Floor Statements

Mr. President, while the two managers are on the floor, could I ask a question before I depart?

We have a number of amendments we would like to lay down today and not have those amendments take precedence over the pending amendment, which is the Graham amendment. We want to be able to show the managers of the bill and leadership on the majority side that we want to move this bill. My personal feeling, as I expressed to the majority leader while he was here, is I think it is not the right thing to do to move off this bill and go to something else. I think with some determination we

could start on Tuesday--which is going to be a very short day--work Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and I think we could finish this bill. If we work some long days, I think we could finish it. If we go to class action legislation, that is going to take up a lot of time. Cloture motions need to be filed. I do not know that. I assume so.

My point is if there is anything the two managers of the bill can do to exert their significant influence on the majority to see if we can finish this bill, I think everyone would be well served. The House passed the bill last night by a wide bipartisan margin. I hope we can whittle down some amendments. We could do it, if we work some long days. But I predict if we go off this bill we will never finish it.

If I could, Mr. President, I think the distinguished chairman of the committee has made the argument about why we shouldn't get off this bill.

I want everyone to understand the distinguished senior Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has had nothing to do with moving off this bill. He wants to finish this bill. He feels that is most appropriate.

This class action bill is important legislation, but it pales in comparison to the needs we authorize for these programs for our fighting men and women around the world.

The House bill includes a number of provisions. The $25 billion requested by the administration, as I understand, also legislates the number of troops we would have. If we don't authorize that along with the House, it won't happen. We will wind up going through the appropriations process and appropriating money that has not been authorized in the past.

We need this bill. I repeat, as important as the class action is, it is insignificant compared to what we are doing here. I say to everyone within the sound of my voice, we should do everything we can to finish this bill; otherwise, I think we will not have a Defense authorization bill this year.

If I could say one more thing--and I will say no more--as I said in my remarks this morning through the Chair, to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, we felt the best thing to do yesterday was to move off the bill, and Senator Hollings and Senator Cantwell said when we got back we would finish this phase of the legislation within 2 hours. We agreed to do that.

For reasons that are in the minds of the managers of the bill, there was a decision not to accept it. We want to move forward. I think the Lindsey Graham amendment has been a hiccup here in the process but slowed us down all day yesterday. We think it can be completed very quickly when we get back.

I doubt very seriously we can finish the class action bill the week we get back. It would be a rare occasion in the annals of legislation that we could finish this very contentious bill. It may pass, but it will pass by a slim margin. I am sure there will have to be a cloture vote on it at some time. It is a bill that need not be done now.

If class action law does not change this whole year, it will be uncomfortable for some people, but it is not a life- or-death matter, as is this bill of the two managers. This class action is a convenience for businesses and lawyers.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we are very disappointed that the distinguished majority leader is going to file cloture on this matter. We have said on more than one occasion we are willing to work toward completion of the Defense bill. We cooperated this week. We told the manager of the bill, both Senator Levin and I, let's go off of the Lindsey Graham amendment. We will agree to a 2-hour limitation of time when we come back next Tuesday to dispose of that and the Cantwell amendment that she would have offered. But that wasn't to be done. We indicated at that time that we would waste a lot of time.

We had a bipartisan amendment by Senator Daschle and Senator Lindsey Graham on TRICARE that would have moved forward. We had one that Senator Kennedy had on the reporting. We were standing by with a number of amendments ready to go.

I would also say to the distinguished majority leader, we have supplied to the two managers of the bill our amendments, as Republicans have supplied amendments. There are about 100 amendments. They cleared a number this morning. They have cleared amendments in the past. I would also say that we take about 10 days on this bill normally. We don't think this bill will take that much time. We believe that when we come back, we would be in a position at that time, maybe not on Tuesday but by Wednesday, enter into an agreement as to a list of amendments. It is difficult to have our Members do this with a 10-day break because we don't know if there is going to be another Chalabi problem. We don't know if there is going to be another problem dealing with a prison.

We don't know what is going to happen. Events are moving so quickly.

I say to my distinguished friend, the majority leader, we believe it is more important to go to this Defense bill. I listened to every word of the statement of the distinguished majority leader about the Secretary of Defense. We have had other speeches on the floor today about how important it is that we continue supporting our troops. We believe that.

Last night, the House passed, on a bipartisan basis, a very important Defense authorization bill, by an overwhelming margin. We need to do the same.

I also say that we are willing to go to class action when we finish the Defense bill, which will probably be, I respectfully submit to my friend, Tuesday anyway because I don't think you are going to get cloture on this motion to proceed. I have spoken to my people who are advocates of class action reform--the junior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. They believe in class action reform a lot, but they are not going to vote for cloture.

We believe we should finish the Defense bill and then go to class action. I ask my friend, the distinguished majority leader, to modify his request to provide that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the class action legislation upon disposition of the Defense authorization bill. I make that request.

I object to the request of the majority leader.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could the majority leader schedule that for 5:30? It is so difficult for people on the west coast--and I am one of them--coming back that day. We don't arrive, if the plane is on time, until about 4 o'clock.

Mr. President, we object.

Mr. President, I want the record to reflect that we have cleared a significant number of people today, and we have basically filled the diplomatic corps, ambassadorial vacancies, except for one, and that is in Nepal.

I was on the Senate floor about 10 days ago when we cleared another batch of ambassadors. We had the same problem then that we have now. We have not cleared the only vacant ambassadorial spot open, and that is Nepal. There is an objection by the majority. The ambassadorial appointments are all done except for Nepal. It is not our fault. It is the fault of the majority.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Reserving the right to object, the reason I got a little out of sorts there, I thought I was in Nevada listening to a bingo game being called. I apologize.

I reserve the right to object, and I do it for this reason: The two leaders have worked hard to clear nominations. We got a little movement on our side today. Therefore, we cleared some 12 nominations. We need some reciprocation. I do not know what the numbers were today. I do not know exactly, it is 3 to 12, 3 to 16. We got 3; they got 12 or 16. We need some reciprocation. Let me give an example.

We have nominated and sent to the White House, and the White House has sent back to us a man by the name of Dr. Greg Jasko. Dr. Greg Jasko is to go on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I appeared at a hearing yesterday. This is one of the most important sensitive commissions in the entire American Government. They deal with the most sensitive issues--nuclear powerplants, the nuclear repository in Nevada, other nuclear facilities all over America. Dr. Jasko is eminently qualified. He has a Ph.D. in physics. We cannot get him cleared.

This is one of many examples of how it is not fair. I hope the distinguished majority leader will weigh in and help Dr. Jasko and others to get this roadblock cleared. It just really is not fair. We need some help on our boards and commissions. Therefore, I object, Mr. President.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I say through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, we are going to have our conference on Wednesday for obvious reasons, because there will be so much travel. This year, Monday is actually Memorial Day. We are going to have very few people here until late in the evening on Tuesday, so I ask that the distinguished majority leader allow a modification to his unanimous consent request that we be allowed a time on Wednesday to have our party caucus.

Approximately 12:45 to 2:15.

Madam President, if the distinguished Chair would allow me a unanimous consent request, at the time the Democrats' morning business hour begins, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes and Senator Bill Nelson be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes.

Madam President, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee wishes to speak on an important subject. Will the Senator indicate how much time he wishes to take?

Madam President, I say to the distinguished ranking member, we have 25 minutes that have been allocated. We could easily, I am confident, get another 10 minutes. Does the Senator wish to speak right now?

Through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Florida, how is the Senator's time schedule?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there be 5 additional minutes on both sides for morning business. That will allow the Senator from Delaware to speak for 10 minutes. If my unanimous consent request is granted, that would allow him to begin now.

Our time is gone?

Where did our time go? Did somebody speak?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes on each side, then.

I think the two managers are very wise, offering the opportunity for everyone to go to hear the Secretary of Defense and the three generals who testified yesterday. It is commendable. It speaks well of the management of the Senate floor because there would be nothing happening here anyway. Everyone needs to go there. So I commend the two managers of this bill.

Has the Senator offered a unanimous consent that we would be out from 12:45 to 2:15?

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

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

Mr. President, the core concept which has guided this Nation for 200 years has been the rule of law. That is why we have a Constitution. That is why we have a judiciary. That is why we have a national legislature, to make and revise the laws which rule our conduct, one and all, no exceptions. Therefore, no one, not the mightiest in his mansion, not the lowest begger on the street, is above, beneath, or outside the law.

If a law is outmoded, has lost its utility, if it is obsolete, it is not the place of any citizen, no matter how high or how low, to decide it must no longer be obeyed. That decision rests only with the Congress or with an interpretation by the Federal courts. That is the only place that decision can rest.

Yet I have in front of me a memorandum written in January of 2002 by Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel to President Bush, telling the President of the United States that the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 is obsolete, that the War Crimes Act, which we passed in 1995 making it a felony to commit a grave breach of that Convention, is inapplicable, and that as a result, prisoners captured on the battlefield can be questioned using means that would violate the Third Geneva Convention.

I am not talking about members of al-Qaida. The Gonzales memo specifically discusses members of the Taliban. It makes an extremely questionable argument that the Taliban are not prisoners of war because they were not the government of a state.

That argument is most disturbing. In the first place, it represents precisely the kind of arguments which the drafters of the Third Geneva Convention tried to defeat, drafters who included representatives of the United States. Those drafters repeatedly expressed their concern that the German Government, the Nazi government during World War II, used trumped-up legalisms to avoid applying the 1929 POW Convention to captured prisoners. One of those arguments was that Polish prisoners were unprotected because, according to the Nazis, Poland had ceased to exist as a state. That is precisely why articles 4 and 5 of the current Convention are written in such broad language with such inclusive presumptions.

I am equally disturbed by Mr. Gonzales's argument that because the Taliban were generally unrecognized as a legal government, they should not be afforded the protection required for soldiers of a de facto government. What particularly bothers me about that is the statement issued by the White House late in 2001 that the United States recognized that the Taliban was a de facto government of Afghanistan. You cannot have it both ways. Did Mr. Gonzales forget that statement? Did he ignore it or did he just not care that it squarely contradicted his memo of January 25, 2002, made just days later?

When he sent that memo to the President, over the objections of the Secretary of State, Mr. Gonzales and everyone else involved in its drafting and preparation sowed a bitter harvest. They sowed the seeds of solitary confinement, of sensory deprivation, of physical mistreatment, of violations of religious right, of legal rights, of rights against intimidations and threats and torture--all grave breaches of the Third Geneva Convention. They sowed the wind, and now we are reaping their whirlwind caused by that memorandum from the legal representative of the President of the United States.

Amendment No. 3170

Will the Senator respond to a question from the Senator?

Yes. I say to my friend from Washington, having spoken with her, it is my understanding the Senator has said publicly that if we came back after the break, the Senator would be willing to look very closely at the amendment pending and would be willing to offer one of her own, that she would agree to a time certain on that amendment. Is that true?

Does the Senator yield for another question?

It is my further understanding the Senator, who has spoken for some time now, has a lot more to say, is that right, on this amendment, on this date? She has only gotten warmed up; is that right?

And you, as a matter of courtesy, will allow Senators Hollings and Murray and anyone on the majority side to speak and you will be back at a later time for another round or two; is that correct?

I object.

When the Senator yields the floor, I will speak.

Pardon me?

Mr. President, I yield to the Chair. I have a question on that statement. The Senator from Washington has a right to speak, but we are not going to set a long list of speakers here at random, what speakers are going to speak. I think what we are going to do, we have a number of speakers on the floor, Senators Inhofe, Hollings, Allard, Murray--people who have been here for a long period of time.

It appears to me we are not going to have a vote on this in the near future. I suggest what we do is enter into agreement for the next several however long it takes. We have people who want to speak. We can go forward and whoever gets the jump ball, have people be recognized whenever they get the floor.

Senator Hollings has said Senator Inhofe has been here longer than he has. Senator Inhofe could be recognized for whatever time he feels appropriate. I would like to get some idea of what the time should be. Then, Senator Hollings, I think that would be the best way to go.

But in the meantime, it must be under some agreement, whoever gets the floor.

I am happy to.

The Senator from Washington has to understand--she has the floor, and if she wants to keep talking, let her keep talking. When she finishes, we will be happy to----

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield----

The Senator from Washington has the floor.

Let me say this: Everyone should understand that there is not going to be a vote on this amendment tonight. Everyone should understand that. There is going to be no vote on the pending amendment tonight. I told people that 5 hours ago. No one believed me. There is not going to be a vote on the Graham amendment tonight.

We will not agree to set this one side. If the Senator from South Carolina wishes to withdraw his amendment and set some orderly procedure to take it up when we get back after the Memorial Day break, we are in agreement. But we are not going to agree to set this aside to go to another amendment.

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, we are trying to work out, subject to the approval of the majority leader, to allow Senator Inhofe to speak for 15 minutes and Senator Hollings for 45 minutes. They have waited a long time. Senator Allard, being the gentleman he is, did want to talk about the subsequent votes; there are a couple of judges who need votes. We have 25 to do before the end of June, so we have a lot of voting to do. Then, of course, everyone should understand that we will be right back on the Defense bill following those votes.

We appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Oklahoma for being patient and the Senator from South Carolina. The order has not been entered, but that is what we will order. It would be appropriate for the Senator from Oklahoma to start his speech.

Members should understand that we will have a couple of votes around 5:30.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator, are we in a position now to do anything on this request we had?

No. The Senator is recognized for whatever time he wants. He has the floor.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify his request so that the statement of the Senator from South Carolina will stop at 5:40, and the rest of the unanimous consent kick in at 5:40, rather than 5:30, so we will be voting at 5:50.

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

Mr. President, I yield time for the minority on the judges matter.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the Nevada Mining Townsite Conveyance Act, which will address an important public land issue in rural Nevada. As you may know, the Federal Government controls over 87 percent of the State of Nevada. That's more than 61 million acres of land. This fact makes it necessary for our State and our communities to pursue Federal remedies for problems that in other States can be handled in a much more expeditious manner. With this in mind, Senator Ensign and I look forward to working with our colleagues to pass this common-sense legislation in a bipartisan and timely fashion.

Two rural counties in Nevada have asked for our help in settling longstanding trespass issues that hurt 2 historic mining communities. The towns of Ione and Gold Point have been continuously occupied for over 100 years. Many residents live on land that their families have ostensibly owned for many decades. These citizens have paid their property taxes and made improvements to their properties, rehabilitated historic structures and built new ones.

The documents by which many of these people claim possession of the properties date back many years. In fact, some of the deeds are historic documents themselves. Yet because many of these documents do not satisfy modern requirements for demonstrating land title, they have been deemed invalid. In other words, the Bureau of Land Management has determined that some of the residents of Ione and Gold Point are trespassing on Federal land. This unfortunate situation puts the BLM at odds with the local residents and county governments.

Nye County, Esmeralda County, and the BLM have worked together for almost 10 years to come up with a solution to this problem. All of these parties support the legislation that we offer today as a solution to these land ownerships conflicts, and as a means of promoting responsible resource management. All of the land included in our bill has been identified by the BLM for disposal.

Our legislation represents the first of a two-part solution. Under this bill, specified lands within the historic mining townsites of Ione and Gold Point would be conveyed to the respective counties. Under the provisions of a State law passed several years ago in Nevada, the counties will then re-convey the land to these people or entities who can demonstrate ownership or longstanding occupancy of specific land parcels.

The sum of our bill is that it conveys for no consideration approximately 760 acres in Ione and Gold Point to the counties of Nye and Esmeralda. As a condition of the conveyance, all historic and cultural resources contained in the townsites shall be preserved and protected under applicable Federal and State law. These conveyances will benefit the agencies that manage Nevada's

vast Federal lands as well as the proud citizens of our rural communities. We sincerely hope that our colleagues will support this legislation. It is a practical solution that deserves swift passage. We salute the Bureau of Land Management, the counties, and the local residents for their cooperation and hard work in crafting this excellent compromise.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the Nevada Mining Townsite Conveyance Act, which will address an important public land issue in rural Nevada. As you may know, the Federal Government controls over 87 percent of the State of Nevada. That's more than 61 million acres of land. This fact makes it necessary for our State and our communities to pursue Federal remedies for problems that in other States can be handled in a much more expeditious manner. With this in mind, Senator Ensign and I look forward to working with our colleagues to pass this common-sense legislation in a bipartisan and timely fashion.

Two rural counties in Nevada have asked for our help in settling longstanding trespass issues that hurt 2 historic mining communities. The towns of Ione and Gold Point have been continuously occupied for over 100 years. Many residents live on land that their families have ostensibly owned for many decades. These citizens have paid their property taxes and made improvements to their properties, rehabilitated historic structures and built new ones.

The documents by which many of these people claim possession of the properties date back many years. In fact, some of the deeds are historic documents themselves. Yet because many of these documents do not satisfy modern requirements for demonstrating land title, they have been deemed invalid. In other words, the Bureau of Land Management has determined that some of the residents of Ione and Gold Point are trespassing on Federal land. This unfortunate situation puts the BLM at odds with the local residents and county governments.

Nye County, Esmeralda County, and the BLM have worked together for almost 10 years to come up with a solution to this problem. All of these parties support the legislation that we offer today as a solution to these land ownerships conflicts, and as a means of promoting responsible resource management. All of the land included in our bill has been identified by the BLM for disposal.

Our legislation represents the first of a two-part solution. Under this bill, specified lands within the historic mining townsites of Ione and Gold Point would be conveyed to the respective counties. Under the provisions of a State law passed several years ago in Nevada, the counties will then re-convey the land to these people or entities who can demonstrate ownership or longstanding occupancy of specific land parcels.

The sum of our bill is that it conveys for no consideration approximately 760 acres in Ione and Gold Point to the counties of Nye and Esmeralda. As a condition of the conveyance, all historic and cultural resources contained in the townsites shall be preserved and protected under applicable Federal and State law. These conveyances will benefit the agencies that manage Nevada's

vast Federal lands as well as the proud citizens of our rural communities. We sincerely hope that our colleagues will support this legislation. It is a practical solution that deserves swift passage. We salute the Bureau of Land Management, the counties, and the local residents for their cooperation and hard work in crafting this excellent compromise.

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

Mr. President, before the Senator yields the floor, I would like to ask him a question through the Chair.

I am happy to hear the statement of the Senator from South Dakota about the need for mental health parity. One part of me is sad because when he mentions the name of Paul Wellstone, that presents to me a void in my life because it seems only yesterday he was back here walking around with his microphone.

He was a champion of many causes. He worked so hard because he knew I was interested in the subject of suicide and what causes it and how we can prevent it.

Even though I know how important this issue is, and we have to do something about it, I feel--like, I am sure, a lot of his friends who served in the Senate with him--a real void whenever his name is mentioned because he truly was one of the most remarkable people I have met in my life.

I applaud and compliment the leader for his statement on mental health parity. For this man, it is long overdue to recognize him being a great Senator.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Stabenow, 10 minutes to Senator Murray, 10 minutes to Senator Durbin, and 10 minutes to Senator Wyden.