Floor Statements

Mr. President, beyond the statement of my friend from New Mexico and Senator Dorgan, is there any other time that has been allocated?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 3 minutes to respond to my friend from New Mexico. Also, Senator Nelson is in the Chamber, and if there is a Republican who wants to speak--we are as in morning business, are we not?

Will the Senator yield?

I know the Senator from North Dakota has the floor. I would like to ask a question of the Senator from Florida. To make the Senator's point clear, however, I ask, is it not true that the Senate race to which the Senator is referring was a race between two Republicans, one backed by the President and the other running on his own, former Congressman McCollum? And the viciousness--I have read editorials from the State of Florida which dealt with Martinez's campaign against this good man, Congressman McCollum, and the same applies to South Dakota. The same crew that is trying to demean Senator Daschle demeaned Congressman McCollum. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. President, will the Chair state what the matter before the Senate is at this stage?

And the time is not divided between now and 3 o'clock?

Following that expiration of time, how is the time allocated?

Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the statement of my dear friend from New Mexico about voting and all that he thinks is wrong with our system. I would be happy to look at his legislation. But it seems to me around here what we should be dealing with is giving people the opportunity to vote more easily rather than making it more difficult.

I think it speaks volumes that when you look at the States that have same-day registration, the turnout is much bigger. We have one State where there is no registration, and the vote there, of course, is even higher. In those instances where you have same-day registration and you have no registration, with all the modern computerization, all the ways of checking, there has not been a single case of fraud reported, to my knowledge. So I think what we should try to do is make it easier for people to vote, not harder. I heard my friend, if I understood his statement, say that there are some people out registering lots and lots of people. Well, good. Good. We need more people like that.

I am very disappointed in the State of Nevada. I have tried for years to get the system changed. But, in Nevada, we cut off registration a month before the primary election, and then we cut it off a month before the general election. Just when people are interested in voting, we cut them off. And the county clerk says: Oh, it's so hard for us to get all the records in order. That is silliness. With all the modern technology we have, it is easy.

The reason it is hard is people like to know who they have who voted for them last time or voted against them. They do not want to make a big impression on getting new people into the system. It is easier to deal with what you have, and it is wrong.

We started off after the Civil War with rules to keep people from voting. We need to get out of that mindset.

We need to make it easier for people to vote, and one way to do that is to have either same-day registration or even no registration. There are plenty of ways of checking to see if people are trying to vote fraudulently.

In the State of Oregon, people vote by mail. They do not have polling places in Oregon, and it works out just fine. The State of Washington also does a lot of their balloting by mail. It works out fine. Those two States decided they wanted to do what they could to increase voter participation, not cut back on it. We need to do more of that rather than all these laws that are going to throw people in jail if they register wrong people. I think there are so many different ways of checking to make sure you have an honest election that you do not need to have all these punitive measures that are proposed.

Mr. President, I know my friend from Florida wants to speak. I certainly want to give him that ability. But I just want to say this: The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. Senator Daschle is a veteran who has served in the U.S. military. He is a person who has dedicated much of his legislative life to helping people who have served in the military.

There are a lot of people who can take responsibility for dealing with Agent Orange, but Senator Daschle, who is a Vietnam-era veteran, knows about Agent Orange, and he has worked tirelessly to get things done in that regard.

I have worked with him on concurrent receipts. He has been a big advocate of concurrent receipts. He is a person who has almost single- handedly taken care of TRICARE, to make sure that National Guardsmen and reservists are treated more fairly with medical care.

To think that in any way this good man has somehow emboldened the enemy--and that is in the way of a fundraising letter--is not very good. I know the man running against Senator Daschle. I like him. I am just terribly disappointed that he would allow people to use him the way they have. That Senator Daschle has emboldened the enemy is unfair. It is outrageous. And I think that Congressman John Thune should apologize to the people of South Dakota for suggesting that Tom Daschle has emboldened the enemy. I assume he is referring to these nameless, faceless, evil people who are committing this war on terror, who are executing this war on terror.

Senator Daschle has somehow emboldened the enemy, these nameless, faceless people who are killing innocent women and children, and others? I think not. And I say John Thune, whom I have the highest respect for, should return the dignity to his person and disavow this statement.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business for the purpose of statements only until 3:45 p.m.--that is the next hour--with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees?

I also say, Mr. President, if there is some concern because we used the last 15 minutes, if the Republicans want to come and get a little extra time because of that, we would be happy to take care of that.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding the majority leader is going to come shortly and ask unanimous consent that we have a vote at 4:30 p.m. Members should be alerted that if they are doing something now, they have to come back and vote at 4:30.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, a number of people wish to speak, Republicans and Democrats. I wonder if we can have a little order around here. I know Senator Durbin wants to speak for up to half an hour, and Senator Harkin wishes to speak. On our side, I wonder if we can get people queued in, and if Republicans want to come after we speak, that is fine.

How long does the Senator from Iowa need?

On our side, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be recognized for 5 minutes, that Senator Durbin be recognized for 30 minutes, and that the majority may have someone between Senators Harkin and Durbin, and we will balance out the time thereafter.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I want to make a brief statement. I have already spoken today on the issue Senator McConnell has presented to the body. It was done earlier today by the distinguished junior Senator from Pennsylvania on the CARE Act, a bill that the minority wants to become law. But as I said to the Senator from Pennsylvania through the Chair, there are other ways of doing this than to conference. I have a list of a series of bills that have passed in this body, have been negotiated between the House and the Senate, and that did not go to conference. I don't know the exact number, but scores of bills passed. The same thing could be done with the CARE Act. The same could be done with the Workforce Investment Act.

I say to my distinguished counterpart, the senior Senator from Kentucky, that the risk for Republicans is

that their strategy may just be too obvious. The majority has become so unyielding at times that it seems more devoted to tagging Democrats with the obstructionist label than getting legislation passed. Bills have been abandoned rather than let Democrats have the votes on amendments they demand, such as a minimum wage increase or rules protecting workers' rights to overtime. The complaints about Democrats ignore the fact that internal Republican differences also cause delays.

I have on a pair of Allen Edmonds shoes today. They are shoes that are made in the United States. President Bush wears these shoes. So does Senator Kerry. They are one of the few shoe manufacturers left in America. The reason I mention that is that the chief executive of the company, John Stollenwerk, is upset because, as a result of our doing nothing on the FSC bill, he is now paying 19-percent penalties. And to this day, even though we agreed to go to conference, the House has not appointed conferees.

I say to my friend with all sincerity, we need not find fault. Let's find a way to work together. Let's impose our goodwill upon the Speaker of the House and have him appoint conferees to the FSC bill so that we can still have shoes made in America.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of bills to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, just this week--and this is only Tuesday-- the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, known as AASHTO, which is comprised of the transportation leaders from the 50 States--the State of Missouri has a

director of the department of transportation, the State of Ohio has a director of the department of transportation, the State of Nevada does; their titles may vary a little bit, but that is their job; that is who this AASHTO is composed of, among others--they have called this week upon Congress to immediately pass a ``well funded, six year reauthorization'' of the Nation's transportation program. I agree with them. But as you know, this program expired a year ago and the States have been operating under a series of short-term extensions. This has disrupted their construction programs, delayed safety improvements, and interrupted funding to transit operators.

The fact is, we are not going to have a 6-year reauthorization bill this year for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that we passed, as the Presiding Officer knows, a bill that was advocated for and supported by the senior Senator from the State of Missouri, a bill that passed this House by a huge margin, a bill that created funding at a level of $318 billion over the period of time of the bill. That bill did not increase the Federal deficit a skinny dime, not anything. It was a good bill, and we were stunned to learn that the President wanted a bill at a much lower level, some $250-odd billion. Why? I have spoken to some of his closest friends around here, and they have not got a reason for that.

We have now some in this body who are bowing to pressure from the White House and are trying to write a bill at $284 billion, which is $28 billion more than what the President said he would agree to. Both of these are well below the spending limits called for by the U.S. Department of Transportation as to what they need, what their analysis is, and that which is sought by the entire transportation industry.

Not only do we have a resolution from AASHTO, the transportation directors, but we also have a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors which is quite clear and basically says the same thing. We also have a resolution from the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

In the absence of a well-funded, multiyear reauthorization bill, the Nation's State transportation officials have called for at least a 6- month extension of the current program.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution dated September 20, 2004, from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials be printed in the Record, along with the documents I spoke of from the United States Conference of Mayors and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

As this Congress draws to a close, there continue to be large obstacles standing in the way of a well-funded, multiyear reauthorization. For this reason, I have joined with my friend and colleague Senator Bond in a bipartisan effort and have introduced this day a clean 6-month extension of the highway, transit, and highway safety programs. It certainly is my hope this would provide State and local officials with the predictability they need to effectively manage our transportation system.

I remain committed to working in a bipartisan way to achieve a successful reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation laws. I hope we can move forward on this 6-month extension. It is important we do that. It is important we do it as quickly as possible. There is even some disagreement as to when the bill runs out, when we close down the Department of Transportation, whether it is this Friday or next Friday. The fact is, we have to do it very soon.

I appreciate the attention of Members.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, just this week--and this is only Tuesday-- the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, known as AASHTO, which is comprised of the transportation leaders from the 50 States--the State of Missouri has a

director of the department of transportation, the State of Ohio has a director of the department of transportation, the State of Nevada does; their titles may vary a little bit, but that is their job; that is who this AASHTO is composed of, among others--they have called this week upon Congress to immediately pass a ``well funded, six year reauthorization'' of the Nation's transportation program. I agree with them. But as you know, this program expired a year ago and the States have been operating under a series of short-term extensions. This has disrupted their construction programs, delayed safety improvements, and interrupted funding to transit operators.

The fact is, we are not going to have a 6-year reauthorization bill this year for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that we passed, as the Presiding Officer knows, a bill that was advocated for and supported by the senior Senator from the State of Missouri, a bill that passed this House by a huge margin, a bill that created funding at a level of $318 billion over the period of time of the bill. That bill did not increase the Federal deficit a skinny dime, not anything. It was a good bill, and we were stunned to learn that the President wanted a bill at a much lower level, some $250-odd billion. Why? I have spoken to some of his closest friends around here, and they have not got a reason for that.

We have now some in this body who are bowing to pressure from the White House and are trying to write a bill at $284 billion, which is $28 billion more than what the President said he would agree to. Both of these are well below the spending limits called for by the U.S. Department of Transportation as to what they need, what their analysis is, and that which is sought by the entire transportation industry.

Not only do we have a resolution from AASHTO, the transportation directors, but we also have a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors which is quite clear and basically says the same thing. We also have a resolution from the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

In the absence of a well-funded, multiyear reauthorization bill, the Nation's State transportation officials have called for at least a 6- month extension of the current program.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution dated September 20, 2004, from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials be printed in the Record, along with the documents I spoke of from the United States Conference of Mayors and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

As this Congress draws to a close, there continue to be large obstacles standing in the way of a well-funded, multiyear reauthorization. For this reason, I have joined with my friend and colleague Senator Bond in a bipartisan effort and have introduced this day a clean 6-month extension of the highway, transit, and highway safety programs. It certainly is my hope this would provide State and local officials with the predictability they need to effectively manage our transportation system.

I remain committed to working in a bipartisan way to achieve a successful reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation laws. I hope we can move forward on this 6-month extension. It is important we do that. It is important we do it as quickly as possible. There is even some disagreement as to when the bill runs out, when we close down the Department of Transportation, whether it is this Friday or next Friday. The fact is, we have to do it very soon.

I appreciate the attention of Members.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is the way we should proceed. This is excellent. I have confidence in Judd Gregg, the chairman of the committee. I don't agree with him lots of times, but he is a man who believes in the procedures we have established here many years ago. I am confident this will be a very successful conference.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before I came to the Senate, I practiced law for many years in my home state of Nevada. I was an attorney who went to court all the time, and I often went to Federal court. There is a tremendous difference between State courts and Federal courts. There is more solemnity in the Federal courts. There are more procedures that are important to the establishment of justice and maintaining justice in our Federal court system. The main reason for this is that our Federal judges are appointed for life. They are not subject to the whims of a political issue at any given time. They know that if they rule a

certain way, they are not going to be thrown off the bench in the next election.

I am still a very proud member of the Nevada bar, and I have great respect for the law. I appreciate everyone who is involved in the practice of the law and the judicial process.

In fact, the reason there has been so much debate about Federal judicial nominations is because we care deeply about these lifetime positions. They are vital to our system of Government.

The U.S. Constitution is such an important document. When we come to this body, we swear we will uphold the U.S. Constitution. Framers of this great document were visionary, in my opinion. They understood the importance of the legal process. That is why they made the judiciary one of the three equal branches of Government, separate but equal.

Our judiciary and our legal system are vital to this democracy. Unfortunately, some people only seem to recognize that fact when it is convenient.

I am sad to announce that this administration wants the public to believe nothing is more important than filling vacancies on the Federal bench. Yet, this same administration refuses to fund the judicial branch so it can function properly. This body, because of the numbers we have gotten from the White House, is contemplating a budget resolution that would freeze the judiciary appropriations at last year's levels. The funding for staffing and other expenses was below the level of fiscal year 2001. That is, 2004 was below the level of 2001.

While funding went down over that time, the workload of our Federal judiciary has increased by more than 10 percent. The budget crunch has already forced the judiciary to fire 145 employees. Now if we freeze judiciary funding at these levels, again we will cripple the operations of our Federal courts. It will force early buyouts. They will come up with gimmicks such as these early buyouts. They will have to do some layoffs. They will have to do furlough days. They will limit the number of hours people can work, and there will be a loss of between 2,000 to 5,000 probation officers and court staff alone.

What does this mean? Fewer probation officers means less supervision of Federal offenders and more danger on our streets. Do we want to do that? By withholding the resources of our judiciary, which is so desperately needed, we would threaten the ability of our legal system to function properly.

By next June, payments to court-appointed private attorneys in criminal cases would be halted. Why is this significant? Because our Federal public defender system cannot represent defendants in cases where there are conflicts with other defendants these defendants have to be represented by court-appointed private attorneys. Without adequate funding, they are not going to be able to do that anymore. In addition, civil jury trials would come to a halt in June because there would be no funds to pay the jurors.

The Constitution is the world's greatest blueprint for democracy, and our justice system is the fairest and the best in all the world. We should not be running a second-class judicial system. The Senate needs to provide our judiciary the resources it needs to fund these functions properly.

While the Senate committee-passed bill does appropriate funding for the judiciary, it is not enough. At the very least, we must appropriate the amount contained in H.R. 4754. Anything less than that will jeopardize the judiciary's fundamental mission of providing justice.

I have spoken at great length with members of the Federal bench about salaries for Federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justices. We have to pay our Federal judges better to continue to attract and retain the ``best of the best'' in our Federal judiciary, but today we are not even asking for that. We simply want funding that will be better than the 2001 level.

As in so many cases, this administration's rhetoric on judicial nominees is a flip side of reality. The President bemoans the supposed slow pace of the Senate's confirmation of his judicial nominees. Here is reality: The Senate has confirmed more than 95 percent of the President's nominees for the Federal court. I think the number is 203 approved and 9 or 10 turned down.

The pace of our consideration of nominees is faster than that afforded any President in modern times. The vacancy rate on the Federal bench is the lowest in many years. Yet the President argues that the Senate's objection to a small number of his nominees will slow the administration of justice. Again, that is not reality. Here is reality: The President proposes a budget that shortchanges the judiciary, ensuring that the judges who serve today on the Federal bench do not have the resources they need to do the job they were appointed to do. That is the reality.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a letter I received from Lloyd D. George, formerly the Chief Judge in Nevada, now on senior status, a man who has the support and approval of all Federal judges, be printed in the Record.

Judge George has served on many committees of the Supreme Court. He is a great judge. I do not know if ``revered'' is the right word, but people like this man and look up to him. Lloyd George was appointed by a Republican President. He is a Republican, and he is not trying to embarrass the President. He is a person who believes in the three separate but equal branches of Government and he thinks what is happening to the Federal judiciary is causing inequality in the separation of powers doctrine.