Floor Statements

Will my friend yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Would the Senator from Massachusetts want an hour of my time?

I yield the Senator from Massachusetts an hour of my time.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there is 6\1/2\ minutes on the Democratic side.

I will use a minute and a half of that now.

Mr. President, I am happy today to rise as a cosponsor of the Schumer amendment. This amendment would ensure that debts arising from unlawful acts of violence cannot be discharged from bankruptcy.

America is a nation of laws. One might not always agree with the law or how it is interpreted, but that does not entitle you to willfully violate the law. The right to express disagreement is to seek change through peaceful means. It is never appropriate to resort to violence or intimidation in violation of the law. Here in the Senate we express policy differences through civil discourse and resolve them through the political process, not through violence. We debate in this body passionately but in a manner of respect and civility in an attempt to persuade others of the merits of our position, and that is the purpose of the debate. Those who resort to violence are violating not only our laws but our American principles and values. They are violating what we call the rule of law on which this country was founded.

Unfortunately, some who break the law are using a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code to avoid paying the fines and penalties assessed against them as a result of their illegal activities. This amendment will ensure that individuals who engage in such acts of violence, intimidation, or threats, cannot hide in bankruptcy from the penalties imposed on them from violating the law.

I emphasize that this amendment is not about the right to abortion, nor does it single out anti-abortion protestors. This amendment applies to anyone who violates a law related to the provision of lawful goods and services. It applies to any extremist who will turn to violence to protest lawful activities.

For example, this amendment would apply to animal rights activists who engage in illegal tactics to shut down a lawful animal research center. There are many people who think that using animals for medical research is immoral and wrong, but this does not entitle those people to come in and trash one of those facilities, as has been happening. It would apply to an ecoterrorist who engages in illegal tactics to intimidate car dealerships or timber companies from doing business with people they think they should not do business with. It would apply to an arsonist who starts a fire at a church to deprive worshippers of the right to practice their religion. All of these extremists must be held accountable for their actions, and none should be permitted to discharge their debts in bankruptcy.

It is true that some of the worst abuses of this kind have been anti- abortion extremists who have terrorized reproductive health care workers. They have directed thousands of acts of violence against abortion providers, including bombings, arson, death threats, kidnappings, assaults, and murders. When a man by the name of Barnett Slepian, who was a father of four, a husband, was a victim, I was the first person to come to the Senate floor and say that is wrong. When violence occurred at a Planned Parenthood clinic--I believe that is where it was--someplace in the South, I came to the floor immediately to say that one cannot violate the law because they disagree with what a lawful business is doing.

Dr. Slepian was an obstetrician/gynecologist. He provided health care to women and delivered babies and, on occasion, he performed abortions. He was at a downtown clinic, and he worked there specifically because he believed it was important he give his expert advice to people who were poor. Because of this, one night he was in his living room, and someone with a high-powered rifle shot and killed him while he was there with his family.

I did not know this doctor, but I learned after his death that he was an uncle of a woman who worked for me. The woman was from Reno. She was a good employee. Of course, she was heartbroken over the fact that her uncle had been murdered. The person who did this was not only a murderer but should be seen as a terrorist.

What is going on in Iraq today? We have these extremists, these terrorists, who do not like what is going on there, and so they are committing these criminal acts. They are taking the law into their own hands.

The man responsible for killing Dr. Slepian was extradited from France a few years ago where he had fled. His name was James Kopp. Kopp was part of an organized network of violent extremists, including a group that called itself the Army of God. The group and others similar to it have engaged in a long campaign of violence.

In 1994, we passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, called FACE, which established Federal criminal and financial penalties for those who employed violence to prevent persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services. The FACE Act is essential to protecting the lives of women and health care providers.

Unfortunately, some of the people charged under this act are filing for bankruptcy to avoid accountability for their illegal acts of terrorism. As an example, defendants in the so-called Nuremburg files case have tried to nullify years of court proceedings by filing a chapter 7 proceedings.

What are the Nuremburg files? Listen to this one: They posted on a Web site the names, addresses, and license plate numbers of people who worked in these health care facilities. They even posted pictures of their target's families, all members, and they would list them--father, son, mother, brother, whatever it might be--and places where their children waited for the school bus. Doctors who still worked appeared in plain text on the Web site, a person who had been wounded was grayed out; and those who had been murdered, including Dr. Slepian, had a line through their names.

It is intolerable that the groups which incite these heinous acts of violence can discharge their civil penalties in bankruptcy, but that is exactly what happened. If we want to prevent future acts of violence, including clinic violence, it seems to me that we need to have a specific provision in the bankruptcy law to prevent discharge of violence-related debts. That is what this amendment is all about.

I do not support abortion, but this amendment is not about abortion. It is about holding responsible those who commit illegal acts and believe that they are above the law. This amendment is about preserving the rule of law.

I cannot imagine how this amendment is causing a concern or a problem. Are we now to believe that there are people who are telling members of the majority, do not do this, we want to go and commit acts of violence, we want to commit crimes, and do not vote against us because you will prevent us from filing bankruptcy? That is what this is all about. Should not we as a body say that if one goes out and does these terrible acts, where they kill people, they maim people--one of their latest tricks is they figured out this acid which is some kind of a chemical compound, and they walk into these facilities and they throw it all over. It cannot be washed out. It cannot be steamed out. The only thing one can do is tear the facility down. Should they not be held responsible?

I cannot believe we are going to have a bill as important as this bankruptcy bill jeopardized because of the terrorists who are out there waiting to file bankruptcy. That is what this is all about. People are out there wanting to commit crimes, waiting to commit crimes, saying, do not pass this because if you pass it I will not be able to file bankruptcy. I just think it is beyond my ability to comprehend that people who know they are violating the law, they are killing people, they have this Web site that they are soliciting murder.

And we are going to condone this activity under the guise that this is a choice, this is a pro-life/pro-choice issue and we cannot get involved. This is not about abortion. It is about maintaining the law.

I am so disappointed that the majority is going to go along with the ability of people to commit crimes and terror and discharge them in bankruptcy.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Rev. William Webb, a strong and compassionate leader in the Reno-Sparks community.

Throughout his life, Reverend Webb has demonstrated tremendous perseverance, dedication, and generosity. Born and raised in a small, poor town in southern Arkansas, he was the only student in his eighth grade class to continue on to high school. Despite facing racism and segregation, Reverend Webb remained strongly committed to his education, attending Philander Smith College and receiving his master's degree at Virginia Union University.

Reverend Webb first came to Reno-Sparks area 40 years ago to serve as a minister at Second Baptist Church. His strong and energetic leadership has helped grow Second Baptist Church from a congregation of fifty church members to more than three hundred. Reverend Webb has also challenged his ministry and his community to serve those in need, organizing food drives and other charitable activities throughout his time in Northern Nevada. He has also served as president of the Nevada- California Interstate Missionary Baptist Convention for 22 years.

I am pleased to say that the City of Reno recently honored Reverend Webb's contributions to the community by renaming the roundabout at Clear Acre and Wedekin Road, William C. Webb Circle. Reverend Webb has led a distinguished life and career, and please join me in thanking him for his tremendous service to the Reno-Sparks community.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to celebrate the founding of Sparks, NV 100 years ago this week.

In 1904, the Southern Pacific Railroad wanted to straighten its route through northern Nevada. This required them to move from their switching yard at Wadsworth to another location, a hamlet originally known as Harriman. Many residents moved with the railroad, and they brought most of Wadsworth's buildings with them.

Shortly thereafter, the city changed its name to Sparks, in honor of John Sparks, who served as Nevada governor from 1903 to 1908 and who owned a ranch near the city.

Unlike many cities of the day, Sparks was a planned community with wide streets, ample parks, and impressive buildings. As the railroad's power waned in the 1950s, these traits allowed Sparks to become a picturesque, residential community.

Ground was broken for the first hotel in Sparks in 1903. The building was named after its first owner, Charles Walstab, and was the only hotel in Sparks until 1911. In 1920, the hotel was purchased by Frank Gardella and Frank Pasutti who changed the hotel's name to the Lincoln. People came from far and wide for the Lincoln's home-style meals, including chicken and ravioli. Many old-time patrons remember when it served free lunches and

beer cost only a nickel. The building still stands on Victorian Avenue, and today is home to several small businesses.

The Soroptimist Club International was founded in Sparks in 1958. The Sparks' Soroptimist club was formed to make a difference for women, focusing their extensive efforts on volunteer service in the community. They sponsored the Miss Nevada Pageant and Nevada Girl's State. Additionally, the Soroptimists awarded scholarships to young women graduating from Sparks High School, raised money for books at the Sparks Library, and donated to the Gray Ladies Indigent Fund for the State Hospital.

However, no history of Sparks would be complete without mentioning John Ascuaga, a developer and entrepreneur who built Sparks' first casino: the Nugget. In May of 1958, the Nugget's ambassador became a part of the town's fabric. The ``Tall Cowboy'' appropriately arrived on the railroad, in pieces. When assembled, Last Chance Joe, stood thirty- two feet tall at the entrance to the Nugget.

I would also like to recognize Tony Armstrong, the former mayor of Sparks who died in January of this year. Tony's personality, his vision for the city, his management skills, and his deep humanity made him a terrific mayor and an outstanding man. It was Tony who first contacted me about the Sparks' centennial. I miss Tony and it is fitting to recognize him on this day, which he would have enjoyed so much. I wish his successor, Gino Martini, all the best and look forward to working with him on projects important to Sparks.

Finally, it is remarkable that Sparks has retained its Victorian architecture and charm. The city beckons to us as a relic of a gentler and more beautiful time. It is truly one of the jewels of northern Nevada.

A century has passed since the City of Sparks was founded. I hope you will join me in celebrating this lovely Nevada community's centennial.

Mr. President, I will use leader time for this presentation.

Mr. President, I have not been on the floor all day to listen to the debate, but I have listened to part of it. I am stunned by some of the remarks by those opposed to raising the minimum wage. To indicate that people who are drawing minimum wage live with their parents or others--they do because they make so little money. And all the denigration of these entry-level jobs--these are jobs that people have to have filled. They may be low, entry-level jobs, but they are jobs people need. People are not hiring these people out of the goodness of their heart, to say: Well, here is somebody. We'll hire a few minimum wage employees.

There are a few people like that, but the reason you have these minimum wage jobs is because people need results. The employer needs the work done. The employee needs the job.

I have heard on this floor a number of times today people saying: It is pushing a drastic increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage was valid when it was initiated many years ago. It is valid today. We should at least keep up with the cost of living. Using the logic of those who oppose the increase in the minimum wage with these ``drastic,'' as they say, minimum wage increases, the longer you wait, the less chance there would be to raise it because it would become more ``drastic,'' in their words, all the time. All we are trying to do, all Senator Kennedy is trying to do, is keep up with the cost of living.

My friend, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, indicated that during the short time we were in control--of course, a lot of the time we were in charge there was no legislative business going on, but keep in mind that every time we have attempted, no matter who is in the majority in the last 8 years, the Republicans have stopped it, either through an actual filibuster or through some parliamentary maneuver. They have opposed raising the minimum wage.

I think the logic of so doing, that it is a ``drastic'' increase--I repeat--means that the longer you wait until you attempt to raise the minimum wage, the less chance it would have to pass because it would become, in their minds, more drastic. Think of the poor people who are trying to earn a living with this minimum wage. It becomes very drastic for them.

I was heartened last week to see my Republican colleagues express their commitment to addressing the issue of poverty. Press conferences were held. But I believe the time has come for them to back up their words with action and vote to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. It is not going to happen. We understand that the marching orders have been given, and they will all walk up here and vote against increasing the minimum wage.

In a country that values work and the opportunity to get ahead, a hard day's work should bring a decent day's pay, whether it is an entry-level job or a job that is a more skilled job. In America, this is not the case as it relates to entry-level work. We have mothers and fathers working full time in minimum wage jobs but still living in poverty, still struggling to get ahead.

I met with some of these workers in Nevada last month. When you talk with them, you begin to understand that increasing the minimum wage is not about helping teenagers earn more from their summer jobs, it is about helping families realize the promise of America. This fact was driven home during a conversation I had with a woman from Reno named Natasha. She is married, has a child, and works as a server in a popular restaurant. She works hard. In fact, the restaurant is one of my favorites. It is in a little strip mall. The restaurant is called Pinocchio's. It is a wonderful restaurant.

She has served me on a number of occasions. She works hard, as does her husband. But with a minimum wage job, she has trouble making ends meet and affording basics, such as food, clothing, and housing. She has tried to get ahead by taking classes at a community college in the area, but she had to cut back because she could not afford to go to school and also pay for what she needed to take care of her family. She earns the minimum wage, plus her tips.

Now, I would say to my friend from Wyoming, the employer is not going to eliminate her job if the minimum wage is increased. He needs somebody to wait those tables, and she is willing to do this because she needs the work. And the tips are not that bad. She is trying to live the American dream by going to school and getting ahead but unable to do it because the minimum wage in this country is not enough money.

Her story is like many others we have all heard, if we listen-- stories of families caught in the cycle of poverty, a cycle we can begin to end today by increasing the minimum wage.

An increase in the minimum wage will help 7 million Americans. This may not sound like a lot of money, but to these people it is a lot of money. An increase of this size can help a family heat their home, pay for transportation to work, or can help a mother afford childcare so she does not have to worry about her kids while she is away.

The majority is calling to increase the minimum wage to $6.25 and further attempting to end the 40-hour workweek with what they call flextime. These measures are unacceptable. Raise the minimum wage, not play games with making it easier for employers to stagger the work of employees. They have already, through the President, eliminated overtime in many instances.

First, a nominal increase in the minimum wage will help millions of Americans. This is important. Ending the 40-hour workweek, replacing it with flextime, would deny over 10 million minimum wage workers the ability to earn overtime pay.

We can do better. Helping our families live more productive lives must be our top priority. Providing workers a wage that is consistent with the rising cost of living is both fair and just. I urge my colleagues to pass this increase in the minimum wage.

The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has spent a lifetime in the national legislature helping people who don't have lobbyists. When Senators walk up to this door here--sometimes we come in by subway-- many times we are overwhelmed by lobbyists, so many that we can't work our way through them. But we will not see lobbyists here representing minimum wage workers.

I send to my friend through the Chair my appreciation for a lifetime of work

helping those who don't have lobbyists, people who are working like Natasha trying to make ends meet. The minimum wage should be increased. It is a shame that we have to fight for it so hard. Frankly, we have not been successful for 8 years. I say to my friend--and I don't like to hear myself say this--they have their marching orders over there. We are going to lose again.

The people who are in these entry-level jobs are again going to be without an increase. There are people out there who had hope. I am sorry. The marching orders have been given, and there will be no increase.

On behalf of Senator Feinstein, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 19 be withdrawn.

Would the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?

Through the Chair, to my distinguished friend, at 9:45 or thereabouts, we are supposed to talk on the mad cow resolution before the Senate. We have no morning business, as I understand it. I am not going to be here, but I would have a standing objection to any morning business. We have had very few amendments completed on the bankruptcy matter. Maybe the time on morning business could be yielded off the resolution in opposition to that.

It is my understanding the Senator from Iowa is here to speak in morning business.

Fine. I want to make sure we do not get into extended time on morning business because we do not have time.

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

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Baucus.

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

Mr. President, we have had relatively short days because of some things which happened in the evening. We have done pretty well this week. I think we have close to 15 amendments total. The bankruptcy debate was interrupted as a result of legislation that Senator Nickles and I produced some time ago to take a look at regulations promulgated by the government only be used three times but was used in the mad cow situation. That took up a big chunk of time today.

I think we have done quite well. There are a number of Senators coming here tomorrow to offer amendments on bankruptcy.

It is the contemplation, after having conferred with the Republican leader, that we are going to try to resolve a time to finish the clinic violence amendment. We are trying to do that early next week. I certainly hope we can do that as early as we can.

This week we have really been legislators. It has been very nice.

Mr. President, these 50 children who have died during the presentation by the majority leader are children, of course, who have parents, and brothers and sisters in most instances. The grief and heartache is multiplied each day with the death of children. I appreciate very much the majority leader reaching out to make sure this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I think it sets a good tone that the two leaders are moving forward on an initiative that speaks of the goodness of America. That is what this is all about. We care about children dying, wherever it happens.

We have the unique situation in this Senate that we have one of the leaders, the Republican leader, who is a medical doctor. During his tenure in the Senate, he has traveled the world looking at medical problems that exist and there is no bigger problem than water.

Our former colleague who recently passed away, Paul Simon from Illinois, wrote a book, ``Tapped Out.'' In that book, he mentioned some of the things I have said. The State of Nevada is different from the State of Tennessee. We have what we call rivers, but they are tiny, little. I do not know what they would be called in most States.

The Colorado River is a river that at times can be a mighty river, but the rest of the rivers we have in Nevada are tiny, little rivers. The Truckee River, which supplies the second largest city in Nevada, Reno, with all its water, is a little stream. You can walk across it in most places. The world-famous city of Las Vegas gets 4 inches of rain every year.

We need to do something about the lack of water around the country, and not only the lack of water but the quality of the water. A lot of places have water, but it is not water you can drink and stay healthy with.

I am pleased to join the majority leader in cosponsoring this important legislation. We are going to introduce it later today. Our staffs are working on the language.

With this legislation, we are seeking to do something meaningful for the hundreds of millions of people across the globe who lack safe and clean water. It is something so basic, yet so critical to human life. Improving the delivery and access of clean and safe water, better hygiene and medicine, that is what this bill seeks to achieve.

No one knows more in this body than the majority leader, from his travels in Africa and elsewhere, that over a billion people--and that is probably a figure that is too low--lack access to clean water. Each year, as has been indicated, millions of people die. We do not know how many people, but at least 5 million people die from water-related diseases. More people die from unsafe water than from all forms of violence, including war. Eighty percent of all sickness in the world is attributable to unsafe water and improper sanitation, and they go together in most instances.

These statistics are staggering and disturbing because so much of this disease and despair is preventable. That is what the legislation is all about. We need greater U.S. and international involvement and a more proactive strategy. In addition, we need to fully fund this initiative and the other water programs currently undertaken by our Government.

I am grateful the majority leader will shortly enter into a colloquy with me that directly addresses the strategy and funding problems. We are going to work together. This is bipartisan legislation. The majority leader and I are doing this not for purposes of showing we can do something together, which I think is an important message, but we are actually going to do something. We are going to do more than introduce this legislation. There is going to be more than authorizing legislation. We have a huge budget in the United States. I think we can find money to actually do this. It is important. And we do not have to take from other programs. I hope that is the case.

So I look forward to continuing to work with the majority leader, Senator Leahy, and Senator McConnell, who are the ranking member and chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, and, of course, Senators Lugar and Biden, who are the chair and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. There are others. But we are going to get working to make sure we do something positive to make sure the world is a safer place.

When people are healthy, they have less problems with raising their children properly. It creates all across the world an influence that is positive and resolves many differences. We know, as is pointed out in the book by Senator Simon, in the future, wars are going to be fought over water, not over territorial boundaries necessarily, unless it does involve water. There is a shortage of water.

If we can do some good work in the Middle East, for example, with water--and here, I have to compliment Israel. Israel, as we speak, does not have the best relations with some of its neighbors, but they have joint water projects that they are working on. There is not a lot of fanfare for that, but they all realize that water is important, as we do.

So again, I compliment and I applaud the majority leader for his initiative. I look forward with anticipation to doing something good for millions and even billions of people around the world.

I am grateful to the majority leader for raising the critical issue of the lack of safe water in developing countries. It is one of the world's most pressing development challenges which impacts hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

It is also critical for the United States and the international community to fully recognize the role that unsafe water plays in causing death, disease, poverty, environmental degradation, and instability. An aggressive and timely response is required, and the United States should be at the forefront of that effort. The U.S. Government and other donor nations must develop a more proactive response that commits greater resources and ensures that these resources are allocated where the greatest needs exist.

I fully agree that the initiatives set forth in this act should be fully funded, but not with funds taken from existing and ongoing foreign assistance programs. I look forward to working with Senator Frist and the White House to obtain full funding for this program in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and in subsequent years so the United States can implement pilot programs that can eventually be expanded to other countries in the future.

No objection.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I hope people on our side, if they have amendments to offer, will offer the amendments tonight. If they are bankruptcy-related amendments, we would like to have them tonight.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the distinguished Republican leader and the Democratic leader not be charged against morning business today.

Mr. President, the bankruptcy bill which will shortly be on the floor is a very important piece of legislation. It embodies a principle I agree with: Those who have the means to repay their debts should be required to do so. I believe--I am old-fashioned--that people who borrow money should pay it back.

I supported the bill before, most recently in 2001. I hope to be able to support it again. But a lot has happened in the 4 years since the hearings were held on this bill in addition to the one hearing that was held 2 or 3 weeks ago.

There is new evidence--a lot of evidence--about who declares bankruptcy. Medical catastrophes: About half the people who file for bankruptcy file them because of medical emergencies. Also, extended military duty has caused havoc for people who are in the Guard and Reserve, in the State of Nevada especially.

Then, of course, we have the corporate bankruptcies of 2002 and 2003. We still have one of the criminal trials going on with Enron today. The chief executive officer of that company is testifying for the second day. WorldCom was another corporate bankruptcy that created a lot of attention. I believe it should change how we look at bankruptcy.

There are things that have occurred since we last took this piece of legislation up when it passed the Senate overwhelmingly, as I recall with 82 votes. Again, there have been medical emergencies, extended military duty, and corporate bankruptcies. These corporate bankruptcies have left employees without pensions.

Finally, we need to address the ongoing problem of violence. People are trying to say this is an abortion amendment. It is not an abortion amendment. It is about holding individuals who believe they are above the law accountable for their actions when they break the law in a number of instances. I invite everyone to read the amendment. For example, if people commit illegal acts in protest of a clinic that is engaged in lawful research on animals, then they need to be held accountable for their actions. They cannot simply discharge their debts through bankruptcy proceedings because they disagree with the law that they violated. The same holds true for individuals terrorizing reproductive health care clinics and doctors by engaging in violence. All we are saying is these people who commit these acts and break the law should not be able to discharge these debts in bankruptcy.

This amendment is not about abortion. It deals with a number of different scenarios where individuals who have broken the law try to discharge their debts through bankruptcy proceedings because they disagree with the law. So I hope people will look at these amendments on the merits of the amendments. People have tried to say this is an abortion amendment. It is not. I would hope people would look favorably on some of the amendments we offer dealing with corporate bankruptcies, dealing with pensions, dealing with medical catastrophes, and extended military duty.

We have the opportunity to have a good, sound, firm debate and send a bill to the House that takes into consideration the new matters that have appeared since we last passed this bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would the suggestion of an absence of a quorum be in order?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, at approximately 11 o'clock tomorrow, when we finish morning business, Senator Durbin will be here to offer the first amendment. We have had good opening statements by the two managers of the bill. I do not know if Senator Hatch will be managing the bill or Senator Specter. It was good to see him here. A long statement by Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the committee, was given today.

We are going to start offering amendments, and if people want to make statements, there will be time during this bill--there will be quorum calls and they will be able to do that. We are going to try to limit those as much as we can and move forward. Senator Durbin's amendment will be one relative to bankruptcy.