Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, following any leader remarks there will be a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

There will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. However, I hope we will be able to extend the trade adjustment assistance legislation today.

Senators should expect the next series of votes to begin at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. We hope to have as many as three votes on Monday starting at 5:30.

Madam President, saying you want to cut government spending is an easy applause line. We all want to lower the deficit. We all wish Americans had less debt sitting in the treasuries of other countries. None of us wants to leave the most difficult decisions to the next generation. They deserve better from us.

But actually figuring out what and where to cut is the hard work. That is an entirely different story. The American people do not need to hear an applause line. They need us to ease the burden on our Nation's bottom line, and there is a fine line between doing so responsibly and recklessly.

It is our job to do that hard work, to figure out what and where to cut, to do the math carefully and practically and with common sense. It is our responsibility to remember we are not just taking numbers off a ledger. In many cases, these proposals may mean taking workers off the assembly line, taking teachers out of the classroom or police officers off the street.

I want to talk about taking police officers off the street. In the Republicans' haste to make as many cuts as possible, they have proposed eliminating the COPS hiring program. COPS stands for Community Oriented Policing Services, and it has helped put thousands and thousands of police officers and sheriffs on patrol around the country, about 450 of them in Nevada.

Under the Republican plan, many could lose those jobs and many more who want to join the force will not be able to. The COPS program also helps our law enforcement departments afford the computers and communications equipment they need to do their jobs. These jobs are keeping us safe. So cutting COPS does not just put them at risk, it puts all of us at risk.

This is not the kind of investment we gain from losing. This extreme plan does nothing to grow our economy or keep us competitive. It does not make our future more secure; it makes our neighborhoods less so. We have to cut responsibly. That is not the kind of cut we have talked about, wiping out the COPS program. We cannot support that.

When we talk about cutting government waste and excess, this is what we mean, among other things. We mean eliminating handouts to oil companies that are already making record profits. We mean cutting billions in wasteful Pentagon spending to contractors such as Halliburton. It means stopping the government giveaways to companies that ship American jobs overseas. These are commonsense cuts and a good place to start the conversation.

But so far Republicans have shown no interest in meeting us halfway and have shown every intention of protecting their rich corporate friends. As this conversation continues, Democrats do not need any lectures from the other side on fiscal responsibility. Remember, we were the ones who balanced the budget during the Clinton years. We did it. We were accused of reducing the deficit too much. We were spending less money than we were taking in. Because of the work we did during the last of the Clinton administration, even President Bush, during his first year, because he got all of the largess from the Clinton administration, turned in a record budget surplus. But as soon as his policies went into effect, he changed that very quickly. In a matter of months, he turned a record surplus into a record deficit that we are fighting today.

In conclusion, any budget debate is going to be about numbers. That is the way it should be. But that is not the real priority, and those figures should not blind us to the real story behind the numbers. Our goal and our charge is not to cut billions of dollars just to say we did it. Our task is to make our government more efficient, our economy healthier, and our future more secure. Our challenge is to do so in a way that does not put our public safety at risk or break our promise to seniors.

So we need to think about what we are cutting and making sure those cuts are not counterproductive. We need to pay attention to the quality of those cuts, not just the quantity of those cuts. After all, you can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs but no doctor would recommend it.

Madam President, following leader remarks the Senate will resume consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration Authority bill. At 10:20 there will be up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided on the Nelson of Florida amendment--that is amendment No. 34--regarding

Madam President, I had a conversation last night with the Republican leader. For all Senators, we need to have amendments on this bill, the FAA bill, laid down. We all know there is a lot of feigning going on around here, a little posturing. We still have one issue left that deals with slots at airports. It is not going to be resolved. We have worked on this for years, and it will not be resolved except on the Senate floor. If it is not resolved and we do not have amendments laid down, taken care of, I will file cloture on this bill on Monday.

It is a shame. I wish I could blame the Republicans for the impasse, but it is both parties. We have people on both sides of the aisle who are trying to take advantage, as they see it, on this slot issue. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. I know the slots to individual Senators is important. But it is not important enough to hold up this bill. We have been trying for years--years--to get this bill passed. This will create or save 280,000 jobs. It will improve the safety of our air travels. It will give rights to people who are flying who do not have those rights. We have a passengers' bill of rights. It is a shame this one issue is holding up this bill.

I repeat, if we do not have this matter resolved Monday, I am filing cloture on this bill. We have to complete this legislation. Before we leave for our President's Day recess to go back to work in our States, we also have the FISA legislation that is a must. It expires. We have to take care of that before we leave. Of course, we have many other issues, but those are the two I am concerned about today. We have to pass the FAA bill, and we have to take care of the FISA legislation again.

So I would hope everyone understands that we are not going to be playing around with this slot issue for another year. This bill has to pass, and there is one way we can solve it: people offer their amendments, and we will vote on them right down here in the well.

I heard yesterday there are meetings going on to try to resolve this issue. These meetings have been going on for months and months and months, and they have held up this legislation. That is unfair. So I tell everyone, we have to move forward on this legislation, and if we do not have this issue worked out by Monday I am going to file cloture on this bill. It is a shame.

I repeat, this is a bipartisan bill. This is not something that Republicans are trying to hold up or Democrats are trying to jam through. This is a bill that Democrats and Republicans believe is for the best interests of our country.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I can call up amendments Nos. 54 and 55.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy Parsons, a NASA detailee of Senator Bill Nelson, be granted privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of S. 223, the FAA reauthorization bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 4 p.m. on Thursday, February 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes during Thursday's session of the Senate. We hope to clear the trade assistance adjustment legislation on Thursday. Senators should expect the next rollcall votes to occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. We will have more than one vote on that evening, February 14, Valentine's Day. That vote could be on a judicial nomination. We will also have some amendments to vote on on the FAA authorization bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the votes scheduled at 5:30 be as follows, and that the remainder of the consent remain in effect: Calendar No. 6 would be first; Calendar No. 3 would be second.

Mr. President, following leader remarks there be a period of morning business until 3 p.m. At 3 p.m., the Senate will resume consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration bill. There will be a short recess around 4:20 p.m. in order to welcome the Prime Minister of Slovenia to the Senate floor. At 4:30 the Senate will turn to executive session to debate concurrently three district court nominations. Those nominations are Paul Holmes of Arkansas, Diana Saldana of Texas, and Marco Hernandez of Oregon. At 5:30 there will be two rollcall votes on confirmation of the Saldana and Holmes nominations in the order that was just entered.

Mr. President, Ronald Reagan's second inauguration was the first one I attended as a Member of Congress. It was bitterly cold that day. While the temperatures sank into the single digits, Reagan became the first and only President to take the oath of office in the Capitol Rotunda.

He said in an indoor inaugural address:

History is a ribbon, always unfurling. History is a

journey. And as we continue our journey, we think of those

that traveled before us.

Yesterday would have been President Reagan's 100th birthday. Today, we think of President Reagan and how he steered America's travels through history's journey. I first met President Reagan when he was Governor of California. I was the Lieutenant Governor of Nevada. We met in Heavenly Valley, on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, to watch the first annual ``hot-dogging'' skiing championship. As I said, I first

met him and we had a wonderful visit. I enjoyed that day very much.

His own travels took him not only to Lake Tahoe in my State but through the entire State. California's Ronald Reagan was a close friend of Nevada's. In his earliest days as an actor, he entertained crowds at the Last Frontier on the Las Vegas strip. Decades later, the same week Ronald Reagan became Governor of California, Paul Laxalt became Governor next door in Nevada.

When Reagan first sought the Presidency, Laxalt managed his campaign, and when President Reagan worked down the street at the White House, Paul Laxalt worked here as Nevada's senior Senator. It was a special relationship, a unique relationship, one so close that some called Senator Laxalt the First Friend, and he was that.

I was fortunate enough to see firsthand President Reagan's appreciation for Nevada. After talking to Nevadans in Ely and across eastern Nevada, I came to the conclusion that I should drop some wilderness I was going to put in place and instead form a national park. Nevada did not have a national park, and we would call it the Great Basin National Park. After I introduced that legislation and it passed, President Reagan's Secretary of Agriculture recommended that he veto what would be Nevada's only national park. The Agriculture Secretary did not much like the idea of a young Member of Congress from the other political party putting such a bill on the President's desk.

I was worried about that. Word came to me that the President was going to veto this bill that was important to me. I asked for a meeting with his Superintendent of Parks, the National Parks Director. He had been the Superintendent of Parks for Ronald Reagan when Reagan was Governor of California. His name was Penn Mott. When he came to see me, he had been in the service of our country in many different ways. He was an elderly man when he came to see me. I explained to him what was happening and that I was told that President Reagan, upon recommendation of one of his Cabinet members, was going to veto my bill. That man looked at me and he said: President Reagan is not going to veto that bill. He said, when I was a young park ranger in 1928, Key Pittman, who was a famous Nevada Senator, very close to President Roosevelt, sent me to Nevada to find a place for a national park. He said: That is my park. I am the one who said it would go there. That is where it should go, and it never made it legislatively. But because of that meeting I had, and Ronald Reagan's understanding of what politics is all about, he did not veto my bill. He overruled his Secretary, and together, Harry Reid and Ronald Reagan created the Great Basin National Park.

It was not the last time President Reagan and I worked together to preserve our West. I introduced legislation that was important legislation. It involved two Indian tribes, two endangered species, it involved Lake Tahoe, and it involved two rivers, the Truckee and Carson Rivers--I think I mentioned the two Indian tribes--a huge wetlands that had gone from a couple of hundred thousand acres to maybe less than a thousand very putrid acres. Birds died eating and drinking there. The wetlands basically had dried up.

It was a very important piece of legislation, but I got it passed. I got it passed here. Then it went to the House and got passed. Again, President Reagan's advisers recommended he veto that bill. Part of it was because of who pushed the legislation through. But President Reagan knew how important it was to Lake Tahoe, and one of his assistants, Sig Rogich, talked to him. Sig is a long-time Nevadan, worked very closely with President Reagan and with President Bush, and he talked to him about this important legislation. It was not vetoed. He signed this bill in spite of people recommending that this not be signed.

President Reagan's help in ending this water war meant a lot to me because he knew that when Americans are all in this together, even local issues, even statewide issues, are all of our concern. I remember how he signed my bill to establish this park because his view of that national park embodied his vision of the Nation.

He never looked at the legislation as a map of red States and blue States and purple States but as a landscape of States colored by green forests and brown deserts and clear waters.

My legislation, entitled the Negotiated Settlement, has changed that part of the country. Lake Tahoe is better off. The Indian tribes are better off. We preserved a lake, Lake Pyramid. It was landmark legislation. It could not have been done without his signature.

He knew when the Sun breached the horizon each day, the morning that dawned in America was a morning for all Americans and for families of all backgrounds. He said in that second inaugural address, ``we have worked and acted together, not as members of political parties, but as Americans.''

Ronald Reagan was a Republican President from the West, who cherished a famously close friendship with Tip O'Neill, a Democratic Speaker of the House from the East. Ronald Reagan was a patriot who created a friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of a nation he called an Evil Empire. He would make certain America could defend herself but quietly sent a diplomatic team to start negotiating with the Soviet Union the minute he took office.

Ronald Reagan knew politics has always been and always will be about compromise, and that compromise can only happen when politicians share personal relationships. He knew public servants worked better as partners rather than partisans. And as much as he criticized government, he knew it was not a faceless machine. He appreciated that government exists, as Lincoln said, of, for, and by the people.

That is why he was more beholden to simple pragmatism than stubborn principle. That is why he, a staunch conservative, raised taxes 11 times when the economy needed revenue. It is why he viewed the challenge of immigration through a practical lens. It is why he knew America could be strong and would be stronger still in a world without nuclear weapons.

He was not perfect. I did not agree with many of his politics or policies. But I always admired the way he captured our country's imagination. I always respected his honest assessment of his strengths and limitations alike. He was somebody who could look at himself and we would all smile a little bit.

One time he was running for Governor of California and someone asked him: Do you think you will be a good Governor? He said: I do not know. I have never acted the part.

That is who he was. He honestly assessed who he was, his strengths and limitations, and I admired the way he humbly surrounded himself with good, smart people.

A century after his birth Ronald Reagan's legacy remains as enduring as anyone who has ever unfurled the long ribbon of our Nation's history. That legacy lives not merely in his policies, and to honor it, it is not enough to try to apply his solutions of 30 years ago to the problems we confront today; rather, we should remember how he respected his colleagues and his constituents. We should try to emulate the confidence he communicated.

Ronald Reagan was a proud neighbor of Nevada, who united and motivated us by reminding us that all Americans live in the same neighborhood. That is a lesson I still remember today. That is a lesson I remember best about our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.

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