Floor Statements

Mr. President, in regard to the organizing resolution, the two leaders thought we had about had it done on Friday, but I guess there has been a little bit of slippage on that. The two leaders have met today, and I hope, as my distinguished friend, the Senator from Kentucky, has mentioned, they can work this thing out quickly.

Speaking for only me personally, I hope what we can do is basically what we did last year: Have it the same as it was when it was 51 to 49 the other way. That seems to be the fair thing to do, and I hope we can work that out.

We have made progress on another issue that has been very important to the majority whip and to me, and that is the office space. I think we have been trying to work it out and have the leadership sign off on that. Hopefully, that can be arranged very quickly, which will be good for the majority whip and me at least.

Did the Chair announce morning business? I did not hear the Chair announce it.

If I may be recognized, if my friend would withhold the quorum call.

Mr. President, I wish to comment on an issue that I think is so important. In reading the Hill publication Roll Call, I think it speaks volumes to look at page 13. I see the distinguished Democratic leader coming in, and I am sure he would agree with that.

On this page, it indicates why, from the time he and I came to the Senate, things have changed for the better. This is a picture of all the women in the Senate. There are 3 Republicans and I think 9 or 10 Democrats. It is really a tremendously important picture.

I recall last year when the military construction appropriations bill came to the floor. That committee was chaired by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the ranking member was the Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison. That says it all.

I think this is a better place and we are a better country for having these women in the Senate.

Then I show to my distinguished friend, the Democratic leader, on this same page there is a picture of the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. I think that is really tremendous, and we should think every day about what a better place this is because of the women who have been elected to the House and Senate.

Will the Senator allow me to ask a question?

The leader has made it very clear, but I want to make sure again that everyone hears the fact the Democrats simply want to have the same exact program for committees that was here last year. The only thing is the Democrats are now in the minority and Republicans are now in the majority, but the funding and the staffing and the space would be exactly the same, is that right?

If there is a problem here and the organizational efforts are not going forward, it would not be anything the Democratic leader has done? You want exactly the same situation as last year, is that right?

If I could ask the Democratic leader one other series of questions based upon what I think was his very clear speech, the Wall Street Journal, which I understand has a circulation of about 2.5 million people, came out today with something you usually don't see in the Wall Street Journal, something supporting what we think is going wrong in the country. The headline in the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Job-Market Slump Is Longest in Decades--Near-Term

Prospects for Workers Remain Grim . . .

The leader is aware that even the Wall Street Journal is painting a very bleak picture about this economy, is that true?

If I could ask one more question? The leader mentioned we were borrowing money. It is true, is it not, that when this administration took over there was a 10-year surplus, in the trillions of dollars? Whether it was $5 trillion or $6 trillion, it was trillions of dollars. In the last 2 years every penny of that is gone, and the leader is certainly aware of that, is that true?

I know how busy the Democratic leader is, but I would ask one more question. The Democratic leader is going into his 9th year being leader of this caucus. Prior to that time Senator Mitchell of Maine was leader. I can remember the Democratic leader today and myself going into a meeting with Senator Mitchell. The problem there is the Republicans were having a mad rush to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but they were going to use Social Security surpluses to offset that deficit. The Senator remembers that, does he not?

You remember at that time I agreed to sponsor an amendment to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget but not using Social Security surpluses? That worked out well enough that we were able to stop that very mischievous amendment from passing. It would have wiped out Social Security. Social Security would be gone by now.

But I say to my friend, the Democratic leader, the money that is being borrowed now is coming from Social Security. Not only that, the deficit would even be more if they didn't use Social Security surpluses to hide it, isn't that also true?

Mr. President, as the leader is leaving the floor, I wish to recognize my friend from North Dakota who after I offered that amendment was on the forefront of the next Congress making sure that we continued our efforts to beat down that mischievous constitutional amendment to balance the budget which would have used the Social Security surplus to balance the budget. I applaud my friend from North Dakota for taking that tough stand which allowed us to move forward and help us defeat one of the most dangerous efforts in the guise of balancing the budget and destroying Social Security.

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

Mr. President, hopefully we will be able to move forward on the most important matter facing the country today, in my opinion, and that is getting something done to be able to fund Government.

As the Democratic leader said earlier today, we all recognize the country is in a deep economic decline. Last month alone we lost over 101,000 jobs as reported by the Department of Labor. As we talked earlier this morning, we need only look at the article in the Wall Street Journal today which is entitled, ``Slump in Job Market Is Longest in Decades. Near-term Prospects For Workers Remain Grim.''

This is Monday. Thursday is fast approaching, and that is when people are always saying they have to catch a plane. If we cannot complete our business this week and deal with the 11 appropriations bills, we should work next week. The majority leader should tell everybody right now that they should put on hold their business for next week, that this is an important time for the country. With the economy being in the recession and no prospects in the near future of getting out of it, and the only proposal we have coming from the White House is to give more tax cuts to the rich--and from the reports in the press today part of the tax dividends would go to both the President and Vice President in the sums of hundreds of thousands of dollars if this crazy dividend scheme goes through--hopefully we would work through next week, if necessary, to deal with the problems the country faces.

There is no plan for creating jobs. It seems the only answer that comes from the administration to every problem is more tax cuts for the wealthy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I heard the Senator speaking and wanted to congratulate the Senator. I listened also to Kevin Phillips' presentation. By the way, Kevin Phillips is a Republican, not a Democrat. But he was fair in his analysis. Quite clearly, all economists that I know, unless they work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, say this tax plan is bizarre. Crazy.

The Senator is aware, is he not, that not only do we have this tax plan that is floating around, that is going to be very harmful short term and disastrous long term, the Senator is aware that the Wall Street Journal, which is also not a piece put out by the Democratic Party, said today, on page 2: ``Slump in Job Market is Longest in Decades.'' And near-term prospects for workers remain grim?

Is the Senator aware that is in the Wall Street Journal today?

This article points out, among other things, last month this economy lost over 101,000 jobs. I know this because I was on a television program with Tim Russert. He had a chart demonstrating all the Presidents of the United States going back to Truman. Every President created jobs--Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower, all of them except George W. Bush. That chart shows the only President that has not created jobs, George W. Bush, and, in fact, he has lost 2.5 million jobs.

Is the Senator aware of that?

The Senator is right. The Senator is absolutely right.

Also, this article in the Wall Street Journal has a number of graphs and charts, but one of the things that just jumped out at me is the levels of unemployment of certain segments of our economy, certain demographic segments. It just jumps out.

Teenagers, of course, a lot of them are unemployed, and they want to work. But for African-American teenagers the unemployment rate is over 33 percent. It has gone up. From last year to this year, it has gone up 3 percent. These are kids who want to work.

There are no jobs for them.

I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, I was on a talk radio program this morning in Las Vegas--conservative. One of the things I have advocated is that the Federal Government should spend money creating jobs, infrastructure. I know in Iowa there are water systems that need to be worked on, sewer systems that need to be repaired and enlarged, highways, bridges, dams that need to be worked on.

And school repairs. This is a conservative program. They brought it up.

They said: I understand you want to have jobs and spend taxpayers' money on creating jobs.

I said: Yes, I do.

They said: Wouldn't the private sector be better off creating those jobs?

I said: Wait just a second. You understand the private sector is the one that is going to be conducting the work.

It is no Government giveaway. These are projects that need to be done, roads that need to be built, dams that need to be repaired.

I think we had a good discussion on this conservative radio program. I hope I educated them and their listeners because I said, among other things, that for every $1 billion we spend, we create 42,000 or 44,000 jobs. Think about that. These are good jobs, people who are paying taxes, they are buying refrigerators and cars.

We have this backwards. We are trying to help the wrong people, to create this windfall to the very wealthy in this scheme. There is no better place to start than the President and the Vice President. Is the Senator aware that the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States would benefit significantly from this dividend scheme? In fact, between the two of them, the benefits would be over $400,000 a year.

Don't we have this backwards? Wouldn't it be better if we were creating jobs rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy?

I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, I traveled to one of Nevada's schools fairly recently, Boulder City High School. It is an old school now. It is an old high school. It is hard for me to comprehend Boulder City having an old high school, but they do. The average school in America is 45 years old. The average school-- think of that--is 45 years old. Schools need to be refurbished and rebuilt. Boulder City is kind of unusual in Clark County, in Nevada, because most of our schools there are new. We hold the record. We dedicated 18 new schools in 1 year in the Clark County School District.

So certainly the Senator is right. But I wanted to say this about the thing the Senator mentioned, and Kevin Phillips was mentioned, and he talked about class warfare. They believe the best defense is a good offense. So they have been whacking away at us since they introduced this ridiculous tax plan. They have been whacking away at us saying: They, the Democrats, are trying to create class warfare. We are not doing it. They have been doing it with their ridiculous tax plan.

I have nothing against rich people. I wish them well if they can make a lot of money and be rich. But they have created that, that the very wealthy are going to get tax benefits from this plan and the middle class and the poor get nothing.

Almost literally nothing. We are only bringing out facts and talking about the reality of this tax plan. We are not trying to create class warfare.

That is why the Wall Street Journal writes about this:

Slump in Job Market Is Longest in Decades.

We are not doing that. That is a fact of life.

This is per year. This is not over a lifetime; this is per year.

Will the Senator yield?

Last week I called someone the Senator from Iowa knows. He is a very strong businessman. I don't want to embarrass him. It was a private telephone call.

I said: Tell me what you think about this tax thing. He said: It is crazy. He would benefit from it. He said: It is crazy. There are too many things that need to be done.

I said: Would you come down and join with us and say something publicly about this? He said: I have a lot of government contracts, and I am afraid I would be punished if I did something like that.

He is not kidding. He has a lot of government contracts. The people from 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue and all people in the Cabinet have some influence over who gets contracts and how they keep them.

I would also say this is in support of and in commendation for rich people in America. I have, as does the Senator from Iowa, some rich friends. I have not had a single person from Nevada call me about this goofy scheme. I haven't had a single Nevadan call me. They know me well. If they liked this program, they would call me.

There have been other tax proposals from the White House--in the Clinton administration and in this administration--that I got calls on saying either do it or not do it. I haven't received a single call from my wealthy Nevada friends, or from wealthy Nevadans who may not be my friends, I haven't had anybody call me and say: Reid, I want you to support this. This is important to me.

I don't think they could do it with a straight face.

Could Michael Eisner support what is happening? Knowing all of the charitable things the Disney corporation is involved in, he couldn't possibly want more money for himself personally and another $2 million a year when he makes these multimillions. He knows this should go toward some of the public service things that need to be done and some of the health things that need to be done--the terrible battle we are fighting in the United States with AIDS and the like. I have to acknowledge and applaud wealthy Americans because they are not out clamoring for this to be done.

If the Senator will yield, I want to say a word, if I may, before the Senator from Rhode Island, who is the Presiding Officer, leaves the Chamber.

The junior Senator from Rhode Island I think set a mark for people on the other side of the aisle when he was the first to come out against this proposal. That is the way I heard it. I read in the paper that the Senator from Rhode Island opposes this, and as a result of his doing this, there have been several other Republican Senators who followed. Before he leaves the floor, I want to express my appreciation for the courage of the Senator from Rhode Island in coming out against this program.

I have taken so much of the Senator's time.

Mr. President, I apologize for using so much of the Senator's time.

I will say this last thing. I hope that we, the Democrats, and those courageous Republicans who oppose this don't fall for some compromise. I hope they don't come back and say: Well, we will not do away with all of that, but we will do such and such.

We have to recognize this for what it is. It is a bad program. We are broke as a country, and in the 2 years of this Bush administration they have ruined the economy. During the last 3 years of the Clinton administration we were taking in more money than we were spending.

It is remarkable. We were paying down the surplus. They have wasted the largest surplus that we were able to acquire. It is a terrible shame. I hope we don't have some cockamamie compromise where people walk out here and say: Well, it is not as bad as it could have been. We should recognize this for what it is and not compromise. We don't want it.

That is how I think we should move forward.

I only point out one thing. In the Senator's last statement, he said it was one of the largest surpluses in the history of this country. It was the largest surplus in the history of this country.

I appreciate the Senator for allowing me to interrupt. I appreciate the Senator very much for allowing me to have a few words on the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I was in my office and I listened to the distinguished Senator from Texas, the senior Senator from Texas. I agree with the Senator. I agree with what she said.

From our perspective, we realize we have lost the majority. It has gone from 51 Democrats to 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. Last year at this time there were 49 Republicans.

But our suggestion is that the exact same organizational status that was in existence for the 51-49 Democratic majority should be in effect for the 51-49 Republican majority. That is what this is all about. We believe we should be working under the same organizational standards set when the majority was held by the Democrats. You would have the same staffing that we had as Democrats, the same funding that we had as Democrats, with the exception that both sides would have cost-of living increases given to them automatically.

I hope common sense and fairness will prevail and, in short, that we will have the same organizational standards as existed last time, except you would have what we had and we would have what you had.

Will the Senator allow me to answer the question she asked?

I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Texas, in response to my friend from Kentucky, that Roll Call is not Senate precedent. Roll Call is a fine newspaper that we have here on Capitol Hill, but you always have to question when someone is quoting a ``senior Democratic aide.'' Even if, in fact, that person were speaking with some authority--which that person, of course, was not--if you listen to what the person said, it said if we Democrats pick up a seat or two--in fact, if that happened, it would not have been 49-51, it would have been 47-53. With that, I think there might have been an opportunity to look at how the distribution should take place. But the fact is the American people understand that common sense still is part of what we need to deal with here in Washington, and that is that last year the Republicans were in the minority with 49 Senators. We are now in the minority with 49 Senators. Why don't we keep the same deal we had last year? That is what Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, is pushing. That is what we Democrats want because it is fair.

I appreciate very much the Senator yielding and being as courteous as she always is.

Mr. President, I simply say in response to my friend from Texas that the hearing could have gone forward. There is no reason for the hearing not to go forward. Senator Lieberman, or someone else, would have conducted the hearing. No one I know opposes the proposed nominee for this new Cabinet office. It would have been a very quick hearing. It is not as if a hearing could not have gone forward. The majority chose not to go forward with the hearing. That is a choice they made, not a choice we made.

I further say to the Senator from Texas, or those within the sound of my voice, once you turn over the chairmanship of these committees and have the committee people assigned to the committees, we simply lose any authority we had. Fairness dictates that if the Senate was divided last time 51-49 with the Democrats in the majority and it is divided 51-49 with the Republicans in the majority, the committee structure should be the same. That is what we are saying it should be, and we are going to hang tight until it is that way. That is the way we think it should be.

Other Congresses have joined together and worked out their differences. We have to do that. The only way we will do that is if we agree on 51-49 having the same value it did a few months ago.

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

Mr. President, I know the majority leader is on the floor and I will be very brief.

A couple of times this afternoon people have talked about the 11 appropriations bills that did not pass last year, but the Record should be spread with the fact that the Senate completed its work on the appropriations bills. We reported every bill out of committee, but even before the summer hit the House closed down and would not send us any bills. So that is why the appropriations bills were not passed.

We did everything we could to try to get those bills passed and the Republicans in the House simply would send us no bills. We asked the White House, we asked the Republican leadership and they simply would not help us, so we were not to blame for the bills not passing. That was something that was

done by the Republicans in the House and in the White House.

I would just briefly say to the leader--I appreciate his courtesy in allowing me to speak--we waited 6 weeks last time. I was part of the wait. I understand how long it took. It may have been over blue slips or something else, but still the organizational resolution was held up for 6 weeks. I hope that isn't the case this time. I hope we can work it out more quickly. There has been a lot of debate on both sides. It has clearly been spread on the record of the Senate what the respective positions of both sides are.

Will the leader yield?

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished majority leader that Senator Daschle has indicated that he and the majority leader had productive meetings yesterday and that we are very close to working something out on the organizational resolution. I received a call last night from Senator Lott, the incoming chairman of the Rules Committee, when we get the organizational business done, that he is working on the space problem we have. He has indicated he thinks this can be worked out shortly also.

We hope the leader can come back to the floor later today and indicate to Senators that we have worked out something. It would be good for everyone if we can do that.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Chair will announce morning business until noon today; is that right?

Under the order, that gives us time until noon. I have two Senators on this side who wish to speak for up to 30 minutes each. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hollings, who is now in the Chamber, be recognized for 30 minutes and, of course, if there is a Republican who comes, someone from the majority in between that, that will be fine.

Of course.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hollings be recognized for 30 minutes. Following his speech, if someone on the Republican side or others wish to use up to 30 minutes, they can go, and following that, Senator Corzine would be recognized for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I may address this request, I know the majority leader was going to make a statement about what our program is on Monday. I have just left Senator Daschle's office, and it appears there is one issue to be resolved on the committee reorganization plan. I hope we can get that done. It is somewhat of a delicate issue. I spoke with the staff person that leads our Rules Committee. She has been in touch with her counterpart who is assigned with Senator Lott to work on these problems. I have spoken to Senator McConnell today, and I am hopeful and confident that we can have that done Monday. I know some of this housekeeping material is hard for those outside the Chamber to understand--why it takes so long. I tell the majority leader that we are doing the very best we can to get this worked out.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 20 minutes, and that the additional minutes be evenly divided between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. President. Today I am joined by Senators Clinton, Jeffords, Lieberman, Harkin and Edwards in introducing the Nuclear Security Act of 2003.

The tragedy of September 11 taught us many things. It taught us the vulnerability of our Nation's buildings and the strength of our nation's resolve. We also learned how important our first responders the brave men and women who arrive at the scene when there is an emergency. Finally, we are reminded that we must be prepared for today's threats because they could become tomorrow's attacks.

Last year, I introduced legislation to improve the safety of our Nation's nuclear power plants. Nearly one year has passed since the President warned us in his last State of the Union address how vulnerable these facilities are, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has still not taken any clear steps to improve the safety and security of our nation's nuclear power plants. That is not acceptable.

Recent reports by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Inspector General paint a bleak picture of the NRC's commitment to safety and security.

Just a few days ago, the Inspector General released a survey of NRC employees.

According to the Associated Press that survey found that a third of the Agency's employees question the agency's commitment to public safety and nearly half are not comfortable raising concerns about safety issues within the agency.

The survey also found that some NRC employees worry that safety training requirements for nuclear facilities are outdated and ``leave the security of the nuclear sites . . . vulnerable to sabotage.''

So today, we are reintroducing legislation to protect our nation's commercial nuclear facilities.

This legislation will fill the void that has been left by the NRC's unwillingness to challenge the industry when terrorists could.

In particular, it will: establish a task force--chaired by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC to take a comprehensive look at the security of our nuclear facilities.

Assign a new Federal security coordinator to each nuclear power plant. Each plant should have a dedicated NRC employee responsible for ensuring the appropriate coordination and communication between federal, state, and local emergency response and law enforcement agencies.

Establish a new antiterrorism team, which will provide additional support to the existing private security forces. This team will be a model for how to protect other potentially vulnerable elements of our energy infrastructure.

Require the NRC to update the threats nuclear power plants must protect against; Require the NRC to make a comprehensive review of emergency and security plans; Require the NRC to establish a new threat level system for nuclear power plants; Require the NRC to revise and update their hiring and training standards.

Establish a new, rigorous program to test nuclear facilities against realistic threats. This is the kind of training security guards are asking for.

In developing this bill, we listened to the concerns of guards and to the concerns of Americans who live and work near these facilities.

In opposing this bill, the Administration continues to listen instead to the nuclear power industry.

It is time the Administration lived up to its commitments to make our nation's nuclear power plants more secure.

It is time the Administration listens to the people who really matter, not the companies for whom only profit matters.

Mr. President. Today I am joined by Senators Clinton, Jeffords, Lieberman, Harkin and Edwards in introducing the Nuclear Security Act of 2003.

The tragedy of September 11 taught us many things. It taught us the vulnerability of our Nation's buildings and the strength of our nation's resolve. We also learned how important our first responders the brave men and women who arrive at the scene when there is an emergency. Finally, we are reminded that we must be prepared for today's threats because they could become tomorrow's attacks.

Last year, I introduced legislation to improve the safety of our Nation's nuclear power plants. Nearly one year has passed since the President warned us in his last State of the Union address how vulnerable these facilities are, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has still not taken any clear steps to improve the safety and security of our nation's nuclear power plants. That is not acceptable.

Recent reports by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Inspector General paint a bleak picture of the NRC's commitment to safety and security.

Just a few days ago, the Inspector General released a survey of NRC employees.

According to the Associated Press that survey found that a third of the Agency's employees question the agency's commitment to public safety and nearly half are not comfortable raising concerns about safety issues within the agency.

The survey also found that some NRC employees worry that safety training requirements for nuclear facilities are outdated and ``leave the security of the nuclear sites . . . vulnerable to sabotage.''

So today, we are reintroducing legislation to protect our nation's commercial nuclear facilities.

This legislation will fill the void that has been left by the NRC's unwillingness to challenge the industry when terrorists could.

In particular, it will: establish a task force--chaired by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC to take a comprehensive look at the security of our nuclear facilities.

Assign a new Federal security coordinator to each nuclear power plant. Each plant should have a dedicated NRC employee responsible for ensuring the appropriate coordination and communication between federal, state, and local emergency response and law enforcement agencies.

Establish a new antiterrorism team, which will provide additional support to the existing private security forces. This team will be a model for how to protect other potentially vulnerable elements of our energy infrastructure.

Require the NRC to update the threats nuclear power plants must protect against; Require the NRC to make a comprehensive review of emergency and security plans; Require the NRC to establish a new threat level system for nuclear power plants; Require the NRC to revise and update their hiring and training standards.

Establish a new, rigorous program to test nuclear facilities against realistic threats. This is the kind of training security guards are asking for.

In developing this bill, we listened to the concerns of guards and to the concerns of Americans who live and work near these facilities.

In opposing this bill, the Administration continues to listen instead to the nuclear power industry.

It is time the Administration lived up to its commitments to make our nation's nuclear power plants more secure.

It is time the Administration listens to the people who really matter, not the companies for whom only profit matters.