Floor Statements

Mr. President, is amendment No. 1818 the Byrd amendment?

If I could, I want to say on the record here I badly wanted to go to a reception held tonight right across the hall, sponsored by the acting minority leader, Senator Baucus, and Congressman Rehberg, because they were going to, at that time, release the biography of one of my favorite Senators of all time, Senator Mansfield.

I apologize to the delegation from Montana for being unable to be there, but we were here on the floor. I do hope the book is a success. If the author of that biography is able to capture even a little bit of the history of this great man, it will be a wonderful book to read, and I am sorry I missed it.

If I could direct a question to the majority leader, it is my understanding we will have a break not only today, as has already been announced by the majority leader, but you are having your weekly caucus tomorrow, so tomorrow Members should be advised that from 12:30 to 2:30 the Republicans will be involved in their weekly party conferences; is that right?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

From the statement the Senator has made, it is my understanding that out of the $87 billion the President has requested, the Senator from South Dakota has said that some $21 billion will be for the reconstruction of Iraq, not dealing with the military but for the reconstruction of Iraq, and that someone is going to have to borrow that money. It is a question, as I understood the Senator from South Dakota, whether the taxpayers of America will borrow that money or whether the people of Iraq, with their large oil reserves, will in effect borrow the money. Is that in fact what the Senator said?

Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

There are a number of strikes going on as we speak. The latest started in Los Angeles with all the transit drivers. That is a result of problems with health care. The problem with automobile manufacturers, the other strikes going on in America involve one issue: health care. So the Senator's statement regarding health care and this administration's total neglect is one of the most important domestic issues facing America today.

I appreciate very much the Senator's statement.

Madam President, Senator Stevens is not here. I am covering the floor for Senator Byrd this morning. I am sure Senator Stevens would have no objection to the Senator from New Mexico offering an amendment. I yield the floor for the Senator from New Mexico.

That is true.

Mr. President, the hour of 12:30 is fast approaching. I am wondering if we could enter into an agreement now that that vote occur immediately following the vote on genetic nondiscrimination?

And that Senator Bingaman have 2 minutes prior to the vote to speak on his amendment.

Of course. With no amendments in order prior to the vote.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

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

Reserving the right to object, we are working very hard before the White House meeting to get in another vote. Could we limit this? I know everyone wants to hear these speeches, but could we try a minute or so on each side. Otherwise, we will waste the entire afternoon with White House meetings.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) 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 the yeas and nays be vitiated on this vote.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) 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.

What is the matter now before the Senate?

Amendment No. 1826

Madam President, we understand that is the order that has been entered. Senator Dorgan squeezed his time previously from 3 hours to 2 hours, and now it is 45 minutes. That is because this vote took so long. I hope the majority will push the votes more quickly. That vote took 30 minutes.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), 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.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent.) Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. President, if I could respond to my friend, the manager of the bill, I am going to send a couple amendments to the desk. Thereafter, Senator Corzine is going to offer an amendment, and he wishes 12 minutes tonight. The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, is going to offer an amendment. He is going to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I am advised Senator Durbin wants to lay down an amendment following Senator Reed and wants to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Reid and Senator Lincoln.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send another amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request being typed now, but for the information of Senators, what we would like to do tonight on the first two amendments we have spoken about, the Corzine and Reed amendments--the majority has had an opportunity to review those amendments. They know what is in those. I do not think we are in a position at this time to make an agreement on the amendment by the Senator from Illinois because they have not seen his amendment.

I think that is appropriate.

Objection.

I am sorry. I will let him finish.

On behalf of Senator Harkin, I object.

Mr. President, while the majority leader is on the floor, I was thinking of the words spoken by the Chaplain this morning. It came to my mind that there haven't been enough accolades extended. There were others involved, but the two I know involved were you and Senator Mikulski, working to have this fine man brought here as the Senate Chaplain.

I have been able to visit with him on a couple of occasions and of course every morning to hear the wonderful prayers he utters on behalf of the Senate and the country. I simply want to extend thanks to Senator Mikulski and you and any others involved in this selection. Here is a man who is qualified to do so many different things. There aren't many people who can be referred to as ``doctor,'' ``chaplain,'' ``admiral,'' but Dr. Black can be, because he is all three and probably a lot more.

So I think, even though so much goes unsaid around here, this is something that should be said. This is a great addition to the Senate family. I, on behalf of the entire Senate, extend my

appreciation to you and Senator Mikulski, who was so enthused about this man when she told us who the chaplain was going to be.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time of the majority has expired; is that right?

Mr. President, I was not planning on speaking this morning. However, my friend from Texas, the junior Senator from Texas, talked about something that I think deserves a response.

The Senator from Texas said--and I quote--there has been ``an unprecedented act of obstruction.'' He is referring to President Bush's nominees being withheld, not allowing votes on judges.

Mr. President, I do not know--and I do not mean this to be cute or smart or mean spirited, but I do not know what kind of math my friend from Texas is using if he is talking about unprecedented acts of obstruction.

Right now in the Federal judiciary there is a 5-percent vacancy rate. We have four judges on the calendar now, and they will be approved within the next, probably, 24 hours. So that will bring the number of judges approved during the Bush administration to nearly 170. I do not have the exact number. I have lost track of it but nearly 170.

Three judges have been turned down: Bill Pryor from Alabama, Miguel Estrada from the District of Columbia, and Priscilla Owen from Texas.

Unprecedented obstructionism? We are talking about 170 to 3. So my math indicates that is pretty good.

When Senator Daschle took control of the Senate as majority leader, a decision was made that there would be no payback. It would not be payback time. In fact, a decision was made that we would do everything we could to get the nominations approved that were sent to us by President Bush. We have done that. The record is clear.

However, my friend from Texas should go back and look at how President Clinton was treated. People waited for years and years and were not even allowed a hearing. As we know, it was necessary on a number of occasions to file cloture. Cloture was invoked, and the judges were approved.

It is easy to come on the Senate floor and throw out terms such as ``unprecedented acts of obstructionism,'' but it is not true. No matter how many times you say it, it still is not true.

Pat Leahy, who has been the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee during the approximately 3 years of the Bush Presidency, has done an outstanding job of moving these judges. I don't know how we could do better. I guess we could be a rubber stamp for the President's nominees. That is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They believed these names should be submitted to the Senate. The Senate should evaluate them and make a decision at that time whether or not the nominees are what the country should have in the way of judges.

A decision was made in the case of Miguel Estrada. He didn't answer questions. He would not supply his memoranda from his time as Solicitor General. For those and other reasons, he was not approved. Priscilla Owen was criticized by the President's own lawyer, Mr. Gonzales, who is now the White House chief lawyer. He and Priscilla Owen served together on the Texas Supreme Court. She was criticized very heavily by Mr. Gonzales at that time. That is just a little bit of her problem. We know that she, by almost any standard, was quite radical--an activist, for lack of a better word. And we know Attorney General Pryor from Alabama was someone whose record was not such that he should become a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench.

That is 3, 3 to approximately 170. I do not know the exact number, but that is fairly close. By any math course you ever took, 170 to 3 is pretty good. In fact, it is real good. I wish we had had that kind of treatment when Bill Clinton was President.

I again remind everyone the vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary is now 5 percent. It is the best it has been in decades. Rather than having people come and push these little barbs at the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, they should be giving them accolades for the cooperation they have maintained during President Bush's tenure.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished Senator from North Carolina wishes to speak as in morning business. Her time is gone.

And let us have a minute on our side.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask my friend this question: If someone within the CIA had divulged the name of this operative, that person, it seems to me, would be subject to criminal penalties and would be considered a traitor; is that true?

If I can answer and ask a question. First of all, Webster's compact dictionary I have in my desk says a traitor is one who betrays trust. So certainly if a CIA agent leaked to the press the name of one of his colleagues who is an undercover agent, he would be a traitor.

The next question I ask my friend: So if a CIA operative would be subject to criminal penalties and would be considered a traitor for doing this activity, certainly someone working within the administration, within the White House, would be considered the same; is that not true?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, has the distinguished majority whip yielded his time?

I say to my friend from Kentucky, if the Senator yields back his time, we will yield back our time and go to a vote on this matter.

We yield the time on our side.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) is necessarily absent.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

We have spoken to the chief sponsors of this amendment, Senators Biden and Kerry. There is a tentative agreement on our side as to how much time will be used. The floor staffs are working now to see if we can enter into an agreement in the next little bit. In the meantime, rather than waste valuable floor time, Senator Biden is going to begin his debate.

Madam President, we are moments away from offering a unanimous consent request. I don't know who is going to get the floor next, but whoever gets the floor, I ask if Senators will allow an interruption for the unanimous consent request. It should be coming in a matter of a couple of minutes.

I ask that the Senator allow the consent to be modified, as follows: Senator Biden be recognized for 30 minutes, within the time allocated to us; Senator Kennedy for 15 minutes; Senator Kerry for 20 minutes; Senator Kohl for 5 minutes; Senator Clinton for 10 minutes; Senator Conrad for 15 minutes; Senator Jack Reed for 5 minutes; Senator Durbin for 5 minutes; Senator Feinstein for 10 minutes; Senator Johnson for 5 minutes, Senator Carper for 5 minutes; and if there is any time remaining, it would be under the control of the Senator from Delaware.

I think that is appropriate. And Senator Bunning will follow Senator Feinstein.

Madam President, under the time allocated, we have some extra time. So on behalf of Senator Biden, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. President, the author of this amendment has approximately 25 minutes remaining. We have been informed that there is going to be an effort by the majority to have a vote at 3:45 rather than 3:15, which is fine with us. I have also been told that the chairman of the Budget Committee wants to speak for up to 5 minutes. So if there is no objection to that, could we have 5 minutes additional on each side?

I ask if we could further modify the request of the Senator from Oklahoma by having Senator Biden have the last 10 minutes prior to the vote.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for a minute?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be recognized following the disposition of the Coleman amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor to Senator Coleman's amendment.

If the Senator from Virginia will yield.

If the Senator from Vermont will yield, I don't know how much more time the Senator from Vermont has. We have a couple other Senators who wish to speak. Certainly Senator Leahy has no desire to ride this out. We have a number of amendments lined up and ready to go as soon as this is finished. The Senator from Vermont is the best person to answer that question.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.