eglow and the Kiwanis Club of Hasbrouck Heights-Teterboro for all they have done throughout their 50 years for their community.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding gentlemen from New Jersey. On January 20, The American Jewish Committee Institute of Human Relations Award Dinner will honor John L. McGoldrick. Since 1979, John McGoldrick has served as a director of the New Jersey Transit Corporation, which is the United States' third largest passenger rail and bus company. As anyone from New Jersey knows, passenger rail and bus service is extremely important to the commerce and quality of life in our State.

Currently John McGoldrick is executive vice president of Bristol- Myers Squibb Company. He is vice chairman of the company's executive committee and is responsible for Global Corporate

Policy. He is also general counsel of the company and director of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation.

More important than any of those responsibilities is Mr. McGoldrick's responsibility for Bristol-Myers Squibb's HIV/AIDS initiatives in Africa. That includes the company's groundbreaking $115 million Secure The Future program in Southern and Francophone Africa, as well as the ACCESS program to make antiretroviral therapy more accessible in the developing world.

At Bristol-Myers Squibb John McGoldrick has also led the company's efforts in support of the State of New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education.

John McGoldrick is also very active outside of his work at Bristol- Myers.

Mr. McGoldrick is a director of the Regional Plan Association, a trustee of Legal Services of New Jersey and a Trustee of the HealthCare Institute of New Jersey.

Mr. McGoldrick also has been elected a Member of the American Law Institute, a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a fellow of the American Bar Association and a fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

He is also a director of Zimmer Holdings, Inc., which is a company that manufactures artificial hips and knees as well as other orthopedic products.

I ask my colleagues to join me and the American Jewish Committee Institute of Human Relations in honoring Mr. John L. McGoldrick for his great service to New Jerseyans and people all over the world.

May I have 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington and commend her and Senator Hollings for their work on getting this amendment in front of us. And I am pleased to see the chairman of the Commerce Committee here because over the years, while this is the first time I have spoken on the floor in a couple of years, nevertheless, the tune is similar and we have sung it before. I hope that finally we will come to the realization that Amtrak is not simply a Northeast corridor program, that it is an essential part of an intermodal transportation system. That fact was made abundantly clear on September 11, 2001, when jet-liners crashed into the World Trade Center and shocked America to its very core. Aviation--I never believed that it would shut down--was shut down across the country as a result of that terrible tragedy. Highways were jammed. Thank goodness we had Amtrak still running. It kept some semblance of order going between Washington and New York and throughout the Northeast region.

How quickly this seems to be forgotten when we get to appropriating proper funding for Amtrak to continue its operations. Amtrak has been starved almost since birth. We heard the distinguished Senator from South Carolina talk about the amount of funds that were put into Amtrak over a 30-year period--something like $500 to $750 million a year, which is certainly not peanuts in anybody's vocabulary--but the fact is, we have just never spent enough.

Last fall, the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $1.20 billion for Amtrak. The bill we are considering tonight cuts that amount by $374 million, to $826 million. That's a cut of nearly one-third! Amtrak would be better off under the Continuing Resolution, which at least provides $1.04 billion. Amtrak can't survive on $826 million--it's that simple, that stark.

I was with the distinguished Senator from Arizona at a meeting in Brussels when there was a NATO gathering there, and I took the train from Brussels to Paris. The train ride was about 200 miles--roughly the equivalent of the ride to Washington from New York, which is 225 miles--and it took an hour and 25 minutes. Can you imagine what would happen to the traffic along I-95 if we could ride like that from Washington to New York? Even if the New York to DC trip were 2 hours, frankly, it would not pay to go near the airport--not by the time you get out to the airport, finish parking and unloading, and all that. We could avoid so many problems. Two hours, city to city, would facilitate so much travel and commerce between these two capitals, New York City, the financial capital of the world, and Washington, DC, the capital of our great country.

So when we look at what we have done, what we have done is just not

enough. Amtrak has received $24.2 billion in Federal support since its creation in 1971. To put that in perspective, it's less than we spent on highways just in 2001 alone. In the 1980s, the Western European nations made a push to develop their high speed corridors and spent $101 billion in just ten years. That is more than four times what we have spent in 30 years.

It is time now to start facing up to the reality. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)--a precious instrument in terms of our aviation system--got $13 billion worth of funds this year; $3 billion of that came from the General Treasury and $10 billion came from passenger facility charges and taxes on aviation.

What happened after 9/11 with aviation? I think the Senator from South Carolina made reference to it. The fact is, we had to go to the airlines and bail them out further, make sure they got plenty of subsidies.

I hope this amendment that is being offered here to restore fiscal year 2003 funding for Amtrak to $1.2 billion is passed--but not only passed here. I ask the Senator from South Carolina, can we be confident that this amendment won't fall by the wayside in conference? Can we be confident that we have the full support of the leadership in the Senate, especially on the Majority's side, when Committee Members sit down at the table with their House counterparts to discuss this funding? I certainly hope so because it is essential.

We spent almost $10 billion on Northeast Corridor infrastructure improvements. About a third of that amount was for the electrification of the line from New Haven to Boston to make sure we had continuous service. There has been a real improvement in rail passenger service in the Northeast as a result, and there has been an improvement in rail passenger service in the country. But we can and need to do more.

I ask for 1 more minute.

I thank the Senator. So we have made improvements and they have been popularly received. People could not stop talking about what a nice ride it is from Washington to Wilmington to New York to-- you name it, along the way. What a change from what we used to have.

I hope my colleagues will recognize that continued investment in Amtrak and higher speed rail is essential for our Nation. It is not just a Northeast corridor thing, which is often the mythology here. And I hope that we will see a positive vote on this amendment, supported further by an insistence that the conference committee retain the full funding.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.