Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would ask that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi modify his request and just simply allow the bill to come to the floor at a time to be agreed upon by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader, that the bill just come to the floor, period, with no restrictions on it.

I object.

Madam President, my understanding is that on the Democratic side we have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining; is that right?

Madam President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I don't understand what he is talking about, ``the degradation.'' That may be something I am not aware of relative to judicial nominees.

I don't know the exact count, but I do know that during this President's tenure of office we have approved 174 judges or thereabout. We have only had problems with three of them. It seems to me that is a pretty good record.

We have worked hard to approve the President's judges. They have not all been people we would have selected if we had a Democratic President. But we have a Republican President; we have recognized that he has the ability to choose those nominees he believes are appropriate. As a result of that, we have given him nearly carte blanche to send us judges. Three have not been approved.

So the record of 173 sounds like a pretty good record. I hope we will let the certainty of the process go forward. It seems to me it is a pretty good process that has worked for more than 200 years. President Bush is getting virtually every one of his nominees. I don't think it would be a good system if we simply said you can have whoever you want. We have a duty to advise and consent the President on his nominations.

I yield the time left under the Democrat control to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

Madam President, we yield back any time left on the minority side.

Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, I advise all Members it is very likely that following this vote--10 or 15 minutes after the finalization of this vote--there will be another vote. Everyone should be advised of that.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 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 California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``nay.''

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 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 California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, Senator Boxer was unavoidably absent today. She has asked me to announce she would have voted to table.

Amendment No. 1905

Mr. President, the Democratic leader has conferred with the majority leader. They believe this legislation should be finished today, whether it is at 5 o'clock or 8 or 12. That is the goal we have, finishing this bill today.

I say to all Members who have amendments to offer, they should notify the two managers of amendments they wish to offer.

On this amendment, I have been advised that there is going to be a second-degree amendment or we will work out some way to have two side- by-side votes at the appropriate time. If we could arrive at a point where we might be able to have a time agreement on the matter now before us, could the Chair advise how much time the two Senators from Maryland have taken on their speeches?

Well, we wouldn't want to go to all that trouble. We have a general idea how much time was taken. We want to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to speak on this amendment. If we can solicit from both sides who is interested in this amendment, maybe we can arrive at a time agreement so, if for no other reason, Members could have some idea when the next vote will occur. I can ask the two managers to see if they can work something out on a time agreement.

We are waiting to receive a copy of the amendment that would allow us to have the two votes in relation to the Mikulski amendment. That is forthcoming, I understand, from legislative counsel. The two managers have been visited, along with the proponent of this legislation. Senator Kennedy wishes to speak on the amendment that is pending. I see the Senator from Wyoming. If he wishes to speak also on this amendment, my proposal would be that the managers--everyone thinks we should move forward on the Dodd-McConnell amendment, which would take just a short period of time while we are waiting to get legislation from the legislative counsel approved.

What I would propose in the form of a unanimous consent request is that the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized to speak on the pending amendment; following that, the pending amendment be set aside and Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell be allowed to offer their amendment.

I understand.

I will renew that request later.

Absolutely right.

Yes, and the Senator is also protected.

I will withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I will take a moment to speak in support of the Mikulski-Landrieu outsourcing amendment. This amendment would require the administration to revise the guidelines for conducting outsourcing studies, which it changed this spring. We have been hearing a lot about competition and I am all for competition. It makes our economy strong. But I have to wonder if competition is good in some cases, why isn't it good for companies like Halliburton, which receive huge contracts without submitting bids?

The administration seems to think that competition is good for the little guy, but not for big corporations that have connections to the White House. Competition should be fair. There should be an equal playing field. That means, when we are talking about the jobs of people who have given years of service to a public agency, we have to consider the value of their experience.

Experience matters. Experience is valuable. And having experienced workers in critical positions is in the public interest. The administration's changes to the rules for outsourcing studies put workers at a disadvantage, and favor contractors. For example, under the former rules, contractors were required to demonstrate a 10 percent cost savings before they could win a job competition. This ensured that we wouldn't sacrifice experience for a negligible savings. Under the administration's new rules, contractors are not even required to demonstrate a cost savings in order to receive a contract.

The administration claims that privatization is about saving money, but where is the supposed savings in that rule? In fact, it costs a lot of money just to conduct these studies--money that could be better spent on pressing needs. Recent estimates show that privatization studies at the Department of Interior cost over $5,000 for every position studied. At the National Institutes of Health, privatization studies this year cost $3,500 per position and next year NIH predicts they will cost $6,000 per position. This money is wasted because we are finding that public workers provide better service than private contractors.

In case after case, public workers have won competitions for their jobs. In Nevada, the Bureau of Land Management conducted six studies of 13 positions--at a cost of over $92,000--only to find that BLM workers are the most capable and efficient to do their jobs. That $92,000 could have been better spent on so many things. And that is the heart of the problem with these outsourcing studies.

I have heard estimates that the Interior Department could divert as much as $110 million in unauthorized funds to pay for outsourcing studies. We are finding that the supposed cost savings in privatization just aren't there and we are also finding that the experience and dedication of public workers has great value, which we simply can't afford to throw away.

The Mikulski-Landrieu amendment would require the administration to at least set fair rules for these competitions. The House of Representatives agrees with this amendment. It passed

this language by a vote of 220 to 198. I hope my colleagues in the Senate also recognize the need to correct these unfair changes the administration has made to its rules for privatization studies.

Mr. President, the majority leader spoke to the Democratic leader on more than one occasion following a conference between Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, seeing if we could move some of these appropriations bills. The sprint is now on. We on this side believe we can move them quickly. It sounds a little unusual that the minority is pushing appropriations bills, but we are doing that because we want to do everything we can to avoid this omnibus bill. Anything we can accomplish that avoids the omnibus, we are better off.

There are just a very few issues that remain. One of them is the Dodd-McConnell or McConnell-Dodd amendment. That is an important amendment. It will take a little bit of time--not a lot. We also need to finish this matter here now before the Senate. I want the record to be spread with the fact that we are doing everything on this side to move the legislation. We have agreed to set amendments aside. We have done everything within our power to move it along.

We have sent a hotline to Senators on our side to find out what amendments they have to offer. We have gotten a response back. It is not complete, but certainly it is reasonable at this stage.

Again, what I want to say is we don't want someone coming later saying we are not moving the appropriations bills because of the minority. We are willing to move these bills as quickly as possible. We have two managers here who are experienced on the bills before us. I believe they are doing everything they can.

I hope the majority leader can find out what is slowing this bill up. It is taking far too much time, in my opinion.

I have also have been told--not by the majority leader but by his floor staff--that if we finish the bill tonight there will be no votes tomorrow. I hope, with all the things we have to do, that will be some incentive.

I ask the Senator's request be modified to have 10 minutes on the second vote rather than the usual 15 minutes.

We are going to have a vote at approximately 4:25. Senator Dodd has been here since 11 o'clock this morning to offer an amendment. He and Senator McConnell are working on this now. I ask consent they come up next, but Senator Shelby is not in a position to approve that. We are going to do everything we can so they come up after the next vote. It is probably the most important amendment to the whole bill. We hope we can dispose of that as soon as possible.

Amendment No. 1923

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 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 California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, I ask that my pair be reinstated.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 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 California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``aye.''

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, two Members who are on the Armed Services Committee have been waiting all day to give statements.

I ask unanimous consent that the chairman and ranking member of the committee be recognized for 6 minutes each to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I modify my request: 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington, and 2 minutes to Senator Cantwell, if she wishes to speak.

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Boxer), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Peter Winokur, a fellow on my staff, during consideration of this Transportation appropriations bill.

Mr. President, if I could briefly respond to my dear friend from Kentucky, I think today is an example of a very productive day in the Senate. Not only were we able to complete an important appropriations bill but we were also able to get to some other matters that have been in the works for some time, such as fair credit reporting. It was very difficult to get it

in its present position. I think we are in a position now where that bill can be completed. It will not be easy, but I think with a lot of very heavy lifting, we can complete that most important legislation. The vast majority of Senators on this side certainly want to move forward.

On behalf of the Democratic leader, I say we should use this as a guide to having a smaller omnibus bill. There are appropriations bills that we can complete. We have done some very good work. There are five remaining appropriations bills. The leader is moving to one of them tomorrow. I think we can complete that in a relatively short period of time.

Usually we are moaning about how little we have gotten done, how slow things have gone, but when one comes to the Senate, they do not enter a drag race. It is more of a long race every day. I think we were able to accomplish a great deal in the race we had today.

As I said before, it is an example of how we can have a smaller omnibus bill and complete some other important issues in the few remaining days of this year.

Mr. President, as we discussed yesterday on the floor, there is a need to do appropriations bills. As the leader knows, he has spoken to the Democratic leader and there is an opportunity I believe in the next week or so to move a couple of appropriations bills. If there is anything we can do to narrow the size of the omnibus package, the country will be well served. I hope the distinguished Senator from Tennessee will continue to work to see if we can move some of these appropriations bills.

As has been indicated, I think we can do that with a reasonable number of amendments and in a reasonable period of time. It would surely be helpful to the country.

Mr. President, I have spoken to the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senator from Alaska. They have been gracious enough to allow Senator Kennedy to follow Senator Santorum out of order for 5 minutes. We understand that. Senator Kennedy has no other time. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator from Massachusetts for 5 minutes. I express my appreciation especially to the Senator from Alaska for allowing this to take place.

Would the Chair announce, under the additional time we have until 11:30, how much time the minority has remaining?

How about if we add in the time for the second hour? Is it 32 minutes or something like that?

So it would be about 32 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that during our time the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, be recognized for 9 minutes; Senator Harkin for 9 minutes; Senator Corzine for 9 minutes; and Senator Bingaman for 4 minutes. That will basically use up all of our time.

I ask unanimous consent that we alternate back and forth if, in fact, there are people from the majority; otherwise, it would be in the order that I have mentioned.

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 ``nay.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the only amendment in order that has not been resolved is the Corzine amendment. Is that correct?

So it is my understanding the vote on this matter would occur at 6:30, is that what is being requested?

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), 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.''

Mr. President, for the reasons previously stated in regard to this legislation at least on two or three separate occasions, I would reiterate those and object.

While the majority leader is in the Chamber, I say on behalf of the minority, we acknowledge the importance of class action, Healthy Forests, charitable choice. Those are the ones I remember the leader speaking of. For example, charitable choice could be done within a matter of minutes and sent directly to the House. There has been a decision made by the majority--and I think not a proper one--to take it to conference. We could send it immediately to the House.

We are working very hard to try to cooperate with the majority on the most important piece of legislation, class action. A vast majority of Members on this side of the aisle want to do something on class action. We have had

as our point person on this John Breaux, and he has had contact with the majority to try to come up with something on this issue. I think we are very close to working something out.

Healthy Forests, as the leader knows, is a difficult issue. For Western States it is extremely important. We hope that can be resolved quickly.

I bring to the leader's attention, however, we also have those appropriations bills we need to do. I spoke very briefly this morning with the distinguished Presiding Officer. He has been in contact, as I am sure the leader knows, with Senator Byrd. Maybe there is still something we can do on those appropriations bills to get, if not all of the six we have not passed here done, at least some of them completed. We have those most important conferences. We have had, as far as I am concerned, a difficult time getting a conference completed on the energy and water appropriations bill. That has been a bill we usually bring up first because it is so important to Members in the House and Senate. I spoke this morning to Majority Leader DeLay, saying we need a little help from the leadership in trying to move that.

I hope, in addition to these other important items the leader has mentioned, we can work together to come up with some program to get some of the appropriations bills passed. I think it is important for the country.

One bill I did not mention that I feel strongly about is fair credit reporting. That is also very important. I bet my office has received 100 phone calls in the last couple of legislative days dealing with that legislation. We hope something can be worked out on that also.

Will the Senator yield for a request?