Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to express my congratulations and best wishes to George Golson on the occasion of his 90th birthday. A devoted husband, a father of four children, an industrious businessman, an accomplished jurist, and a veteran of World War II, George Golson has led a distinguished life.

Born on October 24, 1913, George received his undergraduate education at the University of Columbia, NY, and his legal education at St. John's University. After practicing law for several years in New York, he served his country proudly for 4 years during World War II in the Judge Adjutant General office in Liverpool, England.

Upon his return from military service, George Golson built a new home in Columbia, SC, and launched a new career in business. He returned to legal practice in 1958 as a member of the South Carolina Bar, and in 1973 was admitted to serve as Attorney of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 1980, George Golson established an office in Las Vegas to provide consulting services on legal matters in the field of real estate planning. He became a respected and beloved member of the southern Nevada community, and his work contributed to the dramatic growth and development of the State.

Throughout his long and productive life, George has made the most of his free time. He has challenged himself both intellectually and athletically by writing short stories, composing ballads, music, and lyrics, fishing, and playing racquetball.

Please join me in wishing George Golson the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator asks that the Senate be closed, I was thinking that the Senate is a great institution. To think we are at the point we are tonight, with peace and quiet in the Senate, after having faced lots of procedural problems, the two leaders are to be commended for having arrived at the point where we can civilly approach this most important legislation and have amendments offered. It is going to be good for the Senate and good for the American people.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum call, which will be shortly announced, be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Wisconsin leaves the floor, I wish to express my respect for him. He represents the State of Wisconsin so ably. The one aspect I like about this Senator is you never have to worry how he stands on an issue. He is always very forthright and public in his statements.

As the Chair knows, I spend a good deal of my personal time finding out where the votes are on our side of the aisle. With the Senator from Wisconsin, there is never a problem. He doesn't say: Let me get back to you. Or if he does say that, he does get back to me.

I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Senator. I have also watched how he has been engaged in the international relations of this country. I know how he has been engaged in issues that are important to sometimes only him, but sometimes that is all it takes to focus the attention of the Congress on an issue in which he has been involved.

I had the good fortune when I served in the House to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I do not serve and have not served on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, but I do understand what an important committee it is. I say to my friend from Wisconsin, I feel very good in that he is serving on this committee and, in effect, in doing so is also representing me in his efforts to make sure the American public is advised to what is going on in the rest of the world and our Government is involved, as it should be, around the world.

I publicly applaud and congratulate the Senator from Wisconsin for his speech. I think he has, as usual, studied the issue and has made some tremendous and significant points.

Mr. President, I have a statement I wish to give. It is my understanding the majority wants to propound a unanimous consent request for a vote later today; is that right?

I knew that, but I was trying to be as polite as possible to not get in the way of one being offered. So I will just go ahead with my speech and at some later time I can give everyone a hint that there is going to be a vote at 5:30. That is my understanding.

(The remarks of Mr. Reid are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I recently received a call at home and the person was enraged that we were holding up judges. I explained to the person that that was not factual. I want the record to reflect that tomorrow morning we will approve the 160th judge for President Bush. We have turned down three. So that is 160 to 3 is what I told my friend from Nevada.

I have no objection. I further agree that there be 2 minutes equally divided for the debate prior to the vote tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from Ohio. I was not paying close enough attention. I thought he had finished the entire request. So I am not going to restate my remarks where I was talking about the number of judges. I wanted to do that now rather than earlier, but my friend gets the point.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), 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), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) is absent attending a funeral.

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

No objection.

If I could say, just before the Senator gives his final statement here, I appreciate very much the majority allowing the time for us to speak. There are a number of Senators on this side who wish to speak. I appreciate very much the thoughtfulness of the Senator from Kentucky and the majority leader in allowing us to go forward on this basis. Having been in his position on a number of occasions, I know how difficult it is to keep people around, but I appreciate his doing it.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

I haven't heard all of the Senator's statement, but what I have heard leads me to believe after having read about this myself that whoever did this is a traitor. Whoever leaked this is someone who has subjected someone who is an undercover spy for this country to being murdered. I think that it even puts the columnist at risk, Bob Novak, who I like very much. I don't always agree with his politics, but he is a person who has always been very good to me.

I am very happy that the Senator from Iowa has weighed in on this.

I also acknowledge that something should be done. It is my understanding that the majority and the Democratic leader, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the ranking member of the Defense Committee, and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee have written a letter to the Attorney General and the President tonight calling for just what the Senator from Iowa has asked--that there be a special counsel selected to go into this. Some of the things that the special counsel went into during the last few years are minor compared to the gravity of this.

I personally applaud and congratulate the Senator from Iowa for bringing this to the attention of the people of America.

Will the Senator yield for another brief comment?

We have had some espionage people who have turned on us in recent years. They have had very high publicity. I think of the man in Kansas who turned and became a double agent, so to speak, which led to the deaths of American operatives in other countries.

Is this any less than that? It is on the same plane. Whoever did that is certainly guilty of crimes--not punishable by death, perhaps, as Hanssen was subject to, but certainly punishable for many years in Federal prison. I appreciate the Senator bringing this to the attention of the American people through speaking in the Senate.

Mr. President, last month a power blackout stranded millions of commuters and shut down businesses in the northeast and midwest. A few weeks later we saw the sharpest weekly increase ever in gasoline prices, just in time for Labor Day. And in Nevada, California and other western States, consumers are still smarting from energy market manipulation by Enron and other companies.

It is clear, as President Bush recently pointed out, that our Nation desperately needs an energy policy.

But not just any energy policy. It must be the right policy, one that protects consumers, safeguards our environment, and bolsters our national security.

That means we must ensure the reliability of our electricity markets, make a serious commitment to conserve energy, balance the interests of big oil companies against the interests of consumers, and kick our addiction to oil from the Middle East.

Unfortunately, some of the ideas that seem likely to emerge from the conference committee on the Energy bill would make matters worse, not better. Although the need for a new energy policy is urgent, we must not be stampeded down the wrong path.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a dangerous step in that direction just a few weeks after the August blackout, when it relaxed pollution rules for some electric power plants.

Allowing old plants to spew more pollution into our air is not the way to create a reliable supply of electricity. It is certainly not a good thing to spew this into the air for my children and my grandchildren. Instead, we must develop our abundant sources of clean, renewable energy: water, the wind, the sun, and the heat within the Earth.

These resources can provide steady, reliable power that is not subject to wild market swings, protecting consumers from shortages and price spikes. Developing renewable energy also creates new jobs. And renewable energy is made in the USA, not subject to the whims of foreign powers.

I am proud that Nevada is a leader in developing our renewable resources. By 2013, the State of Nevada has committed to produce 15 percent of our electricity from renewable sources. State initiatives like this are important and good.

These State initiatives that require a certain percentage of electricity is generated from renewable energy is spurring the growth of geothermal power in Nevada, California and other western states.

Our Nation also needs to set an ambitious but attainable goal for developing renewable energy. Unfortunately, it appears that the conference committee will not include such a goal in the bill that will be offered for our consideration.

We not only need goals for renewable energy, we need incentives that will help us reach them.

Thanks to rapidly improving technology and tax incentives, development of wind power has exploded in the past several years.

I have introduced legislation to expand the production tax credit from wind to include geothermal and solar power. This bipartisan legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Smith of Oregon and 14 others, would also extend the tax credit so businesses could invest in renewable energy with more certainty.

If we are serious about an energy policy that helps consumers and our environment, these provisions must be included in any eventual agreement with the House.

Another bad idea that is being promoted as the panacea for our energy problems is nuclear power.

Nuclear power sounds okay until it is time to dispose of the dangerous radioactive waste. Then nobody wants the stuff anywhere near their community including those scientists who insist it is ``safe.''

As most of my colleagues are aware, Nevadans are fighting a plan to dump the Nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about an hour away from the fastest-growing urban area in the country, Las Vegas. We want our State to be a proving ground for renewable energy, not a dumping ground for nuclear waste. That should also be the thrust of our national policy for producing more electricity.

When it comes to fueling our cars and trucks, we have to kick the Middle East oil habit. It compromises our national security and leaves consumers vulnerable to market manipulations by nations like Saudi Arabia, which contributed to the recent spike in U.S. gas prices by slashing exports.

Unfortunately, we can not drill our way to energy independence. The U.S. currently uses 25 percent of the petroleum produced in the world, yet we

hold only about 3 percent of the Earth's known reserves. We can not create more oil under the ground, and drilling in a pristine area like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do very little to boost total production.

There is a solution, however: We can do a better job of conserving oil, with stricter fuel standards for all vehicles, including popular SUVs. By reducing our dependence on foreign oil, conservation will make us more secure; it will also help consumers and the environment.

Some people suggest that fuel cell technology will allow us to convert our vehicles from petroleum to hydrogen, but that will not happen overnight. In the meantime we need a clean way to produce hydrogen fuel. Burning fossil fuels to make hydrogen will still pollute our air and increase global warming. Clean, renewable energy should be part of the hydrogen solution.

As we move into the 21st century, we face tremendous energy challenges, but we also have great opportunities.

We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make a bold commitment to clean, renewable energy.

I hope the members of the conference committee will keep these principles in mind as they work to prepare a bill for our consideration. Anything less would be a failure of vision and leadership.

Madam President, the struggle to win peace in the Middle East is at a critical juncture. In one direction lies more of the same: Constant fear, the old hatreds, terrorist murders and retaliations that too often claim innocent lives, as well.

Down the other road are lasting peace and security for Israel and a self-ruled homeland for the people called Palestinians.

If we want to move in this direction, we must shed the baggage of the past. If we stick with the same old formula, we will only repeat the violent cycle that has persisted for far too long. I don't claim to have all the answers about how to achieve peace in this very troubled region. But there is one thing I do know: Yasser Arafat must go. He must go now.

We look all over at his tracks. They are tracks he cannot cover.

In the Las Vegas Sun newspaper on September 28 there was an editorial written by Michael O'Callaghan who has been in the newspaper business since 1978. Prior to that he was Governor of the State of Nevada for two terms, probably the most popular Governor ever elected in the State of Nevada. But for many years he has been a newspaper man. He writes in this column, among other things:

What peace lovers over the world have received from Arafat

is more bloodshed and the increased use of suicide bombers.

Arafat in return has become wealthy from funds provided by

the United States and other nations trying to encourage him

to practice good government to provide for his people. His

siphoning off of funds was exposed years ago . . .

This practice is not acceptable even though it is by some leaders in that part of the world, he writes, in part.

He further states:

Ten days ago a new audit was released that shows that

Arafat has diverted at least another $900 million of public

money into his own special bank account. This is being done

while the Palestinian people continue to suffer from housing

shortages and high unemployment. Arafat makes sure they have

enough explosives and weapons to kill Israelis when they get

bored. The Palestinian people continue to live in misery

while Arafat's wife and daughter reside in France living in

luxury.

Michael O`Callaghan writes more, but I think we get the point.

Arafat must go. He is a man of hate. Arafat is a man of hate. Since 1948 he has resented the very existence of Israel. He might say his views have changed, but as my mother used to say, actions speak louder than words. And by his actions we know Arafat for what he is, a bankrupt and corrupt leader of a badly suffering people, and someone who is not serious about achieving lasting peace.

We know that elements with varying degrees of affiliation with the PLO, including the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Force 17, have frequently been involved in violence against innocent Israelis.

We know that documents found at Arafat's compound, with his signature, authorized cash payments to members of the Martyrs Brigade. We know the leader of the Martyrs Brigade said he is ``following the orders of Yasser Arafat.'' We know that former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas resigned because Arafat refused to surrender security for Palestinian security forces.

Why did Arafat undermine Abbas? It is simple. He does not want peace with Israel. Forget what he says, look at his actions.

Since the cease-fire in the Middle East was announced 3 months ago, there have been at least 240 terrorist attacks on Israel. This happened while Arafat stood by failing to engage security forces of the Palestinians.

Since Arafat took control of the Palestinian Authority, hundreds of Israelis have been murdered. But his stubborn refusal to accept peace has made life miserable for the 3.35 million Palestinian people in the west bank and the Gaza strip.

We know that Prime Minister Barak courageously gave Arafat everything he asked, but Arafat could not take yes for an answer because he is a terrorist and cannot get that out of his blood.

Today, half of all Palestinians are unemployed and 59 percent live in poverty. This misery breeds desperation which suits the purposes of Arafat and other terrorists. In the midst of this desperation he controls personal war chests of tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions, with investments across the world. He spends his money as he pleases and is accountable to only one person: Yasser Arafat, himself.

It is in this milieu that Arafat stands by as desperate young men and women commit suicide murders in exchange for large sums of money for their families and a promise of eternal paradise for themselves. They waste their young lives and murder innocent Israelis.

It is now time to hold Yasser Arafat accountable. If he cares about his people, there are other leaders there who could carry on and do a good job for the Palestinian people. But he cares about Yasser Arafat. It is time we hold this man accountable.

I am submitting this resolution right now, along with Senator Daschle, calling upon Arafat to immediately resign his position as President of the Palestinian National Authority because he is a hindrance to peace in the Middle East and that such peace depends on institutions that are free from the taint of terrorism. That is the only way Palestinian people will ever achieve their dream of a free, self-governed homeland.

Let me be clear, I support the people of Palestine. They have a right to self-rule. They have a right to control it themselves. But I also support strongly Israel's right to live in peace and to defend itself against terrorism. Israel is at war against terrorism just as we are, but even more amplified. We can never accept or tolerate terrorism in any form at any time any place in the world.

In the name of peace in the middle East and in the world, in the name of prosperity and self-rule for the Palestinian people, Yasser Arafat must go.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Reid and Mr. Daschle pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 236 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Before the majority leader leaves the floor, I indicated to the Senator last week that we should have done something else rather than bringing up the DC bill. I don't see the DC bill moving. I don't see us being able to complete it on Monday. I think we have other appropriations bills we could move through fairly quickly. With the voucher issue involving the DC bill, it makes it very difficult to slog through the bill. I know how we have to put a positive note on everything--especially you--but I think we will have a lot of trouble in completing the DC appropriations bill Monday or any time in the near future.

Mr. President, if I could, through the Chair, ask the distinguished leader a question, we have a number of Jewish Members who are concerned about tomorrow. They want to be home by sundown. We have at least one Senator who would like to be home in California in time for observance of the holiday. I am wondering if the leader has made a decision about tomorrow yet because of the holiday.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico wants to speak regarding the Chaplain. I will finish in a minute.

While the majority leader is on the floor, I say to the distinguished majority leader, the reason I stepped off the floor is I got a call from one of our Jewish Senators indicating they were speaking for a number of other Senators of that faith. They not only have to, as I indicated, be home in time for the sundown services but also have to prepare meals and things of that nature. They wanted me to let you know, if there is some way we could meet the burdensome schedule we have tonight, it would sure be good for them because they have a lot of things to do other than be home by sundown.

I also say, while the majority leader is here--I am speaking for me-- I want to do everything I can--and I think I can fairly speak for the Democratic caucus--to move this very important supplemental. Senator Byrd and others are extremely concerned, for example, about having the hearing on Monday. The distinguished President pro tempore has heard from Senator Byrd himself. He would rather have that on Tuesday and rather have some other witnesses.

We want to do everything we can to be fair and responsible and move this along. However, remember, the House is not going to mark up their legislation until the week we are gone.

The leader is right, we should do everything we can to move this along, but I don't want anyone thinking that Democratic Senators who have some concern about the large amount of this number, especially the reconstruction, are in any way trying to hold this up. We want to cooperate in any way we can.

Now, speaking only for this Senator, I think it may be to the advantage of the Senate to take this over and do whatever debate we need next week but not complete it until we get back. I have complimented the distinguished majority leader on a number of occasions since the Senator has taken over the Senate. We have had very few needs to file cloture on your side. We have tried to be as cooperative as possible. For example, without entering into unanimous consent agreements we simply have told you we will finish a bill on a certain night and generally we have been able to live up to that. We are not trying in any way to slow down or stall this most important legislation, but there is not a question of running out of money tomorrow, the next day, or the next day. I don't think it would hurt until we got back to have some final time to complete this.

That is coming from this Senator, not the caucus. I am sure the Democratic leader will be in touch early in the day. We had a number of meetings yesterday to talk about this most important subject.

For the third time today, we want it understood we on this side are going to do everything we can to support the troops. There are serious questions about the reconstruction money and how we should handle that. I don't think anyone disputes the fact they need reconstruction money. I think we need to take a close look at that.

If I could just say this, the other problem we have is we do not want to have to go through this twice. Under the procedures of the Senate, when we just have a Senate bill, we are limited very much because points of order will be raised on most everything we do relative to amendments. I ask the distinguished majority leader to understand we do not need to go through this twice because when the bill comes back over from the House, we do not need to go through the same amendment procedure again.

I am not sure we gain anything by trying to complete this by next week. We would be well served to see what

the House gives us and work through that. That way there can be amendments that can be offered without points of order being issued to those. Otherwise, we are stuck offering amendments, points of order, then coming back with the House bill and doing the same thing again.

I see the distinguished Democratic leader on the floor and I certainly will not speak anymore.

Mr. President, could I make a unanimous consent request prior to the Senator from New Mexico beginning?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used by the Senator from New Mexico not be counted against the morning business time of the Republicans, and that the full 30 minutes be granted to each side due to this late start.

That was my request. You have it right now.

That is what I asked in my unanimous consent request.

I object. There has been a problem.

Mr. President, I was just notified by staff that we received a call and we could have the vote at 1:15.

I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, we want to have a vote on this most important bill as early as possible. It appears now we are not going to be able to do that until a later time today because we have a number of people who are going to the White House at 2:20. President Bush always meets on time.

We would agree to that.

Reserving the right to object, that would be fine if the Senator would modify his request--that we stay on this until 1:15?

Mr. President, my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect--he and I came to Washington together in 1982 as new Members of Congress. Of course, at that time I was aware of his gallant deeds for our country as a member of the U.S. Navy.

However, the Senator has tried to indicate that there was something wrong with how the energy and water appropriations bill was handled, especially the raising of the 302(b) allocations. That is done all the time. We worked very hard with the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, this Senator, the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee to come up with some way to take care of the weather-related problems that had occurred, dealing with the Corps of Engineers.

What we did was, we had an amendment ready to offer, to have an emergency appropriation, in effect, for the $125 million that was caused by weather-related activities. I have no doubt that would have been agreed to. However, after meeting with the Senators about whom I spoke, they were able to find money in other appropriations bills that was not used. Rather than have the emergency designation, we simply raised the 302(b) allocation. The $65 million was just that.

So anyone who would in any way infer that there was anything wrong with that simply is wrong. The chairman of the full committee is in the Chamber, and he would acknowledge that, as would the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, as would Senator Conrad.

Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber, please?

One reason I asked you to bring the Senate to order was there were two conversations going on. They were both interesting. It was hard for me to listen to both of those and also try to get my thoughts together. I don't know which of the two was the more interesting but they were both pretty good.

I say to my friend from Arizona, the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona said the country was in a hole and we should stop digging. I respectfully agree with him. But the hole isn't anything the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee created. We are struggling to take care of the defense needs of this country. You know the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee handles the defense nuclear programs of this country, in addition to many other programs--university programs and other things that go on.

The situation is simply that the hole the Senator talks about was created by the fact that we are spending far more money than we are taking in. It is no secret, when President Bush took office, there was a surplus of about $7 trillion over 10 years. That is gone. This year's deficit will be around $700 billion, when you take out the Social Security Program and don't have that mask the deficit. So the hole is there, and I acknowledge that. The Senator is right. I am simply saying don't pick on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee; we had nothing to do with the hole. The hole was dug by others, not by us.

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 ``yea.''

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