Floor Statements

Mr. President, we recognize there are efforts being made to go to the FAA bill. We are attempting to clear that on this side. We have a couple of hurdles. I think we have completed one, and we still have one other problem to eliminate. We will certainly know that in the next hour or so.

If that is the case, it is my understanding, having spoken to the two leaders, after we dispose of the amendments pending, the leader would want to go off of the Energy bill and go to the FAA bill. We are trying to allow that to happen if we can clear that.

Mr. President, before we do that, I ask unanimous consent that the time on this matter, which is divided an hour on that side and 30 minutes on this side, be divided equally.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, some of the time has been used on quorum calls. That time was charged equally against both sides this morning. The Senator still has 15 minutes.

We may not have 15 minutes for somebody else, but there are 15 minutes for the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Madam President, would the Chair indicate how much time remains on each side?

So a total of 18 minutes on this side, 4 on the other side.

Madam President, it is my understanding that the leader wants to vote at 11:15.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time, after whatever time expires that has already been allocated, be divided equally between the two sides.

Not the time between now and 11:15. Whenever the time expires--we have 18 minutes and you have 4 minutes; so 22 minutes--so it would be about 13 minutes would be allocated evenly.

Yes. I say to my friend, Senator Feinstein is due here momentarily. Senator Graham is expected. But I think, in fairness to Senator Domenici, that their time--they should be here, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, how much time does the Senator from California have remaining?

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from California, if she needs more time, there is time available. Does the Senator know how much time she will need?

I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining to the Senator from California be a total of 15 minutes.

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

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

Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg is in the Chamber to offer an extremely important amendment. He will be ready to do that in a matter of a few minutes.

In the meantime, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, the events of September 11, 2001, have been catastrophic on the aviation and travel industry. And that is an understatement. I strongly supported the formation of the Transportation Security Administration because I believed then and believe now it is critical that the public has confidence in the safety and security of our airports and airlines.

This enhanced security will save jobs, protect Americans' ability to travel freely and safely, and boost business for the travel and tourism industries.

The need for capital security costs, such as explosives detection and screeners, should be based on real need. Unfortunately, the formula in this bill that allocates grants in the aviation security fund to assist with capital security costs is not based on real needs. It does not accurately account for the number of passengers who must be

carefully screened as they enter airport terminals at their point of origin. That is where delays occur and additional security equipment is always badly needed.

My amendment corrects the language in section 402 of this bill that allocates funding for capital security costs based on ``emplanements.'' This is wrong.

My amendment would change the formula for allocating funding in the aviation security fund from ``emplanements'' to ``origination and destination emplanements.''

My amendment allocates resources to airports that are screening the largest number of passengers and not at airports where passengers simply connect to another flight. As an example: Someone flies from New York to Chicago and they have a connection to go to Des Moines, IA. They don't leave the airport. The problem in Las Vegas is people come to Las Vegas. They go downtown or to the strip and then they come back and have to get back through all the screening. That is where the need should be, for people who enter and leave the airport not simply the fact that people land at the airport.

My amendment would allocate resources, as I said, to airports that are screening the largest number of passengers, and not at airports where passengers simply connect to another flight.

At large hub airports many passengers simply change flights. They don't enter and leave the terminal where security is most needed. These passengers have already been screened.

This is especially important in Las Vegas but it is a bigger issue. It is important that we prevent another terrorist attack on our airlines. Terrorists will search for the weakest link in our security and try to exploit it.

Capital security resources must be allocated fairly and equitably and correctly. Las Vegas McCarran Airport has the second largest number of origination and destination passengers in the entire Nation, second only to LAX. This means that McCarran processes more people through TSA security checkpoints than every other airport, except Los Angeles.

Under the present formula, other airports would get far more security resources even though they screen fewer passengers. McCarran clearly needs more resources than many hub airports where a great number of passengers emplane but do not need to be screened.

Nothing could be worse for the Nation than allocating its precious security resources in the wrong manner. We need additional security at origination and destination airports--and we need it now--where passengers are actually screened. We do not want resources allocated where they are unnecessary, especially at a time when Congress is asking TSA to get its costs under control.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ensign be added as a cosponsor of this amendment with the Senator now speaking.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for the safety of the flying public and the health of our economy. We need to put our security resources in the right place. Let's keep the skies safe.

Now, Mr. President, I have spoken----

I am happy to yield.

That is absolutely right. It is based upon the formula I have just given.

I say to the managers of this bill--the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee--I have spoken to their staffs, I have spoken to them, as has Senator Ensign. We have been given an assurance by these two fine men and their staffs that this is something the conference will look at as soon as the bill leaves this body. The staff will start reviewing this.

They have a concern now that they may not have adequate figures to justify what Senator Ensign and I are saying. We want them to have adequate numbers so that what we are saying is valid.

We want, as I have indicated in my statement, there to be a fair allocation of resources. We believe, as the Senator from Arizona has indicated, that Las Vegas is a very unique place. It is not like Chicago O'Hare. It is not like the airports in New York. It is similar to what we have in Phoenix. Phoenix has a problem similar to us. I believe Phoenix would benefit from the formula I am suggesting.

But I have been given an assurance, as I have indicated, by the two managers of this very important committee, that they will do what they can in conference to allocate the resources fairly.

The language I have in this amendment may not be perfect. There may be some need to look at other issues to have a fair apportionment of these resources.

So based upon the assurances I have been given by the two managers of this bill, I will withdraw this amendment, on behalf of Senators Reid and Ensign, and look to the good offices of these two gentlemen to make sure that, for our country, there is a fair allocation of resources.

That is right.

The Senator is absolutely right. We have places, such as at McCarran Airport, where, if we had additional help, we could move people into the airport more quickly but we simply don't have the TSA people to do that. We have some of our hub airports where, as the Senator has indicated, they have people standing around looking at each other because they are not having people coming in and out of the airport like we have at McCarran.

If I could say one additional thing before I sit down. I do not have the opportunity very often to talk about the good work of the committee but, as far as this Senator is concerned, some of the best work of this committee is to allow flights from National Airport to Las Vegas, to Phoenix, to Salt Lake. I would suggest that the Senator from Arizona--and I am sure he will check with his staff--I think he might find a better flight than going from Dallas to Phoenix.

Well, the statute of limitations has run.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I missed the unanimous consent request. What is it? What is the request?

I would agree to that if we have a time set for a vote on the Lautenberg amendment. Other than that, because I don't want his amendment to----

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

We would like to have it as soon as possible.

Well, I know we have two of our most senior Members here involved in this debate, Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, and they usually do not talk for 5 minutes.

No objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Yes.

Yes.

Amendment No. 889, as modified

No objection.

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

Mr. President, I ask that my amendment No. 891 which I offered earlier today be withdrawn.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

If I may have the attention of the managers of the bill.

One of the important amendments on this bill is the Inhofe amendment that has been discussed at some length, on both sides, off the floor. But both have agreed that the Inhofe amendment will be handled in 40 minutes, equally divided.

I ask unanimous consent that the Inhofe amendment be the next in order and that the time for the amendment be 40 minutes.

And no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote, on or in relation to the amendment.

Yes.

Mr. President, our cloakroom has indicated that Senators have had an all-day-long notice that we are trying to complete this bill today. Statements have been made on the floor by the managers many times to that effect.

On the Democratic side, the only amendments we know of that people wish to offer are by Senators Feinstein, Inouye, Hollings, and Senator Rockefeller has an amendment. Other than those, we don't know of any other amendments on our side.

On the other side, I have been told there is a Burns amendment, a Murkowski amendment, and a Stevens amendment. Other than that, I don't know of any other amendments.

My point is, within a relatively short period of time, we will ask unanimous consent that these be the only amendments in order. If people are out there with amendments, they should come forward in the next couple of minutes.

Will the Senator yield without losing his right to the floor? The two leaders want these votes to be stacked. They are in a very important Finance Committee meeting which is going on now. I ask this be set aside for a later time.

Mr. President, I also note that Senator Boxer wishes to speak on this amendment for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we want to have a list just as quickly as my friend from Arizona. We do need to have floor staff look at the subject matter of these amendments because we do not know what they could be. We can take the 10 minutes the Senator from Arizona suggested--the only addition I know we have is an amendment by Senator Kohl--and have our staffs look at these amendments while Senator Boxer is speaking for up to 10 minutes.

Following that, I think we would be in a position to look at the amendments and order the closure of the amendment process.

Mr. President, as part of the agreement, it is my understanding that the Senator from California will be recognized for up to 10 minutes. Is that right?

Did not the Senator from Arizona ask unanimous consent that the vote be put over until later and that request was propounded at that time? I thought the agreement was that the Senator from California would speak on the amendment that was just set aside for a vote for 10 minutes. I ask the Senator from California, would that be appropriate?

Is 10 minutes sufficient time for the Senator?

No.

We are waiting for the unanimous consent request to be typed. I hope during that period of time we will have six or seven more people calling for amendments.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

And Senator Harkin?

Reserving the right to object, the subject matter of the amendments has been discussed on both sides so there are no surprises as to the subject matter of the amendments.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Lott amendment?

I thank the Chair.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), 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 ``nay''.

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

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), 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''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Winokur, a fellow on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on the FAA reauthorization legislation.

Will the majority leader yield for a comment on the schedule?

Mr. President, first of all, we will have for the leader sometime today a finite list of amendments from our side. Also, Senator Feinstein, when she left last night, said she was not going to agree to have her amendment set aside. The reason for that is somewhat based on last year when she worked with Senator Gramm for more than a week trying to get something on that amendment and she never did. She kept setting it aside, but she said she would not do that this time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides during the morning business period.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if the bill should be reported and then go into morning business.

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Idaho, we will, as I indicated to the majority leader today, have a list sometime today, a finite list of amendments on our side. I would also say the holdup, the slowdown on this bill in the last 24 hours is not anything that we on this side have done. Senator Feinstein has offered an amendment. That amendment needs to be disposed of before we move forward. I hope the majority will make a decision in the near future as to what they want to do with that amendment.

As indicated, I filed an amendment--I am confident my friend from Idaho would agree with it--to exempt from her amendment minerals, which are such an important part of the American West. They have agreed to accept that amendment. Senator Feinstein has agreed to accept the amendment--not, I am sure, because she likes the amendment a lot but because she realizes what happened when there was a vote on this last year.

I hope that amendment will be accepted, the majority will allow that amendment to be accepted, and we can move forward on the Feinstein amendment with an up-or-down vote or move to table, whatever they decide to do on it, but let's move on.

Senator Feinstein, for example, has other amendments she wishes to offer. She has one dealing with CAFE standards. That was debated last time, but I am sure we will have to debate it this time. But we should move forward on this legislation.

I want the record simply to reflect we are not holding up this legislation. I have made public statements here, with the full knowledge of the Democratic leader, that we are cooperating on this Energy bill in the very best way we can. As we know, last year when we had this bill up, there were 8 weeks of debate, approximately 125 amendments, and we had 35 recorded votes. I hope we need not do that this time. I hope we can condense things and do it in fewer than 8 weeks.

I also said publicly I appreciate very much how Senator Frist has handled the bills generally since he has taken the leadership of the Senate--not filing cloture immediately. As long as we are cooperating, which we are on this, offering substantive amendments, he has been very good about allowing debate to go forward.

We continue, on this measure, to cooperate with the majority. We will

move forward with this most important legislation. I agree with the Senator from Idaho, this country needs an energy policy. I underline, underscore this. I didn't hear all his remarks, I was called off the floor, but I did hear some of his statements regarding alternative energy. The State of Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. We are waiting for that development. We need certain tax incentives included in the tax portion of this bill.

We would thrive on more solar energy production. That can be done with tax incentives that are in the underlying tax part of this bill. Of course, the Senator from Idaho and I know how much the wind blows in parts of Idaho and Nevada, and we should be using that wind to our own benefit. It is renewable energy.

Even though there are certain things in the bill the Senator from New Mexico produced that I was not wild about, that is what the process is about. Amendments are offered. The Senator from New Mexico had strong feelings about the nuclear portions of this legislation. We had a good debate on that yesterday and a very close vote. That is what the Senate is all about. There are other parts of the bill we are going to try to amend. No one at this stage is trying to stall--I should not say no one. I am sure some people would love this legislation never to come about, but the general belief of the people on this side of the aisle is we should have an Energy bill, and we are going to work toward that end.

I am happy to yield.

I will respond to my friend from Idaho. No. 1, we hope to have a list of amendments today sometime before the close of business. No. 2, as the Senator from Idaho knows, as the Senator from New Mexico knows, the lull in the proceedings here is not any fault of the minority. We are waiting for the majority to make a decision as to what they are going to do on the derivatives amendment filed by the Senator from California and the Senator from Illinois.

We are here to do business. We are simply waiting, until a decision is made on derivatives, as to what is the next amendment before us. We have lots of people willing to offer amendments on this side.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what is the matter now before the Senate? Is it the Reid amendment to the Feinstein amendment?

Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment which I send to the desk.

I state, Mr. President, I did this with no one from the majority being here, but it does not take unanimous consent, so I was not trying to take advantage of anyone.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I know the Senator from New Jersey wishes to speak. There is a unanimous consent request that will be propounded which will help people understand what will happen. We are waiting for someone on the other side to read the request, and then we can agree to it. If the Senator will withhold for a moment.

I have the floor. Madam President, we are shortly going to enter into an agreement to have a vote late today for two more judges. This will make 131 judges--I think that is the number--we have approved during the time the present President Bush has been President.

I am really not certain as to the number, but I believe it is 36 or 37 circuit court judges. The vacancy rate, as we discussed yesterday, is extremely low. There has been a lot of agitation and talk about how poorly the administration is being treated with their judicial nominees. Even the President can understand that a count of 131 to 2 is a pretty good record for him.

Reserving the right to object, in the statement I just gave, I indicated there have been 36 circuit judges approved. It is 26 circuit judges approved. I misspoke. The 131 figure that will be completed about quarter to 3 today is an accurate number of judges who have been approved in this administration.

Also, Madam President, the chairman of the full Energy Committee, the manager of this bill, along with Senator Bingaman, is in the Chamber, and the record should reflect we on this side are not holding up this Energy bill. I have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, I am very appreciative of the statement he just made because I am going to do as he just did during this lull of time: Go get my hair cut.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the Reid amendment be withdrawn.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it is my understanding that would be a motion to table.

I announce that 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 the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I announce that 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Yea''.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided and that Senator Feinstein control our time and Senator Cochran control the time on the other side.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I yield to the Senator from Washington 4 minutes.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I further announced that, if present and voting, the 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.

Amendment No. 880

Madam President, staff is retyping the proposed agreement, but to save time I wonder if we could go to the Bingaman amendment. Originally, the plan was to vote on Bingaman and the Burma matter after debate was completed on both issues. We have an objection on our side to doing that. We could go to the Bingaman amendment immediately, have 40 minutes of debate equally divided, then following that have a vote on or in relation to the Bingaman amendment, and then go to the Burma matter after that.

Mr. President, we entered into an agreement, and we all thought there was going to be a vote following this 40 minutes of debate. The majority leader was not part of that agreement. In deference to him, we will not push our 40-minute vote. We will agree to go to that. That time is gone now, isn't it?

He has left.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

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