Floor Statements

I yield our time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr.

Graham), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), 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 following the offering of the amendment by the two distinguished Senators from Maine and Oregon, Senator Daschle and Senator Graham be recognized to offer their amendment.

Mr. President, if my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, will be patient, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Murray.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Stabenow, Durbin, Boxer, Johnson, and Schumer.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside for the offering of an amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I take a moment to pay tribute to a long- time friend and Nevadan, Justice Robert E. ``Bob'' Rose, who is being honored by the Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Justice Rose was elected to the Nevada Supreme Court in 1988. He was re-elected in 1994 and again in 2000.

However, before Justice Rose was a member of the Nevada Supreme Court, he was elected Washoe County District Attorney and thereafter Lieutenant Governor of Nevada. In fact, he was my successor in that office.

After serving as Lieutenant Governor, he returned to the private practice of law for several years in Reno, NV.

In 1986, he was appointed District Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial District in Las Vegas by former Governor, who is also a former U.S. Senator, Richard Bryan.

The road to the Nevada Supreme Court started at a young age for Bob Rose. The dream began in 1964 when he clerked there for one year following his graduation from New York University Law School.

While he set his sights high, his path wasn't always an easy one. I remember during his tenure as Lieutenant Governor, he cast a vote in the Nevada State Legislature on a very controversial Equal Rights Amendment. It was 1977, and he cast the tie-breaking vote against it.

It is not always easy to live and work in the public spotlight, but he did what he felt was right. He has always been a man of courage and integrity.

In his time to date on the Nevada Supreme Court, he has served as Chief Justice, and he has earned a reputation as a ``reformer'' by creating the Nevada Judicial Assessment Commission for the study and improvement of the courts. He has also chaired and cochaired the Committee to Establish Nevada Business Court and the Nevada Jury Improvement Commission, respectively.

Additionally, Justice Rose has been active with the Nevada Democratic Party, the American Cancer Society, and Nevada Easter Seal.

Today I would like to say to my friend, Bob, Justice Rose, congratulations on the honor you are receiving and good luck to you in all your future endeavors. As a lawyer and a Nevadan, I am proud to have you on our State Supreme Court.

No objection.

Everyone within the sound of our voice, staff, Members, should understand that tomorrow is a free day. They can come and offer amendments. They might have to wait for a minute until someone else offers an amendment. They can speak as long as they want. Tomorrow is the day that people have the opportunity to offer amendments.

We are going to come back Tuesday after the recess. We have a lot of work to do. If we get amendments laid down, the two leaders can set up a time we can vote on them and finish debating them. So I hope people understand tomorrow is an excellent day for the offering of amendments.

No objection.

Mr. President, this is a land of opportunity. Americans know if they are willing to work hard, they can realize their dreams. Hard work built this country and hard work is what has enabled generations of Americans to own a home, make a stronger community, and give their children a good education.

Americans have always been willing to work hard to reach their goals, and we are working longer hours today than ever before. Almost one- third of the labor force regularly works longer than a 40-hour week and 20 percent work longer than 50 hours. Fifty years

ago, as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, we established the principle of overtime pay for those who work more than 40 hours a week. This recognized the value of hard work and rewarded those who worked the hardest. Families who work hard depend upon overtime pay. For the families who do earn overtime, it makes up one-fourth of their total salary.

Having said all this, I cannot understand why the President is proposing to change the rules on overtime pay. His proposal would eliminate overtime wages for 8 million workers--nurses, firefighters, police officers, flight attendants, preschool teachers, cooks, secretaries, and fast-food shift managers. This proposal would amount to a pay cut for these hard-working families. It would also mean fewer jobs because companies would simply force their employees to work longer hours without paying overtime instead of hiring new workers.

In the current economic situation, when millions of Americans are out of work, it does not make sense to do something that will stifle the creation of new jobs. Even for the workers who would still qualify for overtime, this is a bad rule. Why? Because big companies will force the overtime-exempt workers to put in longer hours and cut the hours of those who qualify for overtime.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

With the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor, I will respond this way. The Senator from Massachusetts has led the fight for decades on raising the minimum wage. I say to my friend, it seems so unusual, so absurd to me that this administration on the one hand will not let us even have a vote on raising the minimum wage, yet at the same time they are trying to cut overtime from people.

I received a call from a 58-year-old man in Las Vegas, my friend, Sunday night. He said, You know, my diabetes is getting worse. I think I am going to have to go on injections. I have been taking a pill, but I am 58 years old and it is getting worse. He said, The reason I am concerned is I have no health insurance. My wife has health insurance but I have no health insurance.

This man works 60, 70 hours a week. He has two jobs. But both jobs are such that he doesn't qualify for the fringe benefits. The fringe benefits, among other things, are health insurance. So he works two jobs, hard work, he is 58 years old, and he has no health insurance.

I say to my friend, I cannot imagine the mental gyrations this administration has to go through to, on the one hand, prevent people from getting a basic fair minimum wage and, on the other hand, wanting people to work more than 40 hours a week, reversing what has been in effect since the mid-1930s.

I repeat, on the one hand, no raising of the minimum wage, and on the other hand let's have you work longer hours.

I ask my friend from Massachusetts, Can you in any way correlate in your mind how an administration could go forward on this plan? I guess it is a plan.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I simply ask that when the Chair announces morning business, the full hour be allocated to both sides evenly divided.

How about if we made it 4 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Missouri amend his request to allow that.

I know Senator Smith is here to speak. How long do you wish to speak?

Mr. President, that will be 10 minutes before 4 o'clock, so I ask if my friend would be further kind enough to allow Senator Biden another 30 minutes, Senator Smith 10 minutes, Senator Boxer 8 minutes, and then we would vote.

Madam President, I failed, and it is certainly my oversight--prior to a vote on the Byrd amendment, the managers should be recognized. They have both agreed to 8 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that the managers have 8 minutes each prior to the vote on the Byrd amendment.

Yes.

Yes, but first Senator Smith will speak, and then Senator Boxer will speak for 8 minutes, and you and Senator Byrd will have 8 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement now in effect be amended to allow the Senator from California to speak for 10 minutes rather than 8 minutes.

I announce that 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 ``yea.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we know there is concern on the other side of the aisle, and certainly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, regarding problems with leaking information from the White House or someplace in the administration to Robert Novak. We know that causes concern, as it should. To try to cloud this with a lot of legal jargon that there are other lawyers looking at it, that Democrats didn't support this independent counsel statute is evading the question.

We don't have to support an independent counsel statute to have the law as it now applies which allows the appointment of a special counsel.

It seems to me common sense that if an independent counsel was selected to look at Secretary Espy, the Secretary of Agriculture, because he accepted tickets to a football game, which he was not supposed to do, and President Clinton--by the way, an independent counsel was not ordered; he agreed to an independent counsel to investigate his real estate transaction in Arkansas--it seems to me certainly we should have a special counsel look at what has taken place.

We know a crime has been committed by a person or persons. We know that Robert Novak, who I think is an honorable person, identified from where that information came. So we know there are criminals there. We know there are people there who have committed crimes. So it seems to me this is a much more direct case than some of the other issues that have taken place in the past; namely, the issue with President Clinton and the situation with Secretary Espy.

The situation here is very clear: Someone leaked the name of a CIA operative, a Central Intelligence Agency operative, a spy, an American spy. They leaked the name of that person to the press by name.

Everyone--I agree--should take a deep breath and let this process go forward. The White House should want a special counsel. In Government, we not only have to do away with what is bad but what looks bad. The American people clearly know this.

ABC and the Washington Post are going to report a poll tomorrow. I will not go into a lot of the details, but one question they asked is: Do you think this investigation should be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, part of the Bush administration, or should it be handled by an outside investigator or special counsel who is not part of the Bush administration?

About 70 percent of the people believe it should be handled outside the White House, outside the Justice Department.

Another question: If the investigation finds that someone in the White House leaked classified information, do you think that person should or should not lose his job?

Ninety-one percent of the people believe that person or those people should lose their jobs--91 percent of the people.

Another question that will be reported by the American Broadcasting Company in the morning: If the investigation finds that someone in the White House leaked classified information, do you think that person should or should not face criminal charges?

About 85 percent of the people believe that person should face criminal charges.

It is very clear to me this is an effort to cover up a problem. This is not something that I brought up just to be talking. If people are going to come here and try to cover this up, anytime anyone does that, and I am on the Senate floor, I am going to talk about it.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would appreciate it if the Senator would allow a modification: That of the 20 minutes we have on this side, 10 minutes be set aside for Senator Byrd.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), 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 ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), 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 ``yea.''

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I have a question. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I say to my friend from New York, I have been at a meeting with the Iraqi Governing Council, and I was stunned when I came back to the Senate Chamber and was advised by my staff that we are no longer on the DC appropriations bill. We are suddenly in morning business until our weekly caucuses.

I say to my friend from New York, why in the world would someone be afraid to vote on an amendment the Senator from New York and others are going to offer that says: Let's take a look at this; let's find out what happened? We know there was a crime committed. I don't use those words often. I know there was a crime committed. It is only a question of who did it. Why wouldn't our friends on the other side of the aisle allow a debate on this issue? It is not as if we are taking away heavy business. We have been vouchered out from doing the DC appropriations bill.

I say to my friend from New York, what fear does the majority in the Senate have in allowing an amendment the Senator from New York wishes to offer? Why can't we debate this amendment?

I say to my friend--pardon the interruption, through the Chair--afraid of what? Of the truth?

Will the Senator yield for one more question?

I came in past the 11:30 hour. Is it true then that we find ourselves in a situation, from a parliamentary standpoint, that the Senator cannot offer his amendment? Is that what the Senator is telling me?

The Senator has worked on this all morning, I know, as well as yesterday. I had a conversation with him yesterday. We were to go back into legislative business at 11:30. That right has been taken away from us by the majority. They will not even let the Senator offer an amendment in legislative session. Is that true?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I appreciate the majority allowing this to go forward in this manner. Otherwise, we would have been here all day in a rugby scrum until we arrived at this point. Anyway, I appreciate the cooperation of the majority.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by Senator Schumer have added to it as cosponsors Senators Lieberman and Feinstein.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I ask the Chair to advise me when 3 minutes remain.

Mr. President, after I went home last evening, I couldn't stop thinking about a statement Senator Harkin had made regarding the leak of classified information about the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Like Senator Harkin, I also remember as a boy seeing those signs that warned: Loose lips sink ships. Our Nation was at war then. Even though the war was far away, every citizen was constantly reminded that there might be spies among us and that the wrong information in the wrong hands could cost American lives. So here it is, 67 years later. Once again we are at war and, sadly, it seems that the wrong information has been passed into the wrong hands--not by our enemies but by someone who works at the White House.

By now I think we are all familiar with what happened. On July 14, the political columnist Robert Novak, who I consider a friend and like very much, disclosed the identity of a covert CIA operative. He wrote that the information was given to him by ``two senior administration officials.'' Yesterday the Washington Post reported that before Mr. Novak's column appeared, two top White House officials had called at least six journalists, revealing the name of this undercover CIA agent.

The reason, of course, for the leak has been well established. It was to get back at the husband of the agent. He is Joseph C. Wilson, former U.S. Ambassador, who had publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. In retaliation for Mr. Wilson's telling the truth as he saw it, two White House officials apparently blew his wife's cover and, in the process, they threatened our national security. If you think that is overreacting, remember the old warning: Loose lips sink ships. Because that information was leaked, this agent's ability to gather intelligence has been destroyed and her safety has been put at risk.

Even more important, the leak of that sensitive information has jeopardized the safety of every person in the

world who had cooperated with her. Any person who was a known associate of this agent will now be suspected of cooperating with the CIA. Maybe even some innocent friend would be so thought. We might never know how many people have been tortured or maybe killed as a result of this leak.

As terrible as that scenario is, it is not the worst consequence of this leak. This leak of classified information will undermine our efforts to recruit people who can help us in the war on terrorism, people who might be able to infiltrate terrorist cells and gain prior knowledge of deadly plots against our Nation. Because of this leak, people who might be inclined to pass information along to the United States will now wonder whether we can be trusted to protect their identity. After all, if they can't trust those who work in the White House, who can they trust.

We are at war against terrorism. It is a war that will not be won with our mighty arsenal of weapons. It is a war we can only win by obtaining good intelligence about the plots that these terrorists are hatching. Intelligence is our best weapon against terrorism. So loose lips not only sink ships, they might prevent us from stopping a future terrorist plot.

This is as serious as it gets. I used the word ``traitor'' yesterday in a colloquy with Senator Harkin. I know that is strong language, but I believe that about anyone who would leak this kind of sensitive information at a time when we are at war. This is a crime. It is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison.

This morning we heard that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into this crime. Realistically, we not only have to do away with what is bad but what looks bad. To have John Ashcroft, former Senator, longtime political confidant of the President doing this investigation simply won't sell. Considering the grave nature of what has happened, this case warrants an independent counsel, a special counsel, someone who does not have political ties to the White House. If we need an independent counsel to investigate a private real estate deal, certainly a breach of national security deserves the same level of scrutiny. We must act quickly before memos and phone logs and computer records are destroyed.

We must find the source of this leak and send a message to everyone everywhere who betray the United States: Loose lips sink ships, and they will land you in jail.

Mr. President, we know that the time will just run out. Senator Schumer wanted to speak last. He is not here. So we have no alternative. If the Senator is going to yield back his time, there is no way to preserve our 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, because of the time constraints, I ask unanimous consent that a point of order not be taken in this matter and that we have an up-or-down vote.

That is really too bad. I say that because it would seem that something this important to the American public should at least have an up-or-down vote. All we want is a resolution from this body saying it is appropriate that the Attorney General, in effect, recuse himself and assign a special prosecutor to look into this most serious matter.

There is no question that somebody committed a crime. We don't know who it is or who they were, but leaking this information is a crime. It is a felony punishable by at least 10 years in prison. I think it is unfair. We know that Senate rules often don't appear to be fair. But in this instance, it would certainly be the right thing to do to allow an up-or-down vote.

I yield back whatever time we have.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the point of order not be laid before the Senate until 3:45 and Senator Schumer at that time be allowed 5 minutes prior to the point of order being taken.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have the greatest respect for my friend from Ohio. I know his heart is in the right place, but I say respectfully to him and anyone within the sound of my voice, I, speaking for me, told the majority leader, privately and publicly, that going to this bill was a mistake; that this voucher issue was a contentious issue and would make it very difficult this late in the session to complete the bill.

The decision was made to go ahead with this legislation. We have been on it now for 2 weeks. I say to my friend from Ohio, the manager of this bill, along with the Senator from Louisiana, who has done an outstanding job, that this is something that is done only for fill. I think everyone knows that this bill, as long as this voucher issue is in here floating around, is not going to go very far.

So I think the leader should bring up one of the other seven appropriations bills so we can move along. We have wasted 2 weeks. There are appropriations bills we should all be dealing with. But it appears to me the decision has been made by the majority that they are not going to do any more appropriations bills; they will all be lumped into one big clump. I think that is unfortunate.

If, in fact, there is some prospect of taking the voucher provision out of this bill, we could finish this bill very quickly. So without belaboring the point, I object.

Madam President, it is clear that we have had a number of days that have been wasted on this piece of legislation. As to whose fault it is, there is lots of blame to go around. I don't think we need to get into the blame game. But the fact is, we have 29 Members of the Senate who are ensconced in Dirksen 109 or 106, whatever the number-- that is where I was headed a few minutes ago--on the supplemental appropriations bill dealing with funding for the military in Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq. That meeting started at 10 o'clock today and is going as we speak. So we have approximately a third of the Members of the Senate who are there, one of whom is Mary Landrieu, the comanager of this bill. She indicated to me today, earlier today, she wanted to be there during the deliberations on that most important piece of legislation, some $87 billion that we have been asked to mark up and get to the Senate floor today. That bill will be on the floor this evening unless something goes wrong. Otherwise, it will be here tomorrow.

So I understand, having managed a few bills in my day, how the Senator from Ohio would have loved to get this bill finished 2 days ago. But under the present status of the Senate, with the total thrust for the next 2 weeks being on the $87 billion that the President has requested, I think we would all be better served if the DC bill were taken from the calendar--which it will be just in a matter of hours. But I would love to see the bill passed.

I, by the way, a number of years ago, 15 years ago or so, was the chairman of the DC appropriations committee. I know it is an interesting subcommittee, and I enjoyed it very much. There is so much that needs to be done for the District of Columbia--in education, certainly. We just have a different outlook on what should be done to help education.

But separate and apart from that, I think if we would take the contentious issue dealing with vouchers from this bill--and you can sugarcoat it and call it scholarships or whatever you want but we are both talking about the same subject--this bill would pass in a matter of not hours but minutes. So I hope for the District of Columbia, that we would do that as quickly as possible.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

I am happy to hear from the Senator from Massachusetts.

In a matter of minutes.

I respond to my friend from Massachusetts, it is no wonder that people who live in the District of Columbia have bumper stickers that say, ``No Taxation Without Representation.'' It is no wonder that the people, hundreds of thousands of people who are American citizens, who live in the District of Columbia, are treated like second-class citizens. They do not even have a Senator. They have a nonvoting delegate.

I say to my friend from Massachusetts, it is no wonder that people of the District of Columbia believe they are being treated like a stepchild. Are they part of this great country? People who live in the Nation's Capital can't do things that every other citizen in this country can do.

My friend has been a longstanding Member of this most important committee where we have dealt with matters of education for decades in the Senate. We know that private schools, most of the time, give kids more attention. We have all heard these reports. But as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, they do not have to accept children who are physically or emotionally or mentally handicapped. Public schools have to take all the kids. It makes it more difficult.

We should be devoting our attention to helping the District of Columbia have the resources so they can take care of all the problems they have in public schools.

Private schools can pick and choose who they want. They can pick and choose the voucher kids who would be submitted to them from the school district here in the District of Columbia. Of course, who would not be accepted? A kid would not be accepted, of course, if the kid had a physical disability or a mental or emotional disability or has maybe been unruly in the past.

I appreciate very much the Senator in effect assisting the debate today. It is not as simple as going to third reading and passing the bill. If we really care about the District of Columbia, let us give them the resources they need, strip this voucher stuff off of it and come back and take a look at it again some other time.

But I would resent this Senate forcing down the throat of the people of the State of Nevada a program dealing with vouchers in the State of Nevada which the State of Nevada did not approve first. The voucher program for the District of Columbia has not been approved by the authorities in the District of Columbia. You have an elected official or a mayor walk out and say: I like it. But if he looks at it, he has gotten a few other goodies for the District. You have to ask him. But it appears to me that a few other goodies are enticing him to go along with this.

Regardless of that, he is in the minority because largely everyone in the District opposes what he wants.

I deeply appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts joining with me on the floor this afternoon.

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

Mr. President, the Congress, through legislation, has demanded that airport baggage screeners must be public employees. That was a conscious decision made by this Congress, and it was signed by the President.

As a government, we should be equally clear that air traffic controllers should also be public employees accountable to the people they serve.

Acting responsibly, the House and Senate both passed provisions in their respective FAA bills that would retain the inherent ``governmental function'' of the FAA air traffic control towers and employees. But instead of affirming that the safety of air travelers is the responsibility of the U.S. Government, members of the conference committee, at the urging of this administration, passed a conference report that allowed for immediate privatization of 69 air traffic control towers, some of them among the busiest in the country. This was a failure of policy and a failure of process.

Recognizing the committee's mistake, the House of Representatives has now moved to recommit the bill to conference. Hopefully, the conference committee will follow the mandate of the Senate and House and restrain from trying to privatize air traffic controllers.

This is something that boggles the mind of the people of Nevada and I am sure the people of Tennessee and around the country. When the House and the Senate pass a measure by large votes and it goes to a conference committee, which is made up of just a few members, they should not completely change what the Congress did. That is what they have done here, and it is wrong.

In addition, it will be important for the conference committee to readdress issues dealing with the essential air service, cabotage, and flight attendant security training.

It would be a mistake for the House to hastily convene a conference committee that simply strips language dealing with privatization. The conference report must contain language that blocks an administration directive to reclassify air traffic control services as ``commercial.'' This simply clears the way for private contractors to take over.

Keep in mind that private contractors putting things out for bid at the lowest possible price and looking for profit are going to be controlling air traffic in and out of airports. I don't think that is a good idea.

The people who direct air traffic in and out of our airports are performing critical public safety functions. I hope our colleagues in the House will understand that a conference report that simply strips privatization language will not pass the Senate.

This is in no way to threaten or cajole. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is an effort to beg the House of Representatives to do the right thing.

This FAA bill is important. We want to pass an FAA bill. But the conference

report will not come out of this body if it doesn't have privatization language in it.

This will only lead to further delays in funding essential airport infrastructure and security programs so vital to the safety of the flying public and our economy.

The FAA bill is a jobs and air safety bill, which Congress must pass. We can do this the hard way or the easy way. Of course, I prefer the easy way because it is the right answer for America.

I urge our colleagues to work with us to craft a revised FAA conference report that honors the overwhelming sentiment in Congress against privatization of air traffic control operation and maintenance, protects the U.S. aviation industry from unfair foreign competition, and ensures that the Nation's flight attendants receive mandatory antiterrorism training.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.