Floor Statements

Mr. President, earlier today, during the Negroponte debate, a number of my friends from the other side of the aisle expressed concern that some ambassadors were pending on the Executive Calendar. I think concern is a very light word. I think we could use words such as they expressed outrage--concern. I wish to comment on this because I think it was misguided. Perhaps they didn't have the right information.

One of the most unfortunate charges I heard was that the Democrats have ensured that there were vacancies in U.S. Embassies in countries representing 700 million people.

Another unfortunate charge was that we were hamstringing the war on terrorism by not having confirmed ambassadors that the Foreign Relations Committee just found time to report out last week.

Again, we were criticized because we were hamstringing the war on terrorism because, after action taken by the committee last week, we didn't do floor action within the next few days. I think anyone who understands Senate procedure knows acting on work of a committee within a very short period of time doesn't happen very often. What I mean by that is a matter of weeks.

I hope if these Senators think these people were needed so urgently, the Foreign Relations Committee should have moved a little faster--or a lot faster.

But this really is not the issue, because all my colleagues know the record does not support these accusations--and that is what they are. Later tonight we will confirm 20 ambassadors. We have already voted for Ambassador Negroponte. His nomination was completed with nearly record speed, given he was only nominated by President Bush last week.

As to the charge the Democrats have kept several American Embassies vacant, we have been told there are 10 embassies the State Department has said are currently vacant. Of these 10, the President has chosen to fill only 5 of them. Out of 10, half of those the President has not sent names.

Tonight, we will confirm ambassadors to fill Nigeria and Serbia. The only reason we have Serbia tonight is last week Republicans objected to confirming this qualified Foreign Service officer. We also wanted to confirm the new Ambassador to Nepal tonight, but there was an objection, I am told, by our Republican friends that would prevent the Senate from ensuring that this very qualified career Foreign Service officer will not be confirmed. The remaining two vacancies, Sweden and Finland, need to be filled, of course. These are going to be political appointees because they did not fill out the term they committed to serve.

The facts that were propounded by my friends on the other side of the aisle about ambassadors not being appointed simply is without any basis of fact. We will confirm two tonight. We have 10 that are unfilled. The President has not even sent five of the names to us. I repeat: Two of them we are going to fill tonight. We have five vacancies. A third we will fill tonight, we would not have needed to do that but for an objection by the Republicans last week over that very qualified person. Then, of course, I indicated the person to go to Nepal is being objected to by the Republicans also.

We have two vacancies, then: Sweden and Finland. The reason those are vacant is because they were political appointees and the people decided they wanted to come home early.

We are doing the very best we can. There are a lot of places that people could place blame, but certainly not in the case of appointment of ambassadors because the facts do not support the allegations that we have been slowing up the ambassadors.

I am happy to see the two managers of the bill in the Senate. We are cautiously optimistic we will be able to complete in the near future the very important FSC bill, the JOBS bill. While the two Senators are in the Senate, I say publicly how much I appreciate their work on this piece of legislation. This committee they are responsible for running, the Finance Committee, is as important if not more important than any other committee in the Congress. They work well together. This is a very complicated bill. There have been a lot of political sideshows that have gone on during the pendency of this legislation, as happens in all complex bills. We might get lucky later tonight and work out an arrangement to complete this bill in the near future, probably early next week.

Again, I express my appreciation to the two Senators. They are both experienced. Both come from relatively sparsely populated States, like the State of Nevada. The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution so that the Senate was not determined by how many people are in a State but, rather, that it is a State. There is no better example of what the Founding Fathers had in mind than these two fine men who run this most important committee. I express my appreciation for the good work they do and have done on this bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I noticed in the statement of the leader--I think it was a fair statement--that many amendments have nothing to do with the underlying bill, and he didn't designate that only Democrats were contemplating amendments that may not be pertinent to the bill. I am disappointed we have not been able to complete this legislation, as I indicated earlier. We are very close.

I repeat very quickly, because I have said it before, we have four contentious amendments. The total time we would take would be an hour and 35 minutes. We have the Made in America amendment by Senator Feingold; the Lautenberg amendment dealing with foreign subsidiaries doing business with terrorist nations; the Corzine amendment dealing with section 301, which is having the President enforce the trade laws; then we had unemployment compensation. I am disappointed that we have not been able to get to those because I think it is important that we are able to do this bill.

We are going to pass this bill. It is only a question of time. This bill is so important that we, the Congress, and the President cannot leave here without passing this legislation. This is a must-pass piece of legislation. It is only a question of how we get there. I think we would have been better off dealing with these amendments and going on to something else.

The leader made a decision that cloture must be filed, and time will only tell whether cloture will be invoked. We have heard there may be an opportunity to vote on at least one of the contentious amendments. I hope that is the case. That may make things a little better. Everybody has tried hard and, in my opinion, it is not the fault of the managers of the bill. I know they have devoted a lot of time, energy, and effort to this most important piece of legislation. I understand where we are procedurally. I understand what the leader has stated.

Will the Senator yield?

We worked yesterday at great length on the FSC bill and were able to get the amendment we have been trying to get a vote on for several months dealing with overtime. The amendment, of course, passed. That is out of the way.

The Democrats are offering lots of amendments. We have amendments that are pending that have been offered by a number of Democratic Senators, amendments we have in the queue, and other Democrats have indicated they are willing to offer their amendments.

I say to my friend, the distinguished Democratic leader, on our side we feel this bill is doable and we can do it quite quickly. I want the record to be spread with a statement from the Democratic leader that we want the bill to pass. If it does not pass, it is not going to be anything that has been done by the minority. The FSC bill is important. We realize it has been important for some time and have done everything we can to get it passed.

Would the Democratic leader indicate his feelings about this most important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield in order for me to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, on the Democratic side, how much time do we have?

Mr. President, we would, on this side, yield 7\1/2\ minutes to Senator Corzine, 7\1/2\ minutes to Senator Schumer, and 7\1/2\ minutes to Senator Breaux. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Mr. President, of the time allocated to the Democrats, I would yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. Do we have the ability to do that, allocating the 4 minutes? If the Senator from New Jersey used all his time, we do not.

I yield the 4 minutes to Senator Durbin.

Mr. President, through the Chair to my friend from Illinois, I appreciate very much his statement. I am hopeful and confident that agreement on those strategies will be reached today. I am terribly disappointed, and not only in what we did not hear from the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, there was more brass in 407 last Thursday than would make up a band, four stars all over the place, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a single one of those people in the chain of command even breathed a word of the impending scandal that they knew about as they briefed us. It is a terrible situation when we meet in secret up in room 407 and something as scandalous as American troops killing--we now have confirmed two homicides--prisoners of war in addition to humiliating them through sexual pictures and doing other things that speak so poorly of our military that I am sickened to my stomach.

Mr. President, we will take 1 minute from Senator Breaux.

I know the Senator from New Mexico wishes to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes, and certainly we would have no objection to that. I just want to lay out for Members what is going to transpire in the next few hours. The two managers are necessarily absent this morning but they have instructed us what should be done on this legislation. We have completed debate on the Breaux amendment. We are next going to move to the amendment that has been filed by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.

Following that, unless the majority decides they want to offer an amendment, we are going to finish debate on the Graham amendment, which is also laid down.

We had an agreed-upon time on the Dorgan amendment, but as a result of the fact that we have been told a Senator may offer a second-degree amendment to his amendment, it would be difficult for us to agree to a limit on that. So debate will go forward on the Dorgan amendment, and those who are trying to determine whether they are going to offer an amendment can do so and at that time perhaps we can work out a time agreement. If they don't offer a second-degree amendment, that will be easier.

On the amendment of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, he needs a half hour himself on that amendment, which we understand. There may be a few others who wish to take some time. We could agree to 45 minutes, maybe, to an hour, on our side. I doubt if the full hour will be used.

So it is my understanding that the leadership, when debate is completed on those amendments, would set a time for voting on all three amendments or maybe even four would be pending.

That is where we are. I think it indicates we are moving on this bill fairly rapidly. As Senator Daschle and I indicated this morning, on our side we are winding down our amendments. We have a few others that will be offered, not many. We hope the majority will also make a decision in the near future as to whether they want to finish this bill. We want to finish this bill. We hope the majority does also.

Yes.

It would include debate on the substitute?

Mr. President, I, first, didn't ask unanimous consent that that would be the case. During the time Senator Domenici is speaking, we will take a look at that. I just wanted to notify Senators what we were trying to accomplish. Senator Dorgan is on the floor and we will make a decision.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business and sometime during the day the Democrats be allotted the same privilege, 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, after consideration during the speech of Senator Domenici, we believe the action of the Senate will be as follows: Senator Dorgan will speak on behalf of his amendment. Senator Mikulski will speak on behalf of that amendment. It will take probably a half hour for them to do it, but that is not in the form of a unanimous consent request.

Following that debate, we will move off that amendment because the majority is finding what vehicle they are going to use for a second- degree amendment. When they finish, when Senators Dorgan and Mikulski finish, we will move immediately to the Graham amendment. At that time, we will lock in a 2-hour time agreement. It is probably likely that each side will not use its full hour.

Following that, it will be the desire of the majority to have a vote on the Breaux amendment and then on the amendment of the Senator from Florida. We will have two amendments and then go back to the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota.

I ask that we go to the Dorgan amendment. The Senator is on the floor. Following debate on that, I ask unanimous consent that we go to the Graham amendment.

And that there be 2 hours equally divided on the Graham amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order.

Will the Senator yield?

We now have agreement that we can have those two votes. I have already indicated that following the remarks of Senator Dorgan and Senator Mikulski, we would move to the Graham amendment No. 3112 and the time would be equally divided, 2 hours equally divided. Following the debate on that, I ask we move to vote in relation to the Graham amendment No. 3112. Prior to that, we vote on the Breaux amendment No. 3117. There will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each of the votes.

Mr. President, how much time is left under Senator Graham's amendment on this side?

Mr. President, I will claim the 5 minutes we have under morning business. It is all part of the order of the Senate already. Then I will yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer stands for many things, but, in my mind, one of the things you stand for is what is good about the United States military: A person who put himself in harm's way, with his brother, and has created a story that is intriguing and interesting and shows the bravery of the Presiding Officer in a time of crisis.

Mr. President, you are the role model for the troops we have in Iraq today. Our men and women there are fighting valiantly, and each day find themselves in harm's way, in many different avenues.

I came to the Senate floor this morning and talked about how I felt-- this Senator--on last Thursday I had been misled and not treated fairly. We had a briefing up in 407, and we had the Secretary of Defense there. As I indicated this morning, we had enough brass to fill a brass band. We had four-star generals. We had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I do not want all the blame focused on Secretary Rumsfeld. I feel those military officers should have told Democratic and Republican Senators last Thursday what was going to break on ``60 Minutes'' that night. I feel terribly misled and disappointed in their not doing that.

I say that because by their not telling us what was going to come out--certainly all or most of them knew something was going to come out; and if they did not know, they should have known--each Senator was blindsided.

Now, Mr. President, the reason I mentioned you as a role model for the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the rest of the world is virtually every man and woman serving in the military does the right thing. Obviously, from the photographs and information we have, some of them did not. But I do not want just the enlisted men, so to speak, to be the scapegoats for what has obviously transpired. There is a chain of command, and there is responsibility in that chain of command.

I am terribly disappointed what went on in 407 with the chain of command, and so I do not want my remarks at all to reflect adversely on the fighting men and women of this country--the Pat Tillmans of our country. There are lots of Pat Tillmans. We admire and respect him so much because he gave up a multimillion-dollar contract to go fight in the war. But lots of other people gave up lots of things to go fight in these wars, and there are lots of Pat Tillmans. I admire him and his family and his brother, who went in with him, as your brother went in with you.

So, Mr. President, I hope the chain of command understands their responsibility and does not try to pass the buck off on these people who needed, obviously, supervision and control.

I think also we have to take a look at what is going on in Iraq today with the so-called security guards who are being hired, because it is obvious some wrong

took place there as a result of what they did.

I appreciate my friend from Minnesota allowing me to speak prior to him. The Senator now has 16 minutes under the order.

Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Hollings would propose that amendment immediately following the votes on the two pending amendments; is that right?

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

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I have spoken to the managers--well, not actually the managers of the bill--but I have spoken to the majority side. Prior to this kicking in, this unanimous consent agreement, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business, and, of course, the same time accorded to the majority.

Mr. President, on the time we have, 20 minutes of that would go to Senator Dorgan.

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

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I have spoken to the Democratic leader, I have spoken to our manager. On our side we have six amendments remaining. I mention them by name: Feingold, 5 minutes on his side; Lautenberg, 30 minutes; Corzine, 30 minutes; Cantwell, 30 minutes; Hollings, 40 minutes; Landrieu, 30 minutes. This bill can be completed in a relatively short time. I understand the Members would rather not vote on some of these amendments, but I want the record to reflect we would agree to these very short time limits. There are no surprises in any of the amendments. Everyone knows what they are. Certainly on Hollings and Landrieu, we have agreed with the majority these could be next in order.

The problem we have, everyone should understand, is Senator Cantwell will not let us do the unanimous consent agreement unless we have some way of disposing of her amendment. I have also been contacted by Senator Corzine, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Feingold. They will agree to no more unanimous consent agreements unless they are included in the order in some way.

I repeat: Each of these Senators wants this bill passed. None of them is trying to stall. They understand the importance of this legislation. But add up all the time on our side, and it is about 2 hours 45 minutes. That is all that is remaining on debate time on our side. I hope we recognize and can figure out some way to get through these amendments and get this bill passed. I see no reason we could not do it tomorrow easily.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will the distinguished chairman of the committee allow a modification to his request, that the Senator from Washington be allowed to speak for 10 minutes prior to us going into morning business?

Mr. President, if I could respond, the Senator from Washington is protected. Her amendment is the next amendment. I mean, it is an amendment that is now before the Senate, and she understands nothing is going to happen on this bill until there is an agreement in some regard to her vote. She is not going to ask at this period of time for a unanimous consent. She does not need to be protected.

Mr. President, the city of Las Vegas, in my native State of Nevada, is recognized as the entertainment capital of the world.

Our amazing resorts offer many options for fun, but one of their greatest attractions is world-class dining.

Over the last 12 years, many of our Nation's leading chefs have opened restaurants in Las Vegas, transforming our desert city into even more of a culinary oasis.

The man most responsible for this remarkable transformation is Wolfgang Puck.

Wolfgang Puck was born in Austria. He began his formal training at age 14, inspired by his mother, who was a hotel chef. By the time he came to this country at age 24, Wolfgang had prepared himself for success, but nobody could have predicted just how dramatic that success would be.

By combining classic French techniques with influences from Asia and California, and by using the finest ingredients from local purveyors, he has changed the way Americans think about food and the way chefs prepare it.

Along the way he has become American's most famous chef, and created an empire comprising a dozen fine dining restaurants and more than 50 casual and quick service establishments.

Four of his best restaurants are in Las Vegas: Spago and Chinois at the Forum Shops at Caesar's Palace; Trattoria Del Lupa at Mandalay Bay; and Postrio at the Venetian.

One thing all these places have in common is a remarkable attention to detail. Wolfgang Puck is a person who thinks about everything that could possibly affect the dining experience. Some would even call him a worrier. The story goes that before his first Spago restaurant opened, he couldn't sleep for two days because he was worried that nobody would show up. Well, people did show up, and they lined up to get in. So Wolfgang's reaction was to worry about how he would ever be able to feed such a crowd.

Wolfgang Puck has been influential because of his cooking techniques and his approach to food; almost every American chef has learned something from him. But you don't have to be a chef to learn from Wolfgang Puck. We can all learn from his willingness to take risks and try new ways of doing things. He has said that he learned more from his one restaurant that failed than he learned from the many that succeeded.

Wolfgang has a great partner in life and in business--his wife, Barbara Lazaroff. She is an acclaimed architectural designer who has created magnificent environments where diners can appreciate Wolfgang's food. I'm sure Wolfgang would be the first to acknowledge that he couldn't have accomplished what he has without Barbara by his side.

Wolfgang and Barbara and their two sons live in California, but we think of them as part of our Las Vegas community. They are very active in charitable activities in Nevada, as well as California. Their Puck- Lazaroff Charitable Foundation was established in 1982, and has raised more than $5 million for charity. It sponsors the annual American Food and Wine Festival, which raises money for Meals on Wheels.

Wolfgang and Barbara are also major supporters of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of California and Nevada, and the Alzheimer's Association.

In fact, on May 15, Wolfgang will be the honored guest at Keep Memory Alive, an annual dinner in Las Vegas that combats Alzheimer's by raising money and public awareness. This event began in 1996 as an intimate dinner party. It has been repeated each year since, thanks to Larry Ruvo and Bobby Baldwin. Last year, Keep Memory Alive had grown to a feast for 300 people at Postrio. Wolfgang and other chefs prepared a memorable dinner, and Muhammed Ali and other celebrities auctioned off some memorable items. The evening raised $2.6 million to fight Alzheimer's.

It is entirely fitting that this year's event at the Mirage will honor Wolfgang Puck for his work to combat this horrible disease. Please join me today in saluting Wolfgang and Barbara for all their contributions to the southern Nevada community, and the entire country.

I appreciate my friend from Minnesota yielding for a unanimous consent request.

Under the time controlled by the Democrats, Senator Stabenow would have the first 10 minutes, Senator Durbin the second 10 minutes, and Senator Lautenberg the third 10 minutes, or if one of them is not here they would each get 10 minutes of our time. I ask unanimous consent that that be the order for the Democrats.

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

Mr. President, under the time controlled by the Democrats, how much time does Senator Lautenberg have?

I checked with the majority. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes on our side for Senator Schumer, and we ask also that there be 5 additional minutes of morning business extended to the majority.

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

Mr. President, Senator Schumer is not here; therefore, I yield back his time.

Does the other side yield back their morning business time?

Mr. President, it is my understanding, after speaking with the

two managers, that Senator Harkin and Senator Judd Gregg will debate the overtime amendment, but they are not here now.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

And that the Republicans have like time on their side whenever they want.

Mr. President, let me say this prior to not objecting. This is the first significant movement we have had on this bill. We are anticipating moving forward to another couple of amendments and maybe having two other sets of votes prior to our adjourning for the night. I think this is good progress.

Mr. President, I will use whatever time I may consume.

Before the Senator from California leaves the floor, I want to commend and applaud the Senator from California. No one can ever question her right and her experience in speaking about the military. I can remember

when we served together in the House of Representatives. This new Congresswoman from the State of California raised issues that became known throughout the country, such as the toilet seat which cost $600, and other things. For the first time in this era of Congress somebody looked at abuses taking place with the spending in the Defense Department. No one is more qualified to do that than the Senator from California, especially in light of the fact that almost 200 men and women from the State of California have been killed in the war. This does not take into consideration the hundreds of people who have been maimed, who have lost eyes and limbs and have been paralyzed.

Certainly no one can question the Senator from California raising this as an issue. I commend and applaud the Senator from California for doing this.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent each side be allowed an extra 3 minutes. So the vote, instead of being at 3:30, would be at 3:36 or thereabouts.

Mr. President, I ask that the time on this side be allotted 8 minutes to Senator Harkin, 7 minutes to Senator Kennedy, 7 minutes to Senator Dodd, and 5 minutes to Senator Specter.

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

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

Mr. President, Senator Cantwell is here. If I can have the attention of the two managers of the bill, all she is going to do is offer her amendment. It is not going to change where she is. She is following Allen, anyway. Can she offer her amendment now? It is only going to be reported by number, and then she can leave.

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

Mr. President, we all understand that books are one of the greatest things ever created by human beings. Books bring the world within our reach, and they open the door of knowledge. Our Nation long ago recognized the importance of books and reading. That is why we developed a system of universal education, where every child would have an opportunity to learn how to read. And that is why we have public libraries. One hundred years ago this month, on May 31, 1904, the city of Reno, NV opened its first public library. The building was constructed on donated land, with a gift of $15,000 from Andrew Carnegie. Mr. Carnegie believed so strongly in public libraries that he built more than 1600 of them around the world. That original library served the city of Reno for 26 years. But as the town grew and the popularity of the library increased, more space was needed. In 1930, the Reno Public library moved into the old State building in Powning Park. It also became affiliated at that time with Washoe County. Two years later, the county also opened a library in the nearby city of Sparks.

After World War II, as Washoe County began to experience more growth, the library system expanded to keep up with the demand. Under the leadership of Portia Hawley Griswold, the first library ``bookmobile'' hit the road in the late 1950s, bringing books to remote areas of the county. A new main branch opened in downtown Reno in 1966, thanks to a gift from the Max C. Fleischmann Foundation.

As the library system added more new locations throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it also employed new innovations. A Senior Center library made books more accessible to retirees, with volunteers delivering books to the homebound. The Gerlach High School branch launched a partnership between the county and the local school system. The Sierra View library was the first to open in a shopping center. Today, the Washoe County library system has branches in 12 locations, plus a mobile library. Citizens can also use the library's Internet branch to look for books and conduct research for school assignments, business projects, or simply to satisfy their curiosity. Last year the people of Washoe County visited the library system 1.4 million times and checked out almost 2 million items. As it has for the last 100 years, the public library is meeting the needs of the people of Reno NV, and Washoe County. It puts books and knowledge within the reach of every citizen.

This centennial of success calls for a celebration. So a gala birthday party for the Washoe County library system will be held on May 21.

Please join me in congratulating Library Director Nancy Cummings and the trustees of the Washoe County library system--Chairman Bud Fujii, Lucille Adin, June Burton, Paul Theiner and Paul Davis. Along with the Washoe County Commission, the Friends of the Washoe County Library, and the Washoe County Library Foundation, they have continued to advance the worthy goal that Andrew Carnegie embraced a century ago.