Floor Statements

Madam President, when I finished law school, I went back to Las Vegas. One of the first opportunities I had to do something socially was to listen to Martin Luther King speak at the old Las Vegas Convention Center. As I look back, that was really a good choice that I made. I am so fortunate that I, over the years, have been able to hear stirring speeches by people on this floor, by the finest extemporaneous speakers I have ever heard, Henry Cisneros, and Dr. Martin Luther King.

The reason I mention that is because that is a special day in my life. This Monday we are celebrating a national holiday, the birthday of the man who I listened to in Las Vegas, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This year, in particular, with controversial remarks and votes related to issues of race having affected this body itself, it is important that we reflect on the life, legacy, and the message of Dr. King.

The Senate may not be in session next week--it may be; it may not be--it certainly will not be in session on Monday, so I would like to share some of my thoughts on this subject this afternoon.

In one of his famous, stirring speeches, Dr. King shared with us his dream for American society. I was working as a Capitol policeman here in Washington when he gave that speech. I was in law school. I can remember the buses. I had never seen so many buses. Hundreds and hundreds of buses came here. And, of course, he gave that famous speech.

Despite the suffering he individually endured and African Americans, as a group, have experienced, Dr. King articulated hope, optimism, and encouragement. He spoke of an America in which all people were united, free, and equal, and of a time when people were not discriminated against or limited because of their race or ethnicity or religion.

Today we are closer to that place and time because of his efforts, accomplishments, and sacrifices, and that of countless other African Americans. These men and women confronted enormous obstacles to make life better not only for African Americans but for all Americans.

America has made great strides in improving the status of ethnic and racial minorities. Today, African Americans are leaders in our communities, the arts, sciences, business, and world affairs. We no longer accept legal discrimination in America in any form. We no longer allow the use of poll taxes that prohibit African Americans from voting. We no longer tolerate discrimination in public accommodations such as water fountains, lunch counters, movie houses.

In addition to making political, legal, and social gains, Blacks are now enjoying unprecedented economic success. African-American unemployment and poverty levels are at record lows. There continues to be a significant rise in African-American homeownership and a dramatic increase in loans to African-American entrepreneurs.

We must be aware, though, that the slumping economy the past 2 years has threatened to undo much of the progress, and its impact is disproportionately felt by people of color. I talked about one of those issues this morning; that is, 34 percent of African-American teenagers are unemployed. They want to find jobs.

So despite all of our progress as a society expanding opportunities for all, we can do much better. We have a lot more to do and challenges we have to overcome. The population of Blacks and other minorities continues to increase and flourish in Nevada and across America. But African Americans often lack the services and resources they need to receive a quality education and, in turn, achieve a better place in our society.

Almost half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, most minority students still attend schools that are predominantly minority. On average, they are in larger classes, have older books, receive less challenging lessons, and have teachers with less training in the subject being taught.

Fortunately, Congress passed a bipartisan Leave No Child Behind education reform package, which became the law of the land last year, to correct certain inequities by making sure well-trained teachers are in every classroom, setting higher standards for all students, and providing schools with resources to meet these new standards.

To continue improving the quality of education, expanding opportunities for all Americans, our next step must be to raise the standards for safety, character, and discipline in our schools and to fulfill the promise of our education reform. To do this, we must have a budget that comes from the White House that doesn't skimp on funding for our schools. Passing a bill that says leave no child behind is good, but we are leaving many children behind if we don't provide the funding.

There are some schools, because of a lack of funds, that are going on 4-day school weeks. I don't know of a school district in America--I am sure there are some--that is not having tremendous funding problems. The fifth or sixth largest school district in America is Las Vegas, Clark County, some 250, 260,000 students. That school district has deep financial problems. Many of these problems are a result of the unfunded mandate that we passed on to the school district in Clark County and other school districts around America with Leave No Child Behind. They are required to do things, and we have not provided resources to help them.

While we have made substantial progress, Blacks still lag behind financially and are disproportionately represented among America's poor. Congress should increase the minimum wage, not only to help youths and African Americans but all of our Nation's citizens, especially single mothers, who benefit more than any other group. In addition, providing unemployment and health care benefits for those who have been hindered by the recession will help dislocated workers and their families get back on their feet and continue to improve their lives. We also need to find creative, effective ways to narrow the earnings gap between Whites and African Americans.

Making these improvements will take the dedication of all Americans. Our Nation's efforts to recover from the tragedy of September 11 remind us that by working together, we become a

stronger America. We must join to continue fighting to make sure all Americans enjoy equal opportunities for justice, quality education, and economic prosperity. To say that a child has the ability to be educated is not a truism if that education does not include adequate funding.

Sadly, some pay only lipservice to the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. They even use his own words as a defense for opposing policies and programs that would advance his goals. In this year, 2003, it is not enough to quote Martin Luther King, Jr., or to say the right thing or avoid saying the wrong thing. Actions speak louder than words, even words as powerful as his. While we certainly remember Dr. King as an articulate speaker, it was not what he said, it was his actions that were more important--nonviolent actions of organizing, educating, motivating, demonstrating--that achieved the real results.

So if we are to truly and fully honor Dr. King and, even more, if we are truly and fully motivated to improve race relations in this great country of ours, we want America to live up to its democratic ideals. If we want all of our people to have equal opportunity, freedom, justice, prosperity, security, and peace, we must pass civil rights legislation, fund programs that help level the playing field, and appoint judges whose records show a commitment to tolerance and fairness.

I am proud of the Democratic Party's longstanding commitment to civil rights. We have recognized that we must take additional steps, though, to advance and protect civil rights in the future for all Americans. We cannot stand on the laurels of what we have done in the past; we must move forward.

We have developed a package of civil rights legislation known as the Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans Act. This comprehensive legislation includes measures to expand hate crimes protections, strengthen the enforcement of existing civil rights laws, support legal representation for indigent Americans, respond to the injustice of racial profiling, address pay inequities between men and women, protect individuals against genetic discrimination, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, prohibit military and civilian personnel from collecting intelligence information about U.S. citizens, and fully fund election reforms passed last year.

During the most recent elections, I was troubled by what we learned took place in the last few days of the election and some we didn't learn about until after the election. Here are examples of the 2002 elections, where there were efforts made by the Republican Party and Republican candidates to harass and intimidate minority voters in an effort to reduce the number of people of color from voting.

Regarding Louisiana, this is from the New York Times, headlined ``GOP `Engineered and Fueled' Runoff Campaign'':

[Louisiana GOP candidate Suzie Haik] Terrell, whose

campaign was engineered and fueled by the White House, had

the momentum going into today's runoff election. * * * the

Republicans did their best to suppress the black vote so

crucial to Ms. Landrieu's fortunes.

That is the article dated December 8.

Misinformation Fliers Posted in Louisiana Public Housing Projects

Falsified Election Date

The Times-Picayune reported, One of the most blatant

attempts to keep African-Americans from voting was an

unsigned pamphlet that the Landrieu campaign said was

circulated in New Orleans public housing complexes just

before the runoff. The document said: ``Vote!!! Bad Weather?

No problem!!! If the weather is uncomfortable on election day

(Saturday December 7th) Remember you can wait and cast your

ballot on Tuesday December 10th.'' Anyone who waited past

Saturday, however, missed the chance to vote.

This appeared in the Times-Picayune of 12/12/02:

Louisiana GOP Paid for Signs To Discourage African Americans From

Voting

The Louisiana Republican Party admitted to paying for signs

aimed at discouraging African-Americans from voting. The

signs said: ``Mary, if you don't respect us, don't expect

us.'' According to the New York Times, ``The Republicans paid

black youths $75 today to hold the signs aloft on street

corners in black neighborhoods.'' That was the Times-Picayune and the New York Times. The Times-Picayune is dated December 12 and the New York Times is dated December 8.

Madam President, it is 3:30. Morning business is to expire. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue for another 10 minutes.

If the majority comes to the floor, I will be happy to step aside.

Continuing to quote:

Arkansas: Poll Watchers Engage in African-American Voter Intimidation

On October 23, 2002, five Republican poll watchers,

including two staff members of Senator Tim Hutchinson's

office, were present at the courthouse in Pine Bluff,

Arkansas--a heavily Democratic area--for the first day of

early voting. They allegedly focused exclusively on African

Americans, asking them for identification and taking

photographs. They claimed to be ``targeting anybody who does

not have an ID to prove who they say they are.'' Trey

Ashcroft, chairperson of the Jefferson County Democratic

Party and the Jefferson County Election Commission, said the

tactics caused some frustrated black voters to not vote. They

are trying to intimidate African-American voters into not

voting.'' Guy Cecil, a Democrat coordinating national efforts

with Arkansas campaigns, said. ``They were literally going up

to them and saying, `Before you vote, I want to see your

identification.' '' Cecil said that under Arkansas law poll

watchers could not confront voters. Local law enforcement

officials escorted the poll watchers out, but they later

returned.

2002: RNC Creates Lawyers' Group To Promote ``Ballot Security &

Integrity''

The newly-created Republican National Lawyer Association

(RNLA) convened in San Antonio, Texas in August 2002, to

``teach Republicans from all over the U.S. about preserving

and protecting the integrity of elections.'' They touted the

event as a ``landmark political forum'' focusing on pre-

election, election day, and post-election topics. On their

Web site, they tout that ``almost 200 lawyers from over 20

states attended.'' Their efforts, ``at the request of'' the

RNC and ``various'' state parties, involve ``conducting and

organizing ballot integrity training across the country.''

The group is ``sending its members out to targeted districts

and areas where voter fraud is a concern or has

historically been a problem to make sure that ALL

registered and qualified voters have an opportunity to

cast a ballot and that individuals not registered or

qualified should not be permitted to vote.'' The group's

president, Craig Burkhardt, urges that the Republican

lawyers engage in ``targeted, effective advocacy.'' The

RNLA web sit lists several hundred attorneys affiliated

with the Republican Party, including 84 from across the

country who specialize in election law.

New Jersey: GOP Drafts Plan To Intimidate Hispanics With Cadre of

``Latino Lawyers''

At an October 28, 2002 hearing in Newark, New Jersey

federal court, state Democrats alleged that the state GOP's

Election Day plan to intimidate Latino voters violated a

twenty year-old consent decree. In that decree, Republicans

pledged they would not intimidate minority voters after a

controversy involving a 1981 ``ballot security task force''.

Democrats provided evidence of an email soliciting ``Latino

Lawyers & Others,'' described as an ``aggressive campaign''

to ``ensure ballot fairness''. The email was allegedly sent

by a staff member of Republican Senate candidate Doug

Forrester. Zulima Farber, arguing for the state Democratic

Party, said the email suggested a plan to suppress the New

Jersey Latino vote. The GOP has countered that the Democrats'

attacks are ``completely without merit'' but acknowledged

they plan to post about 70 attorneys in heavily Democratic

districts to ``make sure nonregistered voters are not allowed

to cast ballots.'' Forrester's election lawyer, Bill Baroni,

also notes that the email was not initially addressed to

Latino lawyers. Another hearing has been scheduled.

Texas: Republican Poll Watchers Ejected for Voter Intimidation

The Brownsville Herald reports, ``Two poll watchers

representing Republican U.S. Senate candidate John Cornyn

have been removed from their polling places amid further

accusations of voter intimidation in Hidalgo County. The

decision to eject the two GOP workers, one watching early

voting in McAllen and the other in Edinburg, was initially

made by early voting supervisors Thursday and confirmed

Friday by Teresa Navarro, Hidalgo county's elections

administrator. . . . In an alleged incident at the Palmer

Pavilion in McAllen, a voter reported [ejected GOP poll

watcher Joseph] Hopkins to an early voting supervisor for

making a `racist remark.' The voter, who knew Hopkins, asked

what he was doing there. Hopkins is said to have jokingly

replied, `I'm just a poll watcher but I do not see many

Poles. I just see a lot of Mexicans.' In the other alleged

incident, at an early voting station within the Elections

Department Office in Edinburg, poll watcher [Laura] Mason was

reported for `repeatedly talking to and harassing' voters. An

elderly Hispanic voter was said to have been reduced to tears

after being `confronted' by Mason.

New Mexico: Republican Party of New Mexico Sent False Mailer to Voters

The Republican Party of New Mexico sent mailers that

incorrectly discouraged citizens

from voting a straight party ticket in order to benefit GOP

candidates. The mailer said, ``Notice to Voters. Do not vote

using the Straight Party Button on your polling machine. This

button cancels out any individual votes cast. In the past

election, this button deprived many candidates of the votes

they earned from people like you.'' In New Mexico voters are

able to ``cast a straight party ticket and then vote for

individual candidates of the other party,'' the Las Cruces

Sun News reported. Denise Lamb of the Bureau of Elections

said, ``its despicable that people would try to misinform

voters to win an election.''

Pennsylvania: GOP Congressman Issued Poll Watcher Packet With Wrong

Information.

According to a Lebanon Daily News Editorial, ``[Rep.

George] Gekas, a Harrisburg Republican, has distributed among

county officials and volunteers an 18-page manual that

includes a section about `challenging a voter.' That's right:

Gekas volunteers aren't just going to challenge absentee

ballots, but are going to try to block some people who show

up at the polls from casting votes. Even more worrisome is

the legal advice that 'challenging a voter' offers to GOP

volunteers. The Gekas pamphlet contains some legal errors

that may encourage Republican volunteers to lodge false and

misleading protests against voters' rights. . . . The Gekas

poll-watching strategy constitutes an embarrassment for the

GOP. Republicans seem determined to frighten voters rather

than competed in the arena of ideas. Gekas and his allies

should disavow their planned attempt to discourage people

from exercising the federal franchise. They would do better

to welcome voters to the polls.''

Maryland: Mailer Circulated to African-Americans Spread False Voting

Information

In Baltimore, MD as unsigned flier circulated in African-

American neighborhoods spread false information aimed at

suppressing voter turnout. The flier read: ``Urgent Notice.

Come out to vote on November 6th. Before you come to vote

make sure you pay your parking tickets, motor vehicle

tickets, overdue rent and most important any warrants.''

Mr. President, the Republican actions during the last election are not in keeping with the legacy of Martin Luther King.

I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have spoken to Senator Byrd and Senator Daschle, and Senator Byrd had a meeting with Senator Stevens. I think we are at a point real quickly where the two leaders will come to the floor with Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens and do something on the appropriations process. I would alert everybody, they should not plan any real long speeches--my friend said he has not--because I think we are going to be able to go, pretty soon, to the appropriations bill.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, on just a couple of housekeeping matters, I ask the majority leader, it appears we will have no morning business in the morning?

And it appears there will be no further rollcall votes tonight; the next vote will be tomorrow at noon.

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

Mr. President, Senator Byrd has offered an amendment. I would like to address that amendment.

Senator Byrd has been an advocate, for many months now, of doing something to properly fund homeland security. One member of our caucus referred to it as hometown security. The Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, referred to it as hometown security, and that is really what it is. It is to make sure the cities and towns in our States have the protection that is necessary as a result of the terrible events of September 11.

The bill I am interested in is part of S. 11 from the Energy and Water Subcommittee. For the next half hour or so, I will be the chairman of that committee. That will change sometime this evening.

Senator Domenici and I have had a longtime relationship on this subcommittee. I have been chairman; he has been chairman; we really have worked extremely well together. He has been, from my perspective, extremely good to work with. He is an absolute expert on numbers, having been the chairman of the Budget Committee and having been so long with the Appropriations Committee. It has been a pleasure to work with him.

But Senator Domenici, I am sure, recognized that this bill, our bill, should have more money--more money as it relates to homeland security. During last year's consideration of the supplemental spending bill for homeland security, when we were in the majority, we included hundreds of millions of dollars for nuclear security, funding that had been requested by the administration and by the Department of Energy but was rejected by the Office of Management and Budget. During final negotiations on that supplemental, we agreed to provide funding for these activities on a contingency basis. In essence, we provided the money but gave the President the opportunity to accept it or not. He decided not to accept it. I think that is really wrong. I am disappointed and sorry that is the case. I believe it was unreasonable that the President declined to request emergency funding for nuclear security for which his own Department of Energy was screaming. We didn't invent this. This came from his own Department of Energy.

So this evening Senator Byrd has offered it again and is making another effort to give this administration the funds they need to keep nuclear and other deadly material safe and secure in this country. As always, I am grateful to Senator Byrd for his leadership in this area.

The bill Senator Domenici and I have brought to the floor for many years is a big bill, approximately $24- or $25 billion, and it is all discretionary. It is the only subcommittee in which the money is discretionary, all of it. It has many important components. Tonight we are only going to talk about that part relating to nuclear security.

This amendment provides $25 million to enhance the safety and security of nuclear and other materials at the Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratories, nationwide; another $25 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration, to enhance security during the transport of nuclear weapons and materials nationwide; and $35 million for construction and renovation activities of the National Center for Combating Terrorism, again funding that the Department of Energy asked the White House to provide.

Again, we didn't dream it up, saying this would be great for New Mexico because they have a lot of things goings on there, or Nevada, or Idaho, or Mississippi, where a lot of these activities take place. The Department of Energy came forward with this recommendation. Again, the White House refused the recommendation that its own Department brought forward.

We are also requesting $90 million for increased safeguards and security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex. Funding is provided for explosive detection equipment, protective force support, hardened perimeter barriers, and consolidation of special nuclear materials and complex-wide security improvements. A minimum of $25 million is provided for cybersecurity activities.

Just reading this off should give every person within the sound of my voice pause. Why have we been asked this by the Department of Energy? We have been asked to do this because we need safeguards throughout the nuclear weapons complex that are not now there.

Funding is provided for explosive detection equipment. We don't have that

equipment. I hate to say it here on the Senate floor, but we don't. We are lacking.

Protective force support. That means we don't have enough people making sure the materials are safe, that the facilities are safe.

Hardened perimeter barriers. It seems to me, if we have been told by the Department of Energy that we should have hardened perimeter barriers, that means that what we have now is inadequate.

Consolidation of special nuclear materials, and complex-wide security improvements.

Also, $56 million is provided for the Defense Environmental Administration Restoration and Waste Management Program at the Department of Energy to enhance safeguards and security at nuclear and weapons cleanup sites at Savannah River in South Carolina, Hanford in Washington, Idaho, and in Tennessee.

Mr. President, you, as a new Senator, did not come and say: Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, will you give us some money for Oak Ridge, in Tennessee? You didn't do that. The Department of Energy recognized there were needs at that very important facility, important for this country, and that is why Senator Byrd has stuck in this amendment before this body, $56 million, part of which would go to Oak Ridge to make sure there is enhancement of safeguards and security at nuclear weapons cleanup sites, at this facility and these facilities.

There is $14 million for the Defense Facilities Closure Projects, the program at DOE, to enhance the safeguard and security of these sites nationwide.

The amendment also provides $25 million for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center in New Mexico and $25 million for the National Energy Laboratory to conduct critical infrastructure assessments at critical energy supply facilities nationwide.

The funds provided in the Byrd amendment for nuclear safety are critical for ensuring the safety of the American people in the post-9/ 11 era. I don't expect the White House to take my word for it. They should, however, listen to their own Department of Energy. I did, and the nuclear safety language in the Byrd amendment reflects what we were told, what they said was needed.

We also have some new information that has come out. We have a report that has been done, and we know there are some Nuclear Regulatory Commission employees who worry that safety training requirements for the nuclear facilities are outdated and ``leave the security of the nuclear sites . . . vulnerable to sabotage.''

Should we not go forward with this work? Yes, we should. It is extremely important that we provide this money. If there were ever an emergency need in the history of this country, it would be to take care of the nuclear facilities.

They have inadequate security guards. One security company is working at one facility and another, which has the lowest bid, at another facility. It simply is not the way to do business.

All over America we have 101 nuclear powerplants. There are workers who are questioning the safety of these facilities. A recent survey commissioned by the NRC found that a third of its employees question the agency's commitment to safety, and almost one-half say they are afraid to speak up at the NRC. Employees who are designated to protect these plants from terrorists and others are afraid to speak up for fear they will get fired or their jobs will be changed or they will be transferred.

According to the survey conducted by an outside firm, these people complained that the NRC is influenced by the nuclear industry and that its regulatory powers have atrophied. The poll was based on surveys completed by one-half of the agency's employees. The most dramatic findings came up when pollsters sorted responders by rank. Although almost 90 percent of the agency's executive-level employees answered favorably on the questions regarding the Commissions's commitment to safety, less than two-thirds of those in the midlevel ranks answered that they were afraid.

The study said those differences point to the political influence of the nuclear industry. NRC officials declined comment.

We should be very concerned about workers at the NRC who are afraid to come forward and say: We do not have proper safety standards, and we are afraid to come forward and tell our own bosses what is wrong. Why? Because they are so driven by the nuclear power industry.

It has been nearly a year since the President warned us in his last State of the Union Address how vulnerable our nuclear facilities are. But the NRC has still not taken any clear steps to secure the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear powerplants. That is not acceptable.

We know the inspector general of the NRC paints a very bleak picture of their safety and security. A few days ago, the NRC's inspector general released a survey of the employees. I have talked about that to some extent.

This amendment is a very important amendment if we are concerned--I know everyone is concerned--about the safety and security of our nuclear-generating facilities.

Senator Byrd is to be commended for asking us to support him in making sure that we have adequate resources to protect our nuclear facilities.

I repeat what I said earlier when I talked about some of the things that the Department of Energy has said is so important. If we ignore them, and if the administration ignores them, it is simply not right.

This money enhances the safety and security of nuclear and other materials. It will enhance security during the transport of nuclear weapons and materials. There is money for construction and renovation activities of the National Center for Combating Terrorism; for increased safeguards and security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex. Funding is provided for explosive detection equipment, protective force support, hardened perimeter barriers, consolidation of special nuclear materials, and complex-wide security improvements.

I see the Senator from Washington is on the floor. There is $56 million, as I have mentioned, for the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program to enhance safeguards and security at nuclear and weapons cleanup sites, such as the one at Hanford in Washington. I would place it throughout our complex.

There is money for the Defense Facilities Closure Projects Program to enhance safeguards and security at these sites. This is important. If we pass the Byrd amendment for no other reason--and there are lots of other reasons to talk about--money is provided in my subcommittee of appropriations for making our nuclear weapons facilities throughout the country and our nuclear powerplants throughout our country safe and secure. They are not safe and secure now. That should be of concern for every American.

Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, I was listening intently. But when does the leader think he would bring this resolution up, if we can't work something out?

Mr. President, my only suggestion to the leader would be that I think it would be in the best interests of all if we at least waited until the party caucuses so our leader and the majority leader could explain to their folks what the end might be. But we will await the decision of the leader. I will report to Senator Daschle momentarily.

Mr. President, certainly we understand the difficulty in organizing. When the majority changed a year and half or 2 years ago, it took us 6 weeks to work this out. I certainly hope it doesn't take that long this time.

I also say both Senator Daschle and I yesterday indicated we agree with you that if we cannot complete our business this week, we should stay in next week. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Senator Byrd need to finish these bills, and they cannot do that if we are not in session.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request while the majority leader is on the floor?

I put us into a quorum call. I ask unanimous consent that during this morning business time that we have, the quorum calls be equally divided between both sides and not be charged against the party who asks for it.

It is my understanding the Senator from Alabama wishes to speak. Is that right?

Following the Senator from Illinois. And then following that, the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak for how long?

And then the Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak for how long?

I ask the Chair, do the Democrats, with our allotment of time, have that much time?

I ask unanimous consent, then, that the Senator from Alabama be recognized following the statement of the Senator from Illinois; then the Senator from Vermont be recognized for 5 minutes; then the Senator from Minnesota for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the time allocation? The Democrats were allotted equal time with the Republicans. What is the time remaining?

I am happy to agree to that. Forty minutes takes us until 12:30, when the time is up.

What I ask is that the time be extended past 12:30 for the Democrats by the 5 or 6 minutes, if that is what the Senator wants.

I have no objection to that. I only ask the time from 12:30 to whatever time the Senator takes, 7 minutes or whatever it is, be given to the Democrats so that would be until approximately 12:40.

Mr. President, the minority has until 12:40; is that correct?

First of all, I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about the organizing resolution. I think we should follow the Durbin plan of government, which he enunciated here today--the golden rule: Do unto others. We are willing to take what we were given last time by the Republicans. And the Senate has changed; last year at this time, there were 51 Democrats; now there are 49. Today, there are 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. We can take the same thing that we were given. That is what this debate is all about.

There were four boys in our family, and my wife and I had four children. We have kind of followed a tradition that I am sure is in a lot of families with boys. When you wrestle and do other things, one of the rules I had with my brothers and my children is, if there is a little too much wrestling, or maybe you are putting on a little too much pressure, let him cry uncle on it; then you stop.

I think the time has come with this, as reported in a number of accounts yesterday, bizarre, foolish, crazy tax plan the President has given us. I think it is time that he cry uncle because it simply won't work. Even people from his own party--U.S. Senators--are saying enough. I think what they are saying in so many words is: Please cry uncle, Mr. President.

You can look at what some journalists have had to say. David Broder said, among other things:

The dividend tax would likely deepen the growing budget

deficits. The first round of Bush tax cuts will cost more

than $1.3 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years.

Kevin Phillips said, among other things:

The congressional leadership and the White House are so

wedded to an economic policy keyed to helping those at the

top that they lined up behind what is really a program to

make stock dividends into a 10-year, $300 billion individual

income tax shelter. This isn't just trickle down economics.

The benefits to the rest of the economy, even to the stock

market, are so conjectural that trickle down looks to become

misting down.

That is by Kevin Phillips, a Republican.

All we need to do is look in the Washington Post, which has run a story by a man by the name of Allan Sloan, a Newsweek Wall Street reporter. He writes for Newsweek. The Washington Post ran this story. Among other things, he says there are too many leaps of faith in the Bush tax cut plan. He says that the debate is focused largely on the question of fairness and affordability.

I ask unanimous consent that the full column of Allan Sloan be printed in the Record.

He says, among other things:

Letting corporations deduct interest payments but not

dividend payments has skewed balance sheets toward debt.

That's bad. But the way to fix it is to let corporations

deduct dividends the way they deduct interest. That idea

``had a short shelf life,'' a Treasury tax techie said last

week, because it's much more costly than Bush's plan.

Last paragraph:

The idea that cutting dividend taxes will save us should

have a short shelf life, too. This is beyond voodoo economics

[which was a term President Bush number 1 used in the

campaign against President Reagan]. This is beyond voodoo

economics. It's just a mistake. Call it booboo economics.

Mr. President, the economic tax plan the President has given us is bad. It is something that is doomed to failure. If it passes, it will wreak havoc in this country. I hope that people of good will, Democrats and Republicans, will prevail upon the President to have him cry uncle and come forward with a reasonable proposal.

Yes.

I say to my friend from California that there are some at 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue who have tried to place upon the Democratic Senate that we are creating class warfare. My response to that is, we have not created class warfare; they have.

I know the Senator from the State of California represents approximately 35 million people--35 million people. The Senator from California has had wide-ranging support over the years from poor, middle class, and the Senator from California received lots of support from very wealthy people. We are not opposed to rich people. They are good for the country. But Senator Harkin and I were here on the floor yesterday, and both of us, from the State of Iowa and Nevada--and I would like to hear from the three Senators on the floor--with New York not being here and Texas not being here, the most populous States in the Nation--Florida, Illinois, and California. I would like to know if you have had a ground swell of calls, people calling you who are rich saying please do this; it is good for the country.

I say to my friend from California, for Michael Eisner--and I know him-- this tax boondoggle would give him an extra $2.6 million every year. Michael Eisner does not need that tax break. Michael Eisner does not want that. I say to my friend, is there anyone who has received phone calls from rich people saying: Please take away this dividend? No, they would rather, as the Senator from California said, that the money be spent on making us more secure in the form of better educated children, better protected citizens in our hometowns. The Senator from California is right on target.

I will be happy to yield.

If I can respond to the Senator from Illinois. Senator Harkin has done a wonderful job working with Senator Specter on the appropriations subcommittee dealing with Health and Human Services, Labor-HHS, and he has done a lot for making sure we have money for school construction. We do not have nearly what we need. A little bit helps.

The unfunded school construction in this country today, as we speak, is $189 billion. The average school in America is 45 years old. A lot of places, Florida and Nevada especially, have rapid growth and need to build new schools, and school districts are at the limit of what they can do with floating bonds.

The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. I was in the Chamber when the Senator from Illinois said schools are cutting back to 4-day weeks. When we are fighting to keep up with the demand of modern education, we are cutting back a day of these young kids' lives. I think it is just awful.

I so much appreciate the Senator from Illinois bringing to our attention that we have to take care of priorities. Where are these tax cuts coming from? It is not as if there is a big building someplace down at 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue where they can go in and start hauling out wheelbarrows of money.

Absolutely.

To Michael Eisner, who does not want a tax cut--he has not told me that, but he does not need it. That money is going to Michael Eisner, and children in America are going to school 4 days a week. Not fair.

I yield the floor.

If I could ask my friend from Michigan to withhold. The majority leader is on the floor with important business.

I have no objection to morning business being closed.

On behalf of the minority leader, and I spoke to him just before coming out here, the Democratic leader and I have spoken. He feels, as does the majority leader, that we need to try to move this organizing resolution along, and both leaders have worked and assigned staff to work on it. It is moving along. We hope it can be accomplished very quickly. We are both going to go now to our weekly party conferences and this will be discussed at length with other important matters before the Senate.

I, on behalf of the Democratic Senate, understand the frustration of the majority leader. We had the same problem a year and a half or so ago. It took a while to resolve that almost 6 weeks. I certainly hope this does not take that long. I appreciate the manner and tone

that the resolution is offered. Of course, it is fully debatable. We hope it does not have to be fully debated.

It is my understanding now that morning business is closed and the Senate will recess, is that right?

Mr. President, I want to, before the Senator leaves, quote the Senator, make a couple comments, and maybe have the Senator respond to a question. Would that be permissible to the Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma and I have had the good fortune, at least from my perspective, of working together on a number of items while we have served together in the Senate. We had served together on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee for a number of years. I think we did some good things for the institutions, both the Senate and the House. I enjoyed and have appreciated working with him. We also worked on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and, I think, did some good things for the country.

So the only reason I say this is that I have great respect and admiration for the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma. I have very rarely known him to speak anything that was not factual, but I would like to just bring one thing to the Senator's attention today that really was not factual.

This is not a direct quote but pretty close: Within a couple of days after an election there's always been a reorganization to take place-- words to that effect. My friend said he was embarrassed because there has not been one that has followed this tradition during the 108th Congress.

I say to my friend, I know you have a good memory, so this must be something that you forgot, because during the 107th Congress, when we became the majority party, it took us 6 weeks to organize.

Now, I do not think that Senator Frist----

I am happy to yield.

The year 2001.

Six weeks after Senator Jeffords changed parties.

I don't really know that. We had a lot of negotiations because it was a very unique situation. We had 50-50, of which the only time that happened previously, that I am aware of, was in 1880.

From the time he switched to the time we, in effect, were able to go forward on the basis of the new majority, it took 6 weeks.

I am happy to.

If the Senator will withhold for a moment, I would like to respond to the statements made by the Senator from Oklahoma.

First of all, I agree; I think it would be tremendous if we could have this reorganization resolution passed 20 minutes from now. But it is more than chairmen appointing members to committees. I think turnabout is fair play. As Senator Durbin said, the golden rule should apply here, and that is that we have the same status as when the Senate was 51-49 Democrats. It is now 51-49 Republicans. We will take the deal that we gave them, the same deal. We want the same makeup as when we were 51.

I agree that we should do something about appropriations bills. I agree that we should not have Presidential campaigns as long as they are. But the issue before the Senate is not that. The issue is, why can't we have the same rules that were in effect 3 months ago in effect today? Simply because the roles are reversed and we have a new majority, that doesn't mean the new minority has to take a lot less.

I yield to my friend from Maryland.

The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. This matter

could be resolved, as I indicated a few minutes ago, in 10 minutes. The only thing we want is the same rule that applied when the Senate was 51-49 Democrats.

Mr. President, I respond to my friend because here is what they have done. They have a resolution before the Senate now that says what we want to do is appoint chairmen and members of the committees and we will leave the rest to further negotiations.

The Senator from Maryland is much more experienced than I. But the Senator from Maryland and I both know that if the chairmen and members are placed on the committees, this is all over with and the committees will wind up with far less resources and the ranking members will not be treated as we treated theirs. It will be a totally different ball game. We want to have the same ball game and the same rules as were applied when we were in the majority. That seems fair.

I will also interrupt and say this to my friend: One of the reasons this is going on--and we kind of beat around the bush and dance around it--the majority had a really serious problem after the election; that is, they were having trouble finding out who was going to be the Republican leader. Prior to Senator Lott stepping down, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott had a number of communications and conversations and meetings as to how they would proceed. That took weeks and weeks after Senator Lott gave the speech we all know about now, and just recently they chose a new leader. It has put us behind. It is not our fault.

All we want is to be treated exactly the same--not one iota differently--as we treated them; that is, let's use the last 18 months during the 107th Congress as the model for how we should be treated today.

I am happy to yield to the Senator without losing my right to the floor.

In a matter of minutes. The resolution before the body today makes the appointments for Republican members of the committees. That is all it does. It doesn't take into consideration all the other things that make this complicated body function, which is through the committee system. As anybody reading the basic text of how the Senate works knows, we operate through the committee system. We are not a committee of the whole. We work through committees.

We have tried to establish fairness in the distribution of resources and certainly membership on the committees. When there is such a close division between the majority and minority, one of which was caused by the death of Senator Paul Wellstone--he was killed, unfortunately--as a result of the very closeness of the Senate, 51 to 49, which it was just last year, why shouldn't we have the same rules dealing with committees now as we did then? That is the whole point.

I am happy to yield to my friend. I have the floor.

Mr. President, I will be happy to give him the floor.

I yield the floor.

Should or should not?

The Senator is absolutely factually correct.

I further say to my friend from Maryland that my friend from Oklahoma talks about blue slips. We just attended almost a 2-hour conference and there was no decision made that this would be part of the organizing resolution. There is an issue going on about leadership space, but that has nothing to do with this organizational resolution.

So in answer to my friend, all this stuff about blue slips and space has nothing to do with the organizational resolution. All we want is to be treated the same way we treated the minority when we were in the majority--simple, direct, factual.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator from Maryland raises a most important issue. When I speak to townhall meetings and especially when I speak to government classes--high school, even elementary school, and college classes--whenever I am asked about the Constitution, I always say what my friend from Maryland said--that the Constitution was not written to protect the majority; the Constitution of the United States was written to protect the minority. The majority can always protect itself. Rules, regulations, and laws that flow from this little document are so devised to protect the minority, and that is what this is all about.

That is why I felt so at ease during the last Congress--because we protected the minority; we did not run over the minority. In fact, their resources were allocated almost identically to what ours were because the Senate was divided 51 to 49. As the Senator from Maryland has said several times today, that is all we want. We want to make sure that the resources are allocated just like they were in the last Congress.

Ten or 15 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I can remember when I was in the House of Representatives, the legendary Mo Udall came to a meeting. He was chairman of the Franking Commission. There was a big dispute as to a franking issue. Members of the House paraded in and it went on for a long period of time. Mo Udall, in only the way he could do it, kind of--how would you describe how he walked? It was kind of a saunter-- sauntered in and took his place as chairman of this committee. He said:

Everything has been said, but not everybody has said it.

So he proceeded to say the same thing that everybody else had said. I have been here for 2 days and the same thing has been said over and over again by the majority, the Republicans, and the same thing has been said over and over again by the minority, the Democrats. But as Mo Udall would say, it hasn't been said today as many times as perhaps it should.

I repeat, what the minority wants is to be treated exactly as we treated the minority during the last Congress.

My friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky, has brought to our attention again what one Democratic aide said. I talked about this previously, but I will say it again because not everyone has heard it, I guess, and if they have, they can listen again. One Democratic aide said:

If we pick up a seat or two, I think we'd go back to one-

third/two-thirds.

First, this is a Democratic aide, whoever that is. But if we are going to take Roll Call for gospel, then what I suggest is the whole article be looked at. In this article in Roll Call, a GOP leadership aide said:

It will be a serious fight. It will be a series of knock-

down drag-out talks that last a long, long time.

Remember, he is commenting on changing the committee ratio. A senior GOP leadership aide said:

It will be a serious fight. It will be a series of knock-

down drag-out talks that last a long, long time.

Finally, this same--or it could be a different GOP leadership aide, I do not know; it might be the same one--said:

There is no way we will countenance that or stand for that.

He said of the Democratic aide's comment about shifting parties.

I will be happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Yes, I say to my friend. Revisionist history is a very good way of projecting what has been said on the other side--revisionist history. The fact is, I say to my friend from North Dakota, who, I am sure, realizes this, when Senator Jeffords announced he was going to move from the Republican Party, it was about 6 weeks from the time he announced that to the time the actual change took place; that is, the reorganizing resolution.

Technically, the Senator from North Dakota is right. Senator Daschle became majority leader on June 6, 2001. The organizing resolution was adopted on June 29, 2001. So that is a period of over 3 weeks. But the actual time period is 6 weeks. Let's take those 3-plus weeks we waited around.

Responding to my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest respect--and he is a fine lawyer, but sometimes lawyers make tones and arguments that are not as factual as they appear--he said 70 days they have been waiting; something should have been done during that period of time.

I said it earlier and I will say it again. It is not Senator Daschle's fault that he was not negotiating earlier. It was the fault of the Republicans because they could not determine who was going to be their leader. Senator Daschle had some early meetings with Senator Lott right after the election, but those meetings were for nought because they got a new leader a few days ago, and Senator Daschle has been doing his very best to project a very simple message. That is, if the Senate was divided 51-49 with the Democrats controlling and the Republicans in the minority and there is a shift in power where the Republicans control and the Democrats are in the minority, let's have the same rules. It is simple: Let's have the same rules.

There have been people who have come to the Chamber and said: Why would they argue over space? As we know, there are a number of issues the two leaders have to work out. They have to work out the funding, and they have to work out making sure that is fair, as it was last time, and the space is basically the same as it was last time. It has nothing to do with blue slips or yellow slips or green slips. There is another issue around here dealing with leadership space. It has nothing to do with that.

It has everything to do with we, the minority, want to be treated just as the Republicans when they were in the minority. I am from Nevada. I think we have a lot of common sense in Nevada. Some people may not agree with some of the things we do or do not do. My friend from North Dakota and I have had a number of good laughs about the

differences between Nevada and North Dakota, but the fact is common sense prevails in Nevada, and common sense dictates to me that if you have the exact same makeup of the Senate--100 Senators--but the majority has changed, two Senate seats have changed and now instead of 51-49 Democrats, it is 51-49 Republicans, why shouldn't the same rules apply?

That is my answer to my friend from North Dakota. Simple, factual; it is play by the same rules that we had during the last Congress.

I will be happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

One hundred and one thousand.

Let me respond to my friend. When I was a young boy, I could not run very fast. I was never fast afoot. So I participated in games where it did not matter how fast you could run. I loved tug of war because I was as good as anybody. I would dig in my heels and it would take a lot to move me.

I want everyone within the sound of my voice to know my heels are dug in. The Democratic caucus' heels are dug in. We will win this tug of war. They can put us to the test and have a series of votes to see if we can proceed. They can have all the votes they want on the motion to invoke cloture, but we are not going to bend. The Democrats in the Senate are dug in and we are not going to bend.

The resolution of this is going to be the same as it was in the last Congress because that was fair. We were fair to the Republicans and we expect them to be fair to us. If they want to get to the issues my friend from Arizona brought up--Iraq, Medicare reform, prescription drugs--let them do it. They can do it 15 minutes from now. Organize the way we organized; otherwise, they can wait because they are holding it up; we are not.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my friend from New Hampshire said some nice things about me that I am grateful for because the feelings are certainly mutual. I have great admiration and respect for his public service. I don't know what he did before he came to the House of Representatives, but he served there representing his State admirably. He left the House and became Governor of the State and then came to the Senate. That is a great public service career. I am surprised I have heard him talk more the last day or so. He is not one who spends a lot of time on the floor. When he does speak, I always listen because he is very direct and does not beat around the bush. I have not only great respect for what he has accomplished but also his style as a legislator.

Having said that, however, this is not undermining the election. Regarding the chairmanships, we do not dispute who should be chairman. No one disputes that. Senator Sarbanes said that today. We recognize we are now in a minority, 51-49, just like the Republicans were in a minority a few months ago. What are we talking about? They say all this resolution does is allow us to be a chairman and appoint members of the committee. That is the problem. That is all it does.

We could settle this matter, as I told Senator Sarbanes, in less than 15 minutes if, in addition to changing the chairmen and appointing the members of the committee, there would be an agreement the staff would remain as it was last year. That is, whatever the minority had last year, we would still have, and that the same space the minority had, the committee staff we are talking about, would be the same as it was last year--simple as that.

Now, assume that I am wrong: Illogical, unreasonable, not factual. Say that I am wrong. It seems to me what would happen if the majority would go along with the rules we had last time, the chairmanships would take place immediately, the members of the committees would be appointed immediately, and the only thing they would have some concern about--because we agree with that--is they gave us too much space and they gave us too much of the financial resources to the committees.

I heard Senator Nickles, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, who I also am very fond of, earlier today state this has nothing to do with committee resources. Well, if it doesn't, what are we arguing about? We agree they should be chairmen. We agree they should be able to appoint the committees. Why not go one step further and keep the same resources--because Senator Nickles said this battle was not about resources--the same resources as we had last year.

I might be having trouble comprehending, but like a lot of people here I think I understand the procedures of the Senate. I understand the resolution directed and dictated what we did last time. Why not do the same thing? What is wrong with that? If the matters before the country are important--and I recognize they are; I realize we have problems, as the Senator from Arizona talked about--we need to have some discussion about Iraq, and we need to have a discussion about health care delivery in this country--the committees should be functioning better than they are.

The committees, instead of having a total of 89 Members, should have 100 Members. Let's go to work and do that. That is all we are asking. We are not asking for any advantage. We are only asking we be treated the way the Republicans were treated when we were the majority.

If the matters to come before the country are that important, the majority party, the party that controls the House, the White House, what in the world do they fear from having the same committee structure as we had last time with the same resources allocated? What is there to fear? If there were ever the ability to exercise authority and power in the United States, it is from the White House, which is Republican, from a Senate that is Republican, and from the House of Representatives that is Republican.

That is why we believe we are not being treated fairly, and the resolution

before this body is inadequate and incomplete. Until it is adequate and complete, we are going to hang in for the same rule that applied during the 107th Congress.

I will change the subject. Mr. President, I just received a news flash from my office--not a pleasant one. K-Mart is going to close three Nevada stores, including one on Rainbow Boulevard in Las Vegas, one in Reno, and one in Carson City.

I agree with my friend from Arizona; we should be talking about the economy. That is one thing he failed to mention, but I think we should be talking about that as an important issue. The economy is in trouble. We talked about that earlier today.

I was struck by the New York Times today which had an article written by Edmond Andrews: ``O'Neill Expresses Doubts About the Tax Cut.'' Who is O'Neill? This is Paul H. O'Neill, who was Secretary of the Treasury in this administration until he decided he did not like what was happening with the tax policies of this country. And for lack of a better word, he was dumped, unceremoniously expelled from the administration.

Now, he is a gentleman, and he is determined not to be too blatant in his criticism of the White House. But in the process of not being too critical, let me emphasize a few things that he said. The President's plan for stock dividends is something I would not have done. O'Neill has also talked about his discomfort with the sweeping tax cuts. He talked about these before his departure. And, of course, reading between the lines, I am sure that is one of the reasons for his departure.

He told a group of executives at a public meeting in the United States Chamber of Commerce he would select, carefully, tax breaks that might help the segments of the industry having the most trouble.

Mr. O'Neill said during his confirmation hearing in 2001 that he was skeptical about the wisdom of big tax cuts.

He said he was bitter about what was going on here in Washington. And I quote:

It's all about sound bites, deluding the people, pandering

to the lowest common denominator. Real leadership requires

you to stick your neck out and have a point of view.

As has been discussed here on the floor, the proposal to stimulate the economy that has been propounded by this administration is, using the words of some, bizarre, crazy. So I think it is important the President reexamine this proposal that would give huge amounts of money to rich people like him, like the Vice President, like Michael Eisner, the head of Disney. I was told here on the floor yesterday that he will get $2.6 million extra money each year. That is not going to stimulate the economy. But I guess if I had my druthers, it would be I would not be spending so much time here on the floor and we would be getting to the business that should be before the Senate; that is, doing the appropriations bills, the 11 that were undone, bringing some of the nominations the President has told us last Wednesday at the White House he would like to have quickly.

I wish I were not here doing the things I have done in the last couple of days and we had gone about the business of the Senate. We cannot do that until this organizing resolution passes. I hope we can do that. Then we can talk about the things the Senate should be doing, rather than doing the work some refer to as kind of inside politics, inside the beltway.

Mr. President, is my friend from Kansas going to speak soon?

Will the majority leader yield?

I say, through the Presiding Officer, to the majority leader, there have been a lot of speeches on the floor today. People said what they said. I think everything has been said, but not quite everyone has said it.

I feel good about the progress that has been made. However, I say to the majority leader, you and Senator Daschle are really close to being able to work something out. This is where it really gets hard. This is where you and Senator Daschle really have to show your leadership. I am confident that will happen. It would be good for the institution if we could get this done. We could move on, as the leader knows, to the appropriations bills which need to be done.

In spite of the threatening nature of the speeches on both sides today, tomorrow will be a better day. I am hopeful and very confident, and so is Senator Daschle, that we can work this out. I express to the majority leader my wishes for a productive final half yard to the goal line.