Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m, February 26; that on Monday, 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; and following the reading of Washington's Farewell Address, there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate today, and the Republican leader has no further remarks, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 67.

Mr. President, today the time until 12:30 will be divided equally between me and the Republican leader. Then at 12:30 the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to--well, they will be in 30-minute blocks of time. We will alternate back and forth between the respective sides, the majority controlling the first 30 minutes beginning at 12:30.

Yesterday a cloture motion was filed to proceed. That cloture vote will occur tomorrow at 1:45. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate.

I would say, for the information of Senators who are watching this, that I am not going to use my 15 minutes, so if a Democrat wants to come and speak, they can have my 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 641 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. President, this morning there will be a brief period of morning business until 10:20, and then we will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Randy Smith, to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge, and Marcia Morales Howard, to be a U.S. District Judge. Debate on these nominations is limited to a total of 10 minutes equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. At 10:30, the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of these two nominations.

I would like to indicate to Members that a third rollcall vote is likely shortly after these votes on the adjournment of the Senate, so Members should plan on three votes instead of two.

Following these votes there will be morning business, with the first hour controlled by Senator Leahy and then the Republican leader or his designee will control an hour.

Mr. President, in a short time, we will approve the first circuit court judge of this Congress. The distinguished Republican leader and I have had conversations about having as little acrimony--in fact, hopefully none--on circuit court judges. The last Congress will be noted for a number of things and one will be the contentiousness of the circuit court judges that came before the Senate. I have made a commitment to my friend from Kentucky that we will move forward on these. We have had conversations with the President, and he is going to do his best to send us circuit court judges that are not people who cause a lot of heartburn on this side, and we think that is totally possible and in keeping with the standards President Bush wants for these circuit court judges. So this is a time when we are going to try to work together to move forward.

Randy Smith is the first, and I say to everyone, it wasn't easy to get him here. He has been nominated for one position and then another position. There was a little holdup to begin with, but we are beginning to work through this, as we wish to do. We have members of the Judiciary Committee who

understand this and the two managers of this committee, the chairman, Senator Leahy, and the ranking member, Senator Specter, know of our concern, and that is the concern of Senator McConnell and myself, and we are going to do our very best to make sure this is not our last circuit court judge but the first of a significant number who can at least meet the standards of Congresses similarly situated as ours.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes on the judicial nominations with the time equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, I will use leader time.

Mr. President, I have the deepest respect for the Senator from Maine. I care about her a lot. She is a good legislator and a very strong woman, strong person, someone who stands up for what she thinks is right. I admire her for that.

However, those are interesting comments that I have just heard from my friend regarding an Iraq debate. While I respect the Senator from Maine and, as I have said I appreciate her sense of urgency, I say with all due respect, she is coming late to the party.

Last week, when Senators had the opportunity to hold an important debate about Iraq, she and others chose to prevent that debate. Some of them, including my friend from Maine, voted against their own resolution by not invoking cloture. While it is heartening to know that they would like to have an Iraq debate now, where were they last week? Where were they when the Senate was trying to send a message to President Bush to stop the escalation? Where were they when we were trying to send a message in standing up for our troops in Iraq? The answer: Obstructing. Playing politics.

Don't tell me about politics. They were putting the political needs of the White House ahead of our troops' need for a new direction in Iraq.

If not for the actions that took place last week, we could have been finished with this debate regarding the escalation in Iraq. We could have already sent a strong message to President Bush that he stands alone in supporting escalation. We could have joined the House in expressing our support for the troops and our opposition to the so- called surge. But because there was a political game being played with the war, the American people still do not know where their Senators stand on escalation.

I take it from comments I have heard--not only from the Senator from Maine but from others on the other side of the aisle--that a number of Members had a change of heart; that, in the future, I would hope, many of them will be joining us in an important Iraq debate.

Everyone within the sound of my voice should understand, we are in the Senate. Procedurally it is very difficult, many times, to get from here to there. I started as quickly as I could to process this matter. On Tuesday, I moved to rule XIV so we could have the House resolution before the Senate. I would hope we will have that opportunity soon.

This week, the House of Representatives is debating a bipartisan resolution on escalation. Last night, as I have indicated, I started the process--again, moving one step further to bringing the legislation closer to the floor of the Senate, a resolution saying we support our troops and we oppose the escalation.

When the Senate returns after the break, we will deal with the House resolution in some manner. The American people deserve, as I have said, to know where every Member of the Senate stands on the so-called surge. It is an important issue facing our country.

I repeat what I said about the Senator from Maine. I care about her a lot. But I really am somewhat lost in the logic of her debate.

I say to my friend, the question is an excellent question. We have, as the Senator knows, a funeral taking place today for Dr. Norwood. We changed the vote around from 11 o'clock until 10:30 today so a large contingent of Senators and House Members can attend the funeral. If we do not start the votes at 10:30, they will not be able to attend.

Mr. President, I announce to all Democratic Senators: We are having a caucus in Room S-219. The subject matter of this caucus is interesting.

I have a unanimous consent request that I am going to propound.

Mr. President, I ask you and the other Members to be patient. I am having a little script prepared for me to read.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate convenes on Monday, February 26, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 63, the House Iraq resolution; that there be 12 hours of debate; that the debate be divided equally between the two leaders; that no amendments or motions be in order; and that the Senate vote on passage of the concurrent resolution at the conclusion of that time.

Mr. President, I have told the distinguished Republican leader that when we get to the matter dealing with implementing the 9/ 11 recommendations, that will be a vehicle which will be open to debate and amendment.

The unanimous consent request I propounded would complete work on the Iraq surge issue within a matter of hours, as I indicated, so that we could move within a day, 1 day, to 9/11 and amendments--Warner, Gregg, McCain, whatever amendments the minority wanted to offer; they would certainly be permitted to do that.

We find ourselves in a very unusual position, Mr. President. We tried to proceed to this matter before. Everyone has heard the arguments used to stop us from going forward on this issue. Cloture was not invoked. We need not go over all the reasons, some of which have been outlined by the distinguished Republican leader just a few minutes ago. But there have been those on the other side of the aisle who think we should be in next week. Mr. President, speaking for this Senator, I am happy to be in next week. If you want to be in next week, we can do that. I have things in Nevada I have wanted to do for a while because I have been here for 5 weeks, but that is OK, I can take care of that, as everyone else can, if necessary. But we find ourselves in the same position, that there is a hesitation on behalf of the minority to go forward on now a very simple matter--a very simple matter.

The Warner-Levin amendment was a little more complicated than the simple House measure which says we support the troops and we are against the surge. That is what we think should be disposed of quickly. We can move to 9/11, all the debates on other things people want to do with Iraq and other issues. Certainly, they can do that. We can spend considerable time on that. As long as progress is being made, there is no reason to file cloture. There are other things we need to do the following week during the work period.

We are anxious to go forward on this issue. We have, again, been stopped from doing that. All the plaintive cries about not being able to debate Iraq--there were opportunities to debate Iraq, and they were turned down. I was disappointed, as I said earlier today, that the people crying the loudest are the people against going forward on Iraq.

It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the order is Senator Leahy has 1 hour right now.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, again, this is an attempt to divert attention from the issue before this body; that is, whether there should be a surge in Iraq. That is it--an escalation. And this attempt by my friend, the Republican leader, to divert attention from this very important resolution--we support the troops, we oppose the escalation-- is now going to be obfuscated if, in fact, we agree to this request, and therefore we will not.

This body is going to have the opportunity to vote up or down if, in fact, we can proceed to the resolution. This body will have an opportunity to vote up or down: Do you support the troops? Do you support the surge?

I object.

Mr. President, I ask for regular order.

Mr. President, I wrote down the plaintive cries from my friends on the other side of the aisle: never seen the Senate work this way.

I say to my friend, the distinguished senior Member of this body, Senator Byrd, who has a fine memory, we have memories. Now, there are 10 Senators

here who may not, but we remember, on a multitude of issues when we were in the minority, when we had no opportunity to debate anything or to offer amendments on anything.

One of the other words issued was ``astonished.'' Mr. President, we are in the U.S. Senate. Anyone with any memory whatsoever understands how we were treated before, but when I became the majority leader, I said that I believed in the Golden Rule. I said I would treat people the way I want to be treated, that this is not any time to retaliate. In fact, I have followed the Golden Rule. We have had bills, such as the matter dealing with ethics or the matter dealing with minimum wage, and, of course, the CR we just finished had input from both sides or it would not have passed.

So I would say this: We can go with the unanimous consent request I have propounded, and within a few hours, when that day ended, the 12 hours ended, we could be on whatever amendments they wanted to offer to the homeland security measure.

I will go one step further than that. My friend from Arizona has suggested that he be allowed to offer his amendment. I would accept that, that we do the House-passed resolution and we do the McCain amendment and we spend 12 hours on those two matters the minute we get back here after this break, or if they want to do it tomorrow or Monday, I would agree to that.

So my proposal, without a lot of fancy words here, Mr. President, is we would take up the House measure that is now before this body--it is going through the process and is at the desk--and also do the McCain amendment. Those two matters, those two resolutions, one opposing the surge and one in favor of the surge. No other amendments would be in order. We could do that. We can have a debate on that, and then still, just a matter of hours later, we can move to homeland security, and the people who believed they had been left out of the debate could offer whatever amendments they wanted to on homeland security. That is my proposal.

Mr. President, I ask that the request be modified to say that the amendments that would be in order would be the House measure to which we referred, where we are in favor of supporting the troops and against the surge, and the McCain amendment.

I would say editorially, Mr. President, that is what the Senator from Arizona asked, and we will give it to him. We will have that debate, one in favor of the surge and one against the surge.

I ask my friend to modify his request.

I am asking if the minority leader will modify his request.

I object.

Mr. President, I regret that we have not been allowed to move forward at this time on S. 214, a bill to preserve the independence of U.S. attorneys.

This legislation is ready for floor action. It was the subject of a lengthy hearing in the Judiciary Committee and was favorably reported by that committee with bipartisan support.

The bill would protect U.S. attorneys from being used as political pawns. It would limit the power of the Justice Department to appoint long-term replacements for departing U.S. Attorneys and instead authorize the chief Federal judge in a district to appoint a temporary replacement while the permanent nominee undergoes Senate confirmation. This is the process that was followed for decades until it was changed in the Patriot Act reauthorization.

Last month, we learned that at least seven U.S. attorneys had been directed by the Department of Justice to resign. One of these was the U.S. attorney in my State of Nevada, Daniel Bogden.

Let me take just a moment to thank Dan Bogden for his service. He has been the chief Federal prosecutor in Nevada since his appointment in 2001. He is a former Washoe County deputy district attorney and had served as an assistant U.S. attorney for 10 years before being appointed as chief Federal prosecutor. He made it a priority to prosecute violent criminals and drug traffickers and his efforts have made Nevada safer. I appreciate all the remarkable work he has done for our State.

The Deputy Attorney General testified that the U.S. attorneys who were forced out had ``performance issues.'' As far as I am concerned that is nonsense. Dan Bogden's last job evaluation described him as being a ``capable'' leader who was highly regarded by the Federal judges and investigators in our State.

What is really going on here? According to news reports, the decision to remove U.S. attorneys was part of a plan to ``build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs.'' In fact, at least one of the fired U.S. attorneys was replaced by a GOP opposition researcher who is known as a protege of Karl Rove.

So what has happened might well be called ``Crony-gate.'' It may not be as far reaching a scandal as Watergate, but it is a scandal nonetheless. It represents a breach of the long tradition of independence that allowed these powerful Federal prosecutors to do their jobs without fear of political retribution. Now every U.S. attorney will be looking over his or her shoulder to see if Karl Rove or other White House aides approve of their decisions.

The administration is in a position to ignore the Senate and place its own loyalists in these key jobs because of a little known change included in the Patriot Act last year at the insistence of the Justice Department. This provision lets the Attorney General make interim U.S. attorney appointments with no time limits, no residency requirements, and no need for Senate confirmation.

I applaud Senators Feinstein, Pryor, Leahy, and others for addressing this problem swiftly. Their bill will help ensure that the people of Nevada have a say in who will be their next U.S. attorney. The Senate confirmation process for U.S. attorneys ensures transparency and accountability. We need to keep politics out of the justice system.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to calendar No. 25, S. 574, a bill to express the sense of the Congress on Iraq, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum be waived.

Mr. President, I announce that we will have the cloture vote on Saturday at 1:45 p.m. As I always said, I would keep the vote open if it appeared there were problems that Senators were having in advance of the vote. I have heard from Senators on both sides of the aisle that there is no time that meets everyone's expectations. So what we would do to try to handle as many people as possible, we will start the vote at 1:45, and we will act as if it starts at 2 o'clock and terminate the vote at 2:20. I hope that meets with everyone's problems as far as transportation and getting to and from here.

So on Saturday, because I think these are extraordinary circumstances, we will make sure that as many people are protected as possible.

Mr. President, I want to express my support for the ``Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2007,'' which repeals the well- known McCarran-Ferguson Act. McCarran-Ferguson gave States the authority to regulate the business of insurance and exempted insurance from the Federal antitrust laws. Unfortunately, McCarran-Ferguson came about as a result of a Senator from my State of Nevada, McCarran, and a Senator from Michigan, Ferguson. It was passed to give a few years of relief to the insurance industry. In 1944, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the industry-wide practice of cooperating to set premium prices in United States v. Southeastern Underwriters Association. Insurers argued that most companies were too small to rely solely on their own experience in setting premiums. As a result of these protests the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945, exempting insurance-rate fixing from the Sherman Antitrust Act, and placing responsibility for industry regulation in the hands of state governments.

Now, some 60 plus years later, insurance companies are the only businesses--other than Major League Baseball--not subject to antitrust laws. Congress began investigating the effectiveness of State insurance regulation in 1958, under the oversight of Senator O'Mahoney, who had been a principal architect of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and found State regulation lacking, incapable of dealing with interstate and international issues, and unwilling or unable to ``bring the blessings of competition'' to insurance rate-making. The same thing is true today, and its time we take action to remedy this situation. The rationale for this exemption has long since passed. Insurance should be like any other business--subject to antitrust laws.

Senator Leahy's bill would accomplish this. ``The Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2007'' would repeal the exemption and simply give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to apply the antitrust laws to anticompetitive behavior by insurance companies. Such oversight could ensure that the industry is not engaging in the most egregious forms of anticompetitive conduct-- price fixing, agreements not to pay, and market allocations. This Act would not affect the ability of each State to regulate the business of insurance.

If insurers around the country are operating in an honest and appropriate way, they should not object to being answerable under the same Federal antitrust laws as virtually all other businesses. American consumers should be confident that the cost of their insurance reflects competitive market conditions, not collusive behavior, and they should benefit through lower prices, more choices, and better services.

Perhaps nowhere has the insurance industry and its practices come under as much scrutiny as along the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Just yesterday, the AP reported that ``State Farm Insurance Cos. is suspending sales of any new commercial or homeowner policies in Mississippi starting Friday.'' I ask Unanimous Consent that a news article dated February 14, 2007, from the Associated Press be printed in the Record. Insurers have been too often denying claims and delaying payouts to residents of New Orleans and all along the Gulf Coast instead of honoring their contractual commitments to their customers, and thereby contributing to the rebuilding and rejuvenation of the area. We need to act now to end this practice. I thank Senators Leahy, Specter, and Lott for their work on this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I want to express my support for the ``Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2007,'' which repeals the well- known McCarran-Ferguson Act. McCarran-Ferguson gave States the authority to regulate the business of insurance and exempted insurance from the Federal antitrust laws. Unfortunately, McCarran-Ferguson came about as a result of a Senator from my State of Nevada, McCarran, and a Senator from Michigan, Ferguson. It was passed to give a few years of relief to the insurance industry. In 1944, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the industry-wide practice of cooperating to set premium prices in United States v. Southeastern Underwriters Association. Insurers argued that most companies were too small to rely solely on their own experience in setting premiums. As a result of these protests the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945, exempting insurance-rate fixing from the Sherman Antitrust Act, and placing responsibility for industry regulation in the hands of state governments.

Now, some 60 plus years later, insurance companies are the only businesses--other than Major League Baseball--not subject to antitrust laws. Congress began investigating the effectiveness of State insurance regulation in 1958, under the oversight of Senator O'Mahoney, who had been a principal architect of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and found State regulation lacking, incapable of dealing with interstate and international issues, and unwilling or unable to ``bring the blessings of competition'' to insurance rate-making. The same thing is true today, and its time we take action to remedy this situation. The rationale for this exemption has long since passed. Insurance should be like any other business--subject to antitrust laws.

Senator Leahy's bill would accomplish this. ``The Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2007'' would repeal the exemption and simply give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to apply the antitrust laws to anticompetitive behavior by insurance companies. Such oversight could ensure that the industry is not engaging in the most egregious forms of anticompetitive conduct-- price fixing, agreements not to pay, and market allocations. This Act would not affect the ability of each State to regulate the business of insurance.

If insurers around the country are operating in an honest and appropriate way, they should not object to being answerable under the same Federal antitrust laws as virtually all other businesses. American consumers should be confident that the cost of their insurance reflects competitive market conditions, not collusive behavior, and they should benefit through lower prices, more choices, and better services.

Perhaps nowhere has the insurance industry and its practices come under as much scrutiny as along the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Just yesterday, the AP reported that ``State Farm Insurance Cos. is suspending sales of any new commercial or homeowner policies in Mississippi starting Friday.'' I ask Unanimous Consent that a news article dated February 14, 2007, from the Associated Press be printed in the Record. Insurers have been too often denying claims and delaying payouts to residents of New Orleans and all along the Gulf Coast instead of honoring their contractual commitments to their customers, and thereby contributing to the rebuilding and rejuvenation of the area. We need to act now to end this practice. I thank Senators Leahy, Specter, and Lott for their work on this important legislation.