Floor Statements

Mr. President, throughout this Congress, I have argued that the Senate ought to spend less time debating radical judges and more time focusing on issues that can improve the lives of working Americans. One such issue is the gradual erosion of retirement security. Instead of working to replace Social Security's guaranteed benefit with a risky privatization scheme, we should work to strengthen retirement by shoring up our pension system. In no industry is this looming pension crisis more acute than the airline industry. The Finance Committee held a hearing on pension problems facing the airline industry this morning, and I hope that the committee will move soon on legislation to fix those problems.

Last month we learned just how worrisome this issue is, as the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and United Airlines agreed to terminate the four pension plans maintained by the airline as that company struggles to emerge from bankruptcy. At the same time, Northwest, Delta and American Airlines face similar pension liabilities and are requesting Congress' help so that they can avoid bankruptcy. To their credit they are fighting to preserve their workers' pensions but need some time to allow them to recover from the effects of the post-9/ 11 travel downturn.

While the pension funding problems facing the airline industry are substantial, the industry is not alone in inadequately funding their employee pension plans. Congress needs to carefully review the rules that apply to the broad spectrum of employers that offer pension plans to their employees. Congress needs to make sure that those rules are strengthened to require greater funding for the pension promises

being made. Let me be very clear about one thing; the pension promises made by companies to their employees carry with them an obligation to make sure those promises are kept. An employer's obligation is to have sufficient funds set aside to meet the pension promises it has made, not merely to have met the minimum funding requirements of the tax code or ERISA.

As Congress strengthens the pension funding rules, we also need to be cognizant of the potential negative consequences of these changes. Pension plans, like all employee benefits, are voluntarily offered by employers. Congress created tax and other incentives that encourage companies to offer pension plans because it believes these are important benefits for employees. Many of the administration's proposals go too far and will discourage companies from maintaining and offering these important benefits. The proposal Congress considers must be more balanced. We should join together to enhance retirement security for all Americans by strengthening Social Security, shoring up our pension system and encouraging more Americans to save.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. We do have our week cut out for us. I think the Republican leader and I will get together later today to try to make a decision as to what we are going to do later. If we get through this block of judges that the leader talked about, we should be in pretty good shape to move on to other things and take the judges on a more regular basis, not eating up so much

time. This is something the leader and I will discuss.

We have a work period of 4 weeks, so there is much we have to do because, as the Presiding Officer knows, we are entering the appropriations process time, which is always very hectic. We need to turn to that as soon as we can. I hope we can move through the appropriations bills one at a time and not have to do an omnibus or a continuing resolution. That would be better for individual Senators, our States, and our country.

As I have said, we have devoted a lot of time to this situation on judges. After this week, we should be able to move on to other items. I hope so.

Mr. President, so we have an orderly process on our side, I would ask unanimous consent that of the time that has been allotted this side, Senator Boxer be given 45 minutes; Senator Dodd, 60 minutes; Senator Sarbanes, 15 minutes; Senator Voinovich, 30 minutes; Senator Kerry, 30 minutes; Senator Feingold, 20 minutes; Senator Nelson of Florida, 10 minutes; Senator Obama, 15 minutes; Senator Reid, 15 minutes; and Senator Biden to control the remaining time for 15 minutes. I am quite certain that the staff has worked it out so our time

is equal to what Senator Lugar controls on his side. If there is any difference in the numbers, he and Senator Dodd can adjust it accordingly.

Mr. President, let me say at the outset, that I do not intend to vote for cloture on John Bolton, nor do I intend to support him for the position of United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

As I have said repeatedly since he was nominated, this is the wrong man for the job not because of his abrasive personality, although I am deeply troubled by his serial mistreatment of co-workers and subordinates.

My objections to this nominee go much deeper than his inability to work well with others. I am opposed to this nominee because of his poor performance, his flawed views, and his repeated misstatements and mischaracterizations of his record.

Let me commend Senator Biden and the Democratic staff on the Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Rockefeller and his Intelligence Committee staff. As a result of their leadership and diligence, the Senate and the American people have a much more complete understanding of John Bolton and his entire troubling record.

And there is no doubt that we have learned a lot about Mr. Bolton. We have learned about his failures in the proliferation area, his repeated efforts

to manipulate intelligence, his numerous misstatements of fact, and his serial mistreatment of career civil servants.

But, in spite of the best efforts of Senator Biden and the other Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee, the record on this nominee is still incomplete.

Despite numerous requests, the administration has failed to turn over important information about this nominee. This is astounding to me. The administration's stonewalling has not only had the effect of slowing down the confirmation process, it has also put a further cloud over this individual and has--perhaps unnecessarily--raised the impression that the nominee and the White House have something to hide. The end result is further questions about this nominee, further disruption to the Senate's consideration of this nominee, and further demonstration of the administration's willingness to keep information from the Congress and the American people.

This is information that the Senate is entitled to under the advise and consent clause of the Constitution, information that is central to this man's qualifications, information that, had it been provided, could have possibly spared this man further questions about his already damaged reputation.

But as has so often been the case with this administration, they have sought to ignore the public's right to know and prevent Congress from making a fully informed decision. They want to be the judge and the jury. They have decided the information is not relevant to our consideration of Mr. Bolton.

Let me see if I understand their argument. The administration asserts that information that bears directly on Mr. Bolton's role in assessing the threat posed by Syria and in his seeking intercepted conversations of foreigners and U.S. citizens is not relevant to his qualifications to represent this Nation at the United Nations, and therefore should not be provided to the Senate.

After all the damage caused when this administration stretched the truth at the United Nations as it made the case for war in Iraq, does the White House really believe it is not relevant for us to be absolutely certain their nominee was not trying to stretch the intelligence yet again?

So we are in this largely avoidable position of having to vote against cloture and extending debate until the information is turned over to the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. I hope the administration will do the right thing and provide the information to the Senate.

In the meantime, the information the Foreign Relations Committee has managed to obtain is deeply troubling. This is a record which caused one of the most respected and storied committees in the entire Congress to not recommend him favorably to the full Senate. Based on that fact alone, the President should have withdrawn the nomination. Unfortunately, since he didn't, I think the Senate should follow the committee's lead and not recommend him for this job either.

I know Mr. Bolton has tried to distance himself from certain parts of his record, like his past statements about the United Nations and its role in international affairs. However, there can be no denying that the man harbors a deep animosity towards the institution. At a time when we need diplomacy more than ever, and we need help in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism, this is exactly the wrong man to send to the U.N., and it sends exactly the wrong message to our friends and allies.

Mr. Bolton's supporters have advanced only one reason to ignore the weight of all the evidence that he is unqualified: Mr. Bolton believes the United Nations needs to be reformed. The U.N. does need to be reformed. The U.N. can improve its performance. It can reduce inefficiency in its bloated bureaucracy. It can become more effective and more relevant. And we ought to have a U.N. ambassador who is willing to take on that mission of reform. But the President should be able to find someone capable of reforming the U.N. without Mr. Bolton's baggage.

So let's be clear, I do not oppose sending someone to the United Nations who is willing to engage in some tough-minded reform. I do oppose sending someone who has misused intelligence and bullied intelligence analysts in a way that undermined our diplomatic corps and produced wrong-headed national security policies.

The facts show that Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts who disagreed with him. In speeches and testimony, Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought to stretch intelligence to fit his views. In dealing with other professionals, Mr. Bolton repeatedly exhibited abusive behavior and intolerance that had a chilling effect on analysts' ability to provide different views.

The second highest ranking official at the State Department, Secretary Powell's Deputy Rich Armitage, was so concerned about Bolton speeches that he decreed that he must personally review and clear all of Mr. Bolton's public statements. And Robert Hutchings, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said that Bolton took ``isolated facts and made much more of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted.'' He said the impact of Bolton's actions on the intelligence community, ``creates a climate of intimidation and a culture of conformity that is damaging.''

But this is not merely a concern for historians. At the same time that Mr. Bolton was agitating and undermining intelligence professionals on issues such as Cuba and Syria's WMD programs, the administration was putting together a dramatically hyped case for war in Iraq to deal with a threat from weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist. Mr. Bolton's modus operandi of hyping intelligence and berating analysts has been so discredited by the results of the Iraq WMD fiasco that it will be difficult for him to operate in the future. Imagine Mr. Bolton arguing to the United Nations Security Council about the threat posed by Iran or North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. Why would anyone take him or the administration that sent him seriously?

I support the President's message of reform of the U.N. I am open to someone who can speak bluntly on these issues, who can deliver tough messages.

But we need a different messenger than Mr. Bolton.

Madam President, while we have Senators in the Chamber, I wish to express, through the Chair, the appreciation of especially Senator Biden and Senator Dodd for the ends to which the majority leader went to try to resolve this issue. He spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get the information requested and was unable to do so. He did get information but not all that was necessary. I am disappointed that tonight we were unable to have a vote on Mr. Bolton, but it is not the fault of the Democratic caucus. We are not here to filibuster Mr. Bolton's nomination. We are here to get information regarding Mr. Bolton, information to which we are entitled. The people who voted against cloture--there were many--many of them will vote against Mr. Bolton if, in fact, he gets before the Senate. But most of the people here tonight are concerned about this being an issue dealing with the administration not giving us the information we want. That is all. It hurts their nominees. The administration has to be more forthcoming.

I hope that during the next 8 or 9 days the administration will take a fresh look at this and give the information to Senator Dodd and Senator Biden--most of what they want. They are the only ones who will see it. It will not be given to the entire Senate. They are not asking for information that may affect our country's national interest.

I hope we can go forward with the people's business. The distinguished majority leader told me yesterday that he was going to file cloture on these two judges. This is fine. We will work out a timely manner to complete the work on these judges and other judges. The Energy bill was reported out of committee today. The asbestos bill was reported out of committee today. There is a lot we have to do here, and we do not want this to be a divergence--the work we have to do is a divergence, but it is not the fault of the Democratic Senators that it is a diversion.

I will be happy to yield to the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Madam President, everyone here should understand that it is now the 26th day of May. This is the first filibuster that has been conducted in this Congress, if, in fact, we want to call this a filibuster--No. 1, first one. We have not been doing filibusters. We worked through some very difficult issues we talked about here before-- bankruptcy, class action, and a number of other issues.

So it is not as if we are looking for things to have extended debate on. We need to work together, and I think this week has established that. We are going to work together. But how can we work together when information is not supplied?

So I hope we will all slow down the rhetoric during the break. This is something that happened. This is part of the Senate. I repeat, keep in mind, this is the first filibuster of the year and maybe the last. I hope so.

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

Mr. President, I have had a number of conversations the last couple of days with the distinguished majority leader about this issue of stem cell research. Dr. Frist--and I say Dr. Frist because it relates to this matter--indicated he was going to study

this during the break. I think that is very important.

We have the opportunity to work together on legislation--I don't mean he and I, I mean Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Earlier this week, the House voted to expand the President's stem cell research policy. Passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act was a victory for millions of Americans who suffer from deadly diseases and for their families. It was also a victory for bipartisanship. This bill shares the same level of bipartisanship and support here in the Senate that it did in the House.

Senators Harkin and Specter, who are champions of medical research, have worked hard on this issue. Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Kennedy, and Smith have also been leaders on this bill.

I hope when we return from recess, the distinguished majority leader will have had an opportunity to look at this and we can take some time to do this. What I do not want on this bill is to have it offered to Defense authorization or something such as that. I think it would be better if we had freestanding legislation on this. It can be done in a relatively short period of time. I certainly hope so. When we come back, we have a 4-week work period and we can work it in during that period of time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise toady to congratulate a member of our Senate family who is nearing an amazing milestone in life--68 years of marriage.

On My 29, 1937, the Valedictorian of Mark Twain High School married his sweetheat--a coal miner's daughter--in West Virginia. That valedictorian was Senator Robert Byrd. The coal miner's daughter was Erma Ora James. On Sunday, they will mark 68 years together.

It is an incredible achievement and a testament to their love and commitment.

Look how far they've come. They have seen their lives move from the hills of West Virginia to the highest levels of government. Senator Byrd has gone from gas station attendant to

meat cutter to welder to United States Senator.

But--it's important to note--Senator Byrd has never hidden the secret of his success. If you talk to him, he will give credit to whom credit is due.

He said it right here on the Senate floor in May of 2000 days before his 63rd anniversary. He said: ``I have to frankly say that what little I have amounted, if it is anything much, I owe for the most part to [Erma].''

Well Erma, the people of West Virginia and the United States owe you a debt of gratitude for all you've done for your husband and for giving us his time for so many years.

I've said before, Senator Byrd is a mentor of mine.

I have had the good fortunate of serving with him in the Senate since 1986. In these 19 years, I've gotten to know Senator Byrd and Erma well. They are a wonderful couple, delightful individuals, and I am honored to call them both friends.

Senator Byrd and Erma have no doubt seen many changes over their 68 years of marriage--none bigger than the size of their family. They have two daughters--Mona and Marjorie--and over a dozen grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Of course, no one can talk about Mr. and Mrs. Robert Byrd without recalling how they came to be together. He used sweets to get to her heart.

In school, a young Robert Byrd used to take sweets from a fellow classmate but he wouldn't eat them. He would store them up and give them to Erma when he met her in the hall. Years later he would say: ``That's the way you court a girl--with another boy's bubble gum.''

I have said many times that the Members of this Chamber are a family. And what an amazing example of family we have in Senator Byrd and Erma.

For 68 years of marriage, they have set a high standard for us all. It is a tribute to their love for each other, and for the rich, productive life they have enjoyed.

I congratulate them once again and pray for many more years of happiness together.

Mr. President, I am sorry I was unable to be on the floor for the entire statement of the Republican leader. I think we should just move on. Filibusters are only under extraordinary circumstances. That is when you filibuster. I have been involved in two filibusters during my career of almost 19 years in the Senate. That is two more than most people have been involved in. Filibusters don't happen very often. I think we should move beyond this and get the business of the country done. Let's not talk about the nuclear option any more. Let the Senate work its will. Let's get over this. I have said it is good that it is over with, done.

I wish the distinguished majority leader and I could have worked something out on our own. We didn't. It was done by 14 people, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans. We have important things to do. There is no question that these five people--actually that is what it boiled down to--are important, but keep in mind they all had jobs. They were all working. It is not as if they were in a bread line someplace. It is unfortunate that during the last 12 years there have been problems with these judges, and I would say problems we never had before.

During the Clinton years, we had more than 60 nominees that never even got a hearing. We talked yesterday about what happened in the Bush years. Let's put that behind us and move on. Let's forget about it and have the Senate work its will. If a problem comes up with a judge, there will be discussions between the Senator from Tennessee and me. If it is necessary, there will be extended debate, and we will talk about it. That is not going to happen very often. We know that. So let's just go about our business. I had a wonderful conversation with the Attorney General of the United States yesterday. He acknowledged, let's move on. I said, fine, let's move on. Let's just move on and not talk about this any more.

I have had extended conversations with the distinguished Republican leader, and the next matter that the Senate is going to be involved in is the Bolton nomination. We are clear on the Democratic side to move forward. I think it would be in the best interest of everybody if we get this agreement made as quickly as possible and we can move forward. That is why I hope my friend from Montana--if somebody comes to the floor and we can clear this in the next little bit, that should be done. I don't want us being blamed

for not being able to go forward with the Bolton nomination.

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

Mr. President, we are going to move forward with a vote on Priscilla Owen. It is well that the Senate is moving. There are other judges who are waiting and have waited a long time. We have three judges from Michigan. There is no reason we can't move those four very quickly. They were held up as a result of an intractable procedural matter. That is no longer. We can do those judges in a very short timeframe.

We also have a person Senator Hatch has been wanting to have for some time now, way into last year, a man by the name of Griffith. We are willing to move him. There were some problems. Some Senators will vote against him. There is no question about that. Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has made a number of negative speeches about Griffith. We will agree to a very short timeframe on his nomination and move it on. That would be four appellate court judges very quickly. I hope we can do it in the immediate future. We could clear four judges today or tomorrow.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both Senators Specter and Leahy.

Reserving the right to object, could we have some assurance from the distinguished majority leader that we will have an early time in the morning to come to work and we do not spend all the morning on morning business.

I also say if, in fact, there is more time needed tonight, would the distinguished leader allow Members to move past 6:30 tonight on debate.

Madam President, I think it would be better--I haven't had a chance to discuss this with the majority leader--to vitiate the vote on cloture and then set a time to complete the debate on Priscilla Owen. We would be willing to do that. It would move things along. I wanted the leader to know that. We would be happy to talk about schedule, how much time people need, and what we are going to do the rest of the week. We haven't had time to talk this morning.

Madam President, if I could direct another question to the distinguished leader, it was my understanding of our conversation late last night that we were not going to move forward on more judges this period but move forward to other matters. Do you now feel differently?

Madam President, I support the memorandum of understanding. It took the nuclear option off the table. It is gone for our lifetime. We don't have to talk about it anymore. I am disappointed there are still the threats of the nuclear option. Let's move on. We need not go over this, but there were 218 nominees of the President and we turned down 10.

All filibusters are extraordinary. There will be filibusters of judges and of other things. That is what the Senate is all about. That is what the 14 Senators acknowledged. I admire and respect what they did. I am thankful they kept me advised as to what they were doing. It is too bad there were not other opportunities to make a ``deal'' between the majority leader and me.

We have to understand that the Senate needs to operate. I say to my friend, the distinguished majority leader, there was an agreement made on three judges. We feel the merits of those three judges are not good and that we need time to talk about those three judges. We will continue to do that. The rules of the Senate have not been changed. That is what is so good about the agreement of these 14 Senators, who rose above the battle and did the right thing.

I am willing to work with the majority leader. I have said that publicly and privately. But we have to be realistic. Unless we work into next week, we cannot do all these judges. If that is the order-- that we are going to work into next week--people should be told that now. We are willing to work within the confines of the rules of the Senate. If cloture is invoked today, the rule is you get 30 hours. We are happy to work on that to shorten it a little bit and to have a vote sometime tomorrow and then go to other matters. I would think we could go to another judge--a controversial judge. We have indicated that the judges from Michigan are not controversial. They were held up on procedural things because of longstanding problems with the Michigan Senators. We would need to debate that for a while.

We are here to work the will of the Senate. Again, I am somewhat disappointed that we still hear threats of nuclear option. That is gone. Let's forget about it. I am happy that one of the things the 14 talked about is having some consultation with the President. I am confident that will work out better for the White House and the Senate. I hope that transpires. We here want to move forward. We have so much that needs to be done.

The distinguished majority leader has talked about things that need to be done, such as the Bolton nomination, which is also controversial. We will be happy to try to work to some degree to make that as easy as possible for everybody. It is a difficult issue. I have spoken to Senator Biden early this morning. He has a plan as to what he feels should be done on Bolton. None of this is going to take an hour or two. There are things we have to talk about with Bolton.

As I indicated last night, last night was a good day for the Senate and today is a good day. Let's move forward and work as the Senate feels it should work. There have been no rule changes. We are here to do the will of the people of this country.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are also hopeful and confident we can add Neilson to this group. The two Senators from Michigan are taking a look at her. She became very ill and, therefore, she was not able to move forward as these other two men have done. We feel confident, after speaking to the two Michigan Senators, that we will be able to add her to this list. She has now recovered her health and is back in good health, good stead.

No.

Mr. President, if the distinguished majority leader will yield, I think it is appropriate that we have this vote at noon. We would have been willing to have it earlier. This way the committees can go about their business. I know I have a ranking members meeting at 12. So this will work out perfect. Even though we are waiting for the vote, I think this will work out well for the schedule.