Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we had a very orderly debate in the Senate. We alternated back and forth, unless there wasn't someone on the other side, Democrat or Republican. Senator Feinstein is one who waited around all day to speak. Because of her being part of the conference, she was not able to speak. I wonder if, following Senator Domenici, who wishes to speak at 9:30, we can have Senator Feinstein recognized. I alert people that she wishes to speak for up to an hour.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be recognized at 9:30 for whatever time he may consume and that Senator Feinstein then be recognized for up to 1 hour.

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

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

I move to lay both motions on the table.

The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.

Mr. President, the managers have worked this down to one amendment being left. There was an agreement this morning, and Senator McCain is willing to take a very short time agreement. I think it is 20 minutes evenly divided. This bill will be finished before the normal recess.

Mr. President, it takes just a few seconds to do this, but this is the culmination of weeks and weeks of work. I want to spread on the Record the affection I have for the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Senator Pete Domenici. This has been a very tough process this year. But for his advocacy in protecting the Senate's position, this bill would not be in the position it is. I, again, want the Record spread with the partnership that he and I have on this legislation. This is legislation that is very good for the country.

By and large, I am pleased with the bill that the conferees have produced.

As conferees we are tasked with reconciling House and Senate bills that were written with very different visions and very different world views.

Reconciling them has not been easy, nor has it been accomplished without a great deal of pain on both sides.

As these things usually are, this final bill is a product of hard fought compromise and, often, splitting the difference between competing views. The result is a bill with much for both sides to like and much for both sides to dislike.

As Senate conferees, Chairman Domenici and I were faced with trying to work out the differences between our bill, a fairly typical Senate Energy and Water bill, and a House bill that was far different than the ones produced in recent years by the other body.

Chairman Hobson placed a far higher priority on Yucca Mountain than his predecessors ever did and he added nearly $175 more than the President asked for to the project. At the same time, he placed a far lower emphasis on activities requested by the President within our Nation's nuclear weapons complex, cutting nearly $300 million from the program, including nearly $200 million from the nuclear weapons laboratories in New Mexico. As most of you know, Chairman Domenici has a passing interest in the health and well-being of those labs.

Obviously, none of this was done with any personal malice, but these honest differences of opinion sure made for a lively conference.

The final bill contains $27.3 billion in funding for the Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and several other important agencies. The final bill exceeds the President's request by $381 million and the FY 03 total by $1.13 billion.

The engine that drives the Energy and Water bill is funding for the Corps of Engineers. Each year Chairman

Domenici and I receive literally thousands of requests for water projects in all fifty States. We work hard to accommodate as many of them as possible each year.

I am pleased to report that total funding for the Corps of Engineers is nearly $4.6 billion--a total that is $375 million above an utterly insufficient request from the Administration. I wish we were able to do more, but, I feel we were able to keep many very important projects moving forward this year and have been able to begin some new ones.

Total funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is set at $986 million, a total that is $64 million above the President's request and $15 million above the current year. As a Western Senator I had hoped this would be the year that we got the Bureau up to $1 billion, but we came up just short. However, I am very pleased that we are pushing the Bureau's budget in the right direction.

The conferees were able to provide total funding of $22 billion for the Department of Energy. The Senate was able to convince the House to restore most of the nearly $300 million in cuts to DOE programs, but we are still nearly $120 million below the President's request. We are, however, $1.2 billion above the current year. The overall increase has allowed the conferees to provide solid funding for the Office of Science, renewable energy projects, and the very important environmental management clean-up projects nationwide.

As most of you know, Senator Domenici is a fierce defender of two nuclear weapons labs in his home State, two institutions that do world class research and have helped to keep our Nation safe and secure for over 50 years. The House cut nearly $200 million from the President's budget request for Los Alamos and Sandia, a move that would have had very negative ramifications for our Nation's science-based stockpile stewardship program. I am pleased to report that we were able to restore most of these ill-advised cuts. The people of New Mexico are very lucky to have a Senator as skilled and determined as Pete Domenici working for them.

Frankly, given the battle we were in with the House this year over our bill, I am glad he was also fighting for me and the other 98 Members of the Senate.

I am very grateful to Chairman Domenici and his new clerk, Tammy Perrin, for being so dogged in their defense of the Senate position on so many issues. I have worked with his previous clerks, Alex Flint and Clay Sell, and have found them both to be outstanding. In Tammy, he has found another terrific clerk.

As always, thanks to Drew Willison, Roger Cockrell, and Nancy Olkewicz of my subcommittee staff. I appreciate everything they do for me and all of the Members of the Senate.

Mr. President, I make the following parliamentary inquiry: This bill, which deals with nanotechnology programs across the Federal Government, was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. It is not true the Senate procedures provide for a case in which a future bill amending a particular public law might be referred to a different committee than the one originally assigned the public law, if that future bill consisted of amendments to parts of the public law that were in the jurisdiction of the different committee; is that true?

I thank the Chair.

If I may say through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, on our side we are ready to finish the session. We understand we will have to work Saturday, Sunday, and hopefully we will finish then; otherwise, we will go Monday and Tuesday. Everyone has been told that is what we are going to do. Even though there is a little grumbling, everyone has accepted the fact that is what we are going to have to do.

I hope everyone understands the decision made by the leadership--we need to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard--but we have to have cooperation to get this very difficult session completed. We have some very important issues--the Energy bill, Medicare--and I hope everyone understands the time is limited.

As I say, we have signed on to the program, and we are willing to work until we finish the business.

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished majority whip, is there some estimate as to when we would get to the conference reports on Energy and Medicare?

Mr. President, I hate to broach the subject because last time it didn't work out as well as I had contemplated, but I hope if something comes up that we can't finish our work on Friday, we will go over into the weekend because everyone believes they would rather work--I don't know about everyone--most people believe they would rather work this weekend knowing we don't have to come back until after the first of the year. I hope the leadership on the other side will keep that in mind and alert Senators that we may have to work Saturday and maybe even Sunday to get out of here for the Thanksgiving holiday and the year generally.

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

Mr. President, I have been working with the distinguished Senator from California for more than a day. I am trying to work out this very sensitive issue dealing with small engines, which has been talked about at some length.

I am very disappointed that the majority is not going to allow the Senator from California to have a vote on this amendment. It is too bad. It happens. It happens too much around here. When there is some decision made that they may not be able to win the vote, they just don't give us a vote. I think that is unfortunate.

I have spoken to the Senator from California and, of course, everybody needs to hear it from her. We are going to take our chances in conference on this matter. The House has said this should not be in the bill. The Senator from California, if she wanted to be like too many people are around here and say if she doesn't get what she wants, nobody will get anything, could hold up action on this important legislation that Senator Mikulski has worked on for many months with the majority.

The only thing I can say is I applaud the Senator from California for what she has indicated she reasonably might do, and that is not go forward on this amendment. I think it is too bad.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. I personally think she is on the right side of this issue. If this matter were brought to a vote, I think she would win it on the Senate floor. Obviously, we have been here now for 3\1/2\ hours, and the majority has indicated they are not going to allow a vote. When this amendment goes down, it will allow us to move forward with other pieces of this legislation.

I say to my friend from California, it is my understanding that she has heard the statements that I have made. And as I have indicated through the Chair to the Senator from California, this happens far too often here. When it appears there is a chance that we can win a vote, they don't give us a vote. As a result of that, we are not going to be able to have a vote. But for the Senator from California, being the team player she is, we would not be able to go forward on the bill. I still think the Senator from California and the Senator from Nevada are members of the conference, and we will do our best in full conference to see that justice prevails. I will do what I can.

I express my appreciation to the Senator from California for her not moving

forward with the amendment at this time.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator is going to withdraw the amendment.

Could the bill be reported?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments in order on this bill be the Dayton amendment on the Wellstone Center; Durbin amendment on senior discount; Jeffords amendment on new source review study; Bingaman sense-of-the-Senate amendment on DOD smallpox vaccine; Schumer, EPA clean air amendment; Feingold, VA health care fairs/outreach; Reid-Graham, Iraq prisoners; Daschle, Agent Orange; and the managers' amendments that are approved by Senators Mikulski and Bond.

Yes, I agree that he should be able to do so.

I ask unanimous consent that the McCain amendment be added to the list.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Graham of Florida, and on behalf of 17 brave Americans who were taken hostage and tortured by Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.

I have already spoken in this Chamber about the horrible treatment these Americans endured. Saddam's evil henchmen violated international law in the treatment of these war prisoners, and they violated every law of human decency.

After the war, these prisoners sought justice against Saddam. They did it not only because he had tortured them in violation of the law, but also to send a message that would protect other Americans in the future. And Congress supported their effort. In 1996, Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so their case would be able to proceed.

They won their case in court on its merits because they had the truth and the law on their side. But now they are in danger of losing the judgment they legally obtained because they do not have the United States Government on their side.

The Justice Department intervened to prevent them from collecting their judgment from seized Iraqi assets. And when this Senate responded by passing this very same amendment a few weeks ago, the State Department intervened by seeking to strike the amendment from the special Iraq-Afghanistan appropriations bill.

In a letter dated October 27, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage wrote these words:

Under the President's May 7, 2003 Determination . . . any

provision of law that applies to countries that have

supported terrorism was made inapplicable to Iraq.

This is the country we invaded as part of our war on terrorism . . . yet the President has said that Iraq will not be treated as a nation that supported terrorists.

I think that is wrong, and my amendment, which is exactly the same as the one the Senate earlier approved, makes perfectly clear the longstanding intent of Congress that terrorists who torture U.S. citizens must be held accountable.

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who committee horrible atrocities against his own people and against Americans. In fact, many believe that he is behind the continuing attacks on our American solders. It is beyond my comprehension why these Federal bureaucrats are now siding with Saddam Hussein and against these former prisoners of war who suffered at his hands.

These brave heroes are merely seeking to hold Iraq accountable for its crimes, and deter the torture of any American citizen by a terrorist state in the future. A civilized world cannot let such crimes go unpunished. The perpetrators must be held to account.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, again this is an amendment that was offered and adopted earlier. It deals with Americans who were held prisoner of war in the first gulf war. This is legislation that is directly in keeping with the sense of the last amendment that was

adopted. Senator Graham feels strongly about this issue, as do I. I ask that the Senate approve the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2198 to Amendment No. 2150

There is no objection on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we delay the FAA bill for 5 minutes and the debate would be from 4:35 to 5:35 and a vote occur at that time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on cloture dealing with FAA be for a full 1 hour, with the time equally divided pursuant to the previous order.

I express my appreciation to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Lott for allowing us to go forward.

Mr. President, the U.S. air traffic control system works miraculously well. It is a public system that is admired around the world. American air traffic controllers safely and efficiently guide 9 million flights a year with more than 600 million passengers.

When it comes to the safety of air travel, the American people demand perfection, and rightfully so. That is why the Federal Aviation Administration has set a goal of reducing air traffic fatalities to near zero. This challenge has become increasingly complex as flights have increased to meet the growing needs of the traveling public. There isn't much room for error.

Unfortunately, the administration and House Republican leaders are backing a plan that compromises passenger safety by privatizing the air traffic control system. This flawed and misguided plan is contained in the conference report on this FAA bill. It is opposed by 71 percent of Americans.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both voted in their respective FAA bills to maintain air traffic control as a public function and prevent it from being privatized. That is the will of Congress.

Instead of affirming that the safety of air travelers is the responsibility of the United States Government, members of the conference committee, at the urging of the administration, passed an initial conference report that allowed for immediate privatization of 69 air traffic control towers.

This brazen attempt at privatization was met with such opposition that the House was forced to recommit the bill to conference. However, once recommitted, the House simply stripped language in the conference report dealing with privatization. No conference committee meetings were held. The bill was passed along party lines. And our Republican friends say this is the status quo.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The House and Senate passed language to prohibit privatization in response to an Executive order by the administration to privatize the air traffic control system.

Put simply, the conference report allows the FAA to privatize any air traffic control functions at its whim. This policy creates a puzzling contradiction. Our Government has declared that your luggage is important enough to be screened by trained Federal workers, but once you are up in the sky, with your life in the balance, the administration apparently feels that your safety isn't as important as your suitcase.

Any meaningful legislation must follow the mandate of the Senate and House bills and refrain from trying to privatize our air traffic control system.

If the House attempts to force privatization of our Nation's air traffic control system, it will only delay funding of essential airport infrastructure and security programs. That would be irresponsible and even reckless.

We urge our colleagues to work with us to craft a revised FAA bill that honors the overwhelming sentiment in Congress against privatization of air traffic control operations and maintenance, that protects the U.S. aviation industry from unfair foreign competition and maintains Federal support of the essential air service, and a bill that ensures that our Nation's flight attendants receive mandatory antiterrorism training.

Let's move forward by passing a straight 6-month extension of all FAA programs that will provide the necessary time to work through these issues. An extension bill, introduced by Senators Rockefeller, Lautenberg, and Daschle, will provide a vehicle for the Congress to get the process and substance of the FAA bill right.

I am confident that both Chambers of Congress will reassert their intent to block privatization, protect the integrity of essential air service, continue the ban on cabotage, and train flight attendants as mandated under existing legislation.

Americans entrust their lives every day to our air traffic controllers. Now they are trusting us to protect their safety.

faa privatization

Our friends of the other side of the aisle suggest that President Bush has no plans to privatize the air traffic control system. They point out that the President hasn't privatized any towers in the past 3 years. Then why is the President threatening to veto this bill if it includes language to prohibit privatization? Why is the President delaying the funding for essential airport construction projects? Does this make any sense to the Senator?

Our colleagues also point out that President Clinton privatized 116 of the current 219 contract towers. Isn't it inconsistent for Democrats to argue privatization when it was a common practice under the Clinton administration?

You mentioned that the Bush administration reversed the Executive order issued by the Clinton administration establishing air traffic control as an inherently governmental function. Did the Bush administration have second thoughts about that after September 11, 2001?

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

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

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Missouri is going to make an opening statement. Senator Mikulski, in an effort to move this bill forward, even though she had a longstanding commitment in Maryland this morning, asked that I represent her this morning, which I am happy to do.

However, her statement will be made at a later time at her convenience. She should be here in a relatively short period of time. As I indicated, she would not want to hold the bill up in any way. There is a lot of business going on today, as everyone knows, not the least of which Senator Bond and I are the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we are trying to move that bill along, too. That meeting started 5 minutes ago. I appreciate everyone's understanding, and I look forward to working as quickly and expeditiously as we can on this legislation.

Madam President, if the manager will yield, it is my understanding the leadership is going to extend the time for the vote another 10 minutes.

Madam President, I ask consent that that be the order. We have a caucus going on now.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, we have the military construction conference report coming up right after the vote, and there is no time set for the two managers to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided for the two managers of the bill to speak prior to that vote.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 two managers of the bill. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, has agreed to allow the Senators from New York and Wyoming to go forward. Senators Clinton and Enzi have an amendment to offer. They have agreed to 20 minutes equally divided, followed by a vote on or in relation to that amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Madam President, I rise to speak against this amendment, and in support of the CARES process.

As many Senators are aware, Nevada has experienced unprecedented growth over the last decade. In Clark County alone, the home of Las Vegas, 14 new schools are constructed each year to keep up with the approximately 8,000 people that move to the county each month.

The growth in our veterans population has been just as rapid. With approximately 245,000 veterans, Nevada has the second highest concentration of veterans in the country. Only Alaska ranks higher.

About 176,000 of Nevada's veterans have served in a war: 18 percent in the Gulf War, 49 percent in Vietnam, 21 percent in Korea, and 21 percent in World War II. Many of our veterans even served in multiple wars.

Therefore, Nevada's veterans have been combat-tested. And regrettably, the average age of our veterans' population is growing older each year. The rising average age, coupled with the many years of often very harsh service to defend our Nation's freedom, has placed a tremendous strain and great demand on the veterans health care system in Nevada.

More than 70,000 veterans are enrolled in the Reno and southern Nevada VA health care facilities, with more coming in each day. We have an excellent VA hospital in Reno, but other parts of northern Nevada are underserved. And the Las Vegas area continues to be one of the most densely populated regions of the country for veterans seeking quality health care and one of the most severely underserved.

In the past several years, the VA has not kept pace with the demand and growth in our State. Long lines, prolonged waiting times, old and crowded facilities: this is no way to provide health care to our courageous veterans, and it is no way to deal with the population explosion in Nevada.

So when this subcommittee called for a new plan and independent commission to examine the VA's resources and reallocate resources based on the greatest demand, I applauded that action. I also welcomed VA Secretary Tony Principi's active role and interest in supporting Nevada. He has been an honest advocate for our Nation's veterans, and a bright spot in the President's cabinet.

It came as no surprise to me that the CARES plan, which is the subject of this debate, found Nevada to be dramatically underserved by the VA.

The draft CARES plan contains $130 million in upgrades to improve health care facilities for the veterans who live in Nevada.

The plan also calls for the construction of a major medical center, clinic and nursing home in the Las Vegas area. This new hospital is only one of two hospitals recommended in the entire VA plan. I credit our hardworking VA staff in Nevada and the thousands of veterans themselves for making sure that the CARES Commission got the message about Nevada's desperate needs.

Therefore, I must oppose any effort to delay, derail or diminish the CARES process and the money and resources that would flow to the veterans in my State under the draft plan.

I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Senator from New York. I understand her concerns, and the concerns of other senators, about certain CARES recommendations that will impact other States. But these concerns should be addressed directly with the VA, and not by cutting off appropriations to the VA for the CARES process to continue.

The veterans of Nevada can't wait much longer for the upgrades and new facilities that they desperately need and deserve.

I therefore will vote against this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Without the Senator losing his right to the floor, I direct a question through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Missouri. We are wondering, how much longer do the managers believe it would take to finish this bill?

If the Senator will continue yielding, I believe with five Democratic amendments the Senator has spoken about and the persuasive nature of the Democratic manager of this bill, some of them would not require votes, and I believe we could finish this in 2 hours.

I suggest to the leadership on the other side--I know everyone is chomping at the bit to go to 6 o'clock, but if we could have another couple hours, we could finish this bill. On this side, that would cut the marathon down to 28 hours. Although I have no authority to do this and this is not in the form of a unanimous consent request, I think we would be willing to give up part of our time in those 2 hours to finish this bill.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I say to the Senator, who is the most experienced person in the Senate as far as moving matters on the floor, I mentioned to the two managers that we have momentum on this bill now. If we come back some other time with 2 hours, it just is not the same. All of us who are in the Senate, we know these measures develop momentum and that is what we have now.

As I indicated to the two managers earlier and through the Chair to my distinguished friend, the Senator from West Virginia, we could finish this bill in 2 hours. It would not be easy, but if we made a commitment to do that, we would, and I think we should. It will not take anything away from the 6 show. It would just put it over for a couple of hours. Would the Senator agree with that?