Floor Statements

Madam President, it is my understanding that S. 570 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Madam President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to say that we are closing the book on our Nation's failed nuclear waste policy. After decades of fighting the Yucca Mountain project, I can say with confidence that Nevada will not serve as the Nation's nuclear waste dump.

Nevadans and all Americans will be safer and more secure thanks to President Obama's commitment to finding scientifically sound and responsible solutions to dealing with nuclear waste.

I am proud to say that I have been working on a new volume in this terribly difficult debate. Bad policy like the Yucca Mountain project is easy to oppose. But it is not always easy to craft better policy.

That is what I am doing with Senator Ensign today--working to replace our failed approach to dealing with nuclear waste with a much better policy. We are unveiling our plan to form a congressional commission to evaluate and make recommendations on alternative approaches to managing nuclear waste.

This is a step that is way past due.

I began opposing the idea of dumping nuclear waste in Nevada when it was first proposed in the early 1980s. I was still a member of the House then, and I continued this fight in the Senate with most Nevadans firmly behind my efforts to kill the project. I have fought against the Yucca Mountain project vigorously, but from the very beginning I was also calling for long-range planning on nuclear waste because it was the right thing to do.

I continued calling for researching alternatives to Yucca in 1995 when I introduced legislation with my close friend and colleague, Senator Dick Bryan, to establish a commission on nuclear waste. Unfortunately, Congress did not listen, even though evidence was piling up showing that Yucca Mountain could become a death trap for Nevadans.

The Government's decades-long focus on Yucca Mountain has left us barren with very few good proposals for dealing with nuclear waste. Now that President Obama and Secretary Chu have taken Yucca Mountain off the table, we need to begin looking closely at new ideas. We should even dust off some older ones that have been ignored for far too long.

The legislation we are introducing today forms a temporary commission to review and make recommendations on a wide variety of alternatives to Yucca.

The commission will look at everything from at-reactor dry cask storage to reprocessing. The commission will consider having the Federal Government take title to nuclear waste, but will also consider chartering a Federal corporation to manage nuclear waste.

Very importantly, the commission will consider the security of temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste so we can give assurances to communities near nuclear power plants that their safety will not be compromised.

The cosponsors of this legislation do not all share the same views about nuclear power and we do not share the same views about nuclear waste. For example, I have long said that nuclear waste needs to remain on site where it is produced until the Government has a safe and scientifically sound solution. Others would like to reprocess and

reuse nuclear waste in nuclear reactors. Many still feel that some form of permanent disposal is a good solution.

But forming a commission is something the bill's sponsors and others agree upon because it will create a process that will help our Nation take a critical step away from the failed Yucca Mountain policy.

I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues to make sure we take responsible actions necessary to begin addressing nuclear waste.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to say that we are closing the book on our Nation's failed nuclear waste policy. After decades of fighting the Yucca Mountain project, I can say with confidence that Nevada will not serve as the Nation's nuclear waste dump.

Nevadans and all Americans will be safer and more secure thanks to President Obama's commitment to finding scientifically sound and responsible solutions to dealing with nuclear waste.

I am proud to say that I have been working on a new volume in this terribly difficult debate. Bad policy like the Yucca Mountain project is easy to oppose. But it is not always easy to craft better policy.

That is what I am doing with Senator Ensign today--working to replace our failed approach to dealing with nuclear waste with a much better policy. We are unveiling our plan to form a congressional commission to evaluate and make recommendations on alternative approaches to managing nuclear waste.

This is a step that is way past due.

I began opposing the idea of dumping nuclear waste in Nevada when it was first proposed in the early 1980s. I was still a member of the House then, and I continued this fight in the Senate with most Nevadans firmly behind my efforts to kill the project. I have fought against the Yucca Mountain project vigorously, but from the very beginning I was also calling for long-range planning on nuclear waste because it was the right thing to do.

I continued calling for researching alternatives to Yucca in 1995 when I introduced legislation with my close friend and colleague, Senator Dick Bryan, to establish a commission on nuclear waste. Unfortunately, Congress did not listen, even though evidence was piling up showing that Yucca Mountain could become a death trap for Nevadans.

The Government's decades-long focus on Yucca Mountain has left us barren with very few good proposals for dealing with nuclear waste. Now that President Obama and Secretary Chu have taken Yucca Mountain off the table, we need to begin looking closely at new ideas. We should even dust off some older ones that have been ignored for far too long.

The legislation we are introducing today forms a temporary commission to review and make recommendations on a wide variety of alternatives to Yucca.

The commission will look at everything from at-reactor dry cask storage to reprocessing. The commission will consider having the Federal Government take title to nuclear waste, but will also consider chartering a Federal corporation to manage nuclear waste.

Very importantly, the commission will consider the security of temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste so we can give assurances to communities near nuclear power plants that their safety will not be compromised.

The cosponsors of this legislation do not all share the same views about nuclear power and we do not share the same views about nuclear waste. For example, I have long said that nuclear waste needs to remain on site where it is produced until the Government has a safe and scientifically sound solution. Others would like to reprocess and

reuse nuclear waste in nuclear reactors. Many still feel that some form of permanent disposal is a good solution.

But forming a commission is something the bill's sponsors and others agree upon because it will create a process that will help our Nation take a critical step away from the failed Yucca Mountain policy.

I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues to make sure we take responsible actions necessary to begin addressing nuclear waste.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 27, H.R. 146.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture occur at 5:30 Monday, March 16; further, that if cloture is invoked, then the postcloture time count as if cloture had been invoked at 10 a.m. on Monday, March 16; and that during any recess or adjournment period, postcloture time continue to run.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. Monday, March 16; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate proceed to period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 146, the legislative vehicle for the omnibus lands bill.

Mr. President, the next rollcall vote will occur on Monday at 5:30 p.m. This vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 146.

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.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The Republicans will control all the morning business time; that is, until 11:30. Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of David Ogden, to be Deputy Attorney General. The time until 4:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. Under an agreement reached last night, the vote on the confirmation of the Ogden nomination will occur at a time to be agreed upon tomorrow.

We are also working on a number of other nominations. We are going to spend this week on nominations--at least the next day or so. We are working on Thomas Perrelli to be Associate Attorney General and a number of others. We hope the Republicans will work with us on getting some of these nominations cleared. We are glad we got a couple of the Council of Economic Advisers done last night. I appreciate that good work. We will see what happens as the day proceeds.

This is a day with no votes. Certainly, I think we deserve that, based on what we have been through in the last several weeks. We are going to have our annual meeting with the Supreme Court Justices tonight. I remind all Senators of that. It is one of the rare times when the two branches of Government meet in a social setting where we will have the Supreme Court Justices and the Senators there in the Supreme Court. It has been very helpful in years past, and I am confident it will be a very nice event tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today we debate the nomination of David Ogden to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Ogden is highly qualified for this important job. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Harry Blackmun. During the Clinton Administration, he served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and as chief of staff to the Attorney General.

He also previously served as Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Defense, so he has a keen appreciation for the national security issues that he will face at DOJ. He has an excellent reputation among his fellow lawyers and is supported by a number of former Republican Justice Department officials.

It is surprising to me that we need to spend more than a full day debating

this obviously qualified nominee. Mr. Ogden was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 14-5, so it seems clear he will be confirmed. But apparently some far-right advocates have made this nomination more controversial than it should be.

As I understand it, those who oppose this nominee disagree with positions he took on behalf of some of his clients, including media organizations. In my view, that is a very unfair basis for opposing a nominee. As a former practicing lawyer, I feel strongly that a lawyer should not be held personally responsible for the views of his clients.

President Obama deserves to have his advisors, especially members of his national security team, in place as quickly as possible. I urge confirmation of this outstanding nominee.

Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1105, the appropriations bill. The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons. All the amendments are before the Senate. We have seven of them. It is expected that probably five of them will require votes. So I hope Senators would come and debate their amendments. We have a number of Democrats who are wanting to speak in opposition to the amendments.

I will be discussing a time to begin voting with the distinguished Republican leader. What we are going to do is have stacked votes, and finish the votes once we start them. I hope we can do that sometime late afternoon. I do not think there are any events going on off the Hill that would prevent us from doing that. But I will be working with Senator McConnell to see what we can do in arranging an appropriate time to start the votes.

Madam President, I direct everyone's attention to today's column in the New York Times written by David Brooks. David Brooks is a Republican columnist, conservative, but basically he is saying that the Republicans are opposing everything. It does not matter what it is, they are opposing it. And I think that is basically what we have here today with Senator McConnell. I mean, I cannot imagine how he could stand before this body, after having talked favorably of this bill in the past--and his statements have been read in the Record on previous occasions about how much he believed in this omnibus bill. In fact, he said--and I am paraphrasing--that there had been input by Democrats and Republicans, it had been fully vetted. But suddenly--using the David Brooks theory of Government--they are opposed to everything.

It is not helping the Republicans around this country. You have to be in favor of something. And for my friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, to stand before this body and lament the deficits--``this spending that has to stop''--where were they during the 8 years of the red ink of George Bush? The biggest deficits in the history of this country are all held by George Bush: the unending spending on the Iraq war, not putting that in the budget in an effort to hide it from the American people--how much it cost--the tax cuts that were never big enough for the Republicans that ran us into this deep hole President Obama has inherited.

So everyone should read David Brooks. Let's have the Republicans start being in favor of something. That would be the right thing to do.

The fairness doctrine. What a ghost that does not exist. None of us wants to go back to the way it was before. It is an issue they brought up to talk about. No one wants to reestablish the fairness doctrine, Democrats or Republicans.

I know the State of Nevada is prideful in determining what the education standards should be in the State of Nevada. I think we should do more in the State of Nevada. I am not happy about where our educational levels are, the spending levels in the State of Nevada. But Nevada determines that, and that is the way it is around the other 49 States, that it is a prerogative Governors have protected for many generations--that the Federal Government should stay out of local education. But when it comes to the District of Columbia, they do not count, I guess. So how would the rest of the States feel if we suddenly determined what was going to happen in those States as it related to vouchers, school choice, charter schools?

So I hope we can get these amendments out of the way and pass this legislation and go on to other things. I am sorry I had to file cloture on three nominations. I hope we do not have to take those votes because it goes in opposition to what the Republicans always told us: What right does the party in the minority have to hold up Presidential nominations or judges? We are finding that is happening. I hope we can work our way through that.

This legislation is important. It is important because it takes care of these Government agencies that had been, over the Bush years, so underfunded, underresourced that we had--because of the 8 years of neglect--to increase spending for these Government agencies so they can do their job. I met yesterday with new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. He is lamenting how the parks in our country are in such bad shape, terrible shape. The Mall out here, because the Republicans complained about the money for the Mall--there was a major feature on all public radio stations yesterday about the Mall, what terrible shape this Mall is in. It is used. It is an American landmark. But they do not want money spent on that.

When I read David Brooks this morning, I thought: Gee whiz, he has an understanding of what is wrong with the Republican Party. And no one more than a Republican can probably say it as strongly as he did. David Brooks--I have told him how on a number of occasions I disagree with his end line, but his reasoning is always brilliant, as it was today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with the time until 4:15 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, that the Bunning amendment No. 665 be withdrawn as soon as this order is entered: Cornyn No. 673; Cornyn No. 674; Thune No. 662; Sessions No. 604; Ensign No. 615; that there be 4 minutes equally divided and controlled prior to the Ensign vote; and Vitter No. 621; provided further that prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 621, the majority leader be recognized, and that the time the majority leader consumes not count as time against the debate time previously provided under the orders of March 6 and 9; further that the other relevant provisions of those previous orders remain in effect.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 673

Madam President, I ask the Senate to allow me to make a statement prior to this next vote.

Madam President, I pause to honor the senior Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He will cast his 13,000th vote.

(Applause.)

This is a remarkable tally that few men or women in the hallowed history of this Chamber can match. But I guess what we note most about our friend from Vermont--I think I can say ``we''--is not the quantity of his votes so much as the quality. In his 3\1/2\ decades of service in the Senate, Pat Leahy has been a reliable friend in the cause of justice.

Pat was elected to the Senate at the age of 34. Few gave this young prosecutor from Burlington much of a chance to win. After all, not a single Democrat had ever been elected to the U.S. Senate from Vermont. And, of course, Vermont was one of our early States.

Senator Leahy recalls that the Republican Senator George Aiken was asked by some to resign his seat a day early to give Senator Leahy a headstart in seniority among his fellow freshmen, which you could do. Senator Leahy recalls Senator Aiken replying:

If Vermont is foolish enough to elect a Democrat, let him

be number 100.

On the contrary, the people of Vermont acted wisely by sending Patrick Leahy to Washington and sent him again and again and again and again.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has been a national leader for an independent judiciary, the promotion of equal rights, and the protection of our Constitution. He also has been chairman in the past of our Agriculture Committee, where he did remarkably good work protecting the State of Vermont and all agricultural interests. As a senior member of the Appropriations committee, Senator Leahy has ensured that all communities throughout Vermont and across America have access to the tools they need to grow and to prosper. Senator Leahy is a leading voice for conservation and environmental protection. He has led the charge to expand broadband access to rural communities.

Senator Leahy is also a leader on foreign policy, working to protect human rights across the world while ensuring our men and women in uniform have the training, equipment, and respect they need and deserve.

This is a fine man, and it can best be shown as a result of his wonderful wife Marcelle. I am fortunate to call Senator Leahy my friend. I am fortunate I have had the good fortune of being able to serve in the Senate with this senior Senator from the State of Vermont, Patrick Leahy.

Congratulations, Patrick, on your 13,000th vote as a U.S. Senator.

(Applause.)

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, last week the junior Senator from Louisiana offered an amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill that would change the way the cost-of-living adjustments are given to Members of the House and the Senate. The bill before us, which has already passed the House, ensures there will be no cost-of-living adjustment in 2010. Most Senators, me included, have indicated support for that provision that is in this bill.

Senator Vitter's amendment would require the House and the Senate to vote every year on cost-of-living adjustments rather than having those adjustments take effect immediately. I

agree with Senator Vitter that cost-of-living adjustments for Members of Congress should not be automatic. That is why I introduced a freestanding bill last week that would do just that. That is why we seek consent to pass this bill before we are scheduled to vote on the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana.

By passing this legislation as a stand-alone, it can become law without threatening completion of this appropriations bill. If Senators want to demonstrate their support for the proposed automatic cost-of- living adjustments, they can and should support my stand-alone legislation. It is fiscally responsible, responsible to the state of our economy, and will allow us to continue the good progress we have made toward passing this bill.

Objecting to this request will have two negative results: It will jeopardize our ability to pass legislation ending the automatic COLAs, and it will deal a serious blow to our efforts to pass this appropriations bill. Any Senator who wishes to end the automatic COLA should support this consent request I will shortly make. Likewise, any Senator who wishes to move forward with the omnibus will support my request. The only way to accomplish these objectives is to support my request, take up and pass the stand-alone pay adjustment bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this unanimous consent pay request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 29, S. 542, a bill which repeals the provisions of law to provide for an automatic pay adjustment to Members of Congress; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

This is a serious piece of legislation. It accomplishes what the Senator from Louisiana obviously wants to accomplish. I would hope we can do this tonight. It would end all discussion on autopay adjustments. We should do that.

Mr. President, it is obvious that this is an important issue. We have an economy that is in distress. That is why we should pass this. I have not gotten commitments from anyone in the House. But it seems to me there is tremendous movement to get this accomplished.

I say to my friend from Louisiana, this is an important piece of legislation. We should go ahead and pass this. We know there are not going to be any amendments to the appropriations bill that I can get through the House. That is clear.

Everyone read in the newspaper what happened there Thursday night. So I would hope that in good faith this is not an effort to avoid anything, this is not an effort to try to play any legislative games. This is important legislation, I repeat for the third time, that we should adopt, and the House will take care of this itself.

Now, for me to stand and say what the House is going to do--I think it is pretty clear that with what is going on around the rest of the country, there is going to be significant support for this legislation, as I hope there is here in this body.

I will certainly yield to my friend from Michigan.

Mr. President, I did not block his amendment last week. I never heard from him until we were here Thursday night, late. I have had a number of Republicans come to me--as I look through this crowd here, there were a number of Senators who came to me and said: We would like our amendments to be offered. There was general agreement Thursday night after final passage did not take place; Senators told me they wanted to offer amendments. They talked during the week the same way.

So I did not block his amendment. The Democrats did not block it. No one knew he wanted to offer it, that I know of, on this side of the aisle.

I am using leader time so no one feels constrained.

I say to my friend from Michigan, it is clear as the daylight hour that my friend from Louisiana doesn't want the underlying bill to pass. Common sense dictates the best way to go is by adopting this consent agreement I made.

Let me also say this: I will be happy to ask consent--I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 29, this legislation, S. 542, tomorrow, March 11, at 3 p.m. I make a commitment that I will bring this bill up. If there are people who don't want to agree to this tonight, assuming the Senator from Louisiana is that person, I will bring it up some other time. I am committed to doing this.

Mr. President, to show how--what is the right word--how Senator Vitter is not serious, he knows that I can't represent what the Speaker is going to do. She doesn't know I am here doing this. She runs her little show over there, and I do my best to have some input on what happens here. But I can't make that kind of commitment.

I can't imagine why anyone would object to our passing this. It would move this down the road a long way. I am sorry the Senator from Louisiana obviously is not serious about passing this legislation, because I have asked that we do it right now. I have asked that we go to it tomorrow. He objects.

The Senator from California is absolutely right. If this bill goes down, the work we have done, in keeping with Senator Feingold--that is, to not have a cost-of-living adjustment next year-- we would have to start all over. This is wrong. We should move forward and defeat this amendment.

I move to table the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes prior to the cloture vote be reduced to 10 minutes, to be divided as previously ordered, with the remaining provisions of the previous order in effect, meaning that Senator Inouye will control 5 minutes and Senator Cochran will control 5 minutes.

Let me say this, Mr. President: I simply want to tell everyone-- Democrats and Republicans--this has been very difficult, but I think it has been good for this institution. And I, frankly--I do not want to lay out all of my dirty laundry, but I think it has been good for me. I think the situation that has developed on the Republican side--I had a number of Republican Senators come to me and say: We need a few more amendments, and I had enough votes to pass it, and I ignored them. That will not happen in the future. I am going to try to be more aware of trying to create a better feeling in this body, not necessarily count 60 or 51, whatever it is.

So I appreciate what everyone has done here, but especially do I appreciate the two managers of this bill. This has been extremely difficult for them. All of the difficult issues had to be resolved by them. I think people looking at this Senate today should know how fortunate we are as a country to have two people such as Dan Inouye and Thad Cochran being the managers of this bill. These are two of the best, and I want to personally extend my appreciation. I applaud and commend both of them for doing an excellent job on a very difficult piece of work.

I have spoken to both of them. Everyone should understand, we are going to move into an appropriations process we can all be proud of. No more of these big, lumpy bills. We are going to move forward and try to do a bill at a time.

Again, thanks for everyone's cooperation.

Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request pending.

Has all time been used, Mr. President?

Mr. President, the order that is now in effect indicates that if there are 60 votes on this cloture vote, there will be just a voice vote on final passage. I ask the Chair if that is factual.

So that is the understanding we have. If that, in fact, is the case, then we would--this will be the last vote today.

People are asking: What are we going to do the rest of the week? First of all, we are going to spend the rest of this week on nominations. We are going to try to get one up tomorrow that we can debate and hopefully vote on. We may not be able to do that.

I would say to everyone there has been a lot of pent-up desire to come out and give speeches on other issues. I think we will have plenty of time to do that tomorrow. So we will set aside a couple hours, at least, tomorrow for morning business. I look forward to this vote and ending this long process on this appropriations bill.

Cloture Motion

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1105, the appropriations bill. This legislation is open for debate on the finite list of amendments that were entered into last week. There will be a series of rollcall votes beginning around 5:30 p.m. today. The votes will start at 5:30. I do not know how many we will have, but it appears we will have four votes at that time.