Floor Statements

I thank the Senator from Texas for coordinating the opportunity today for us to honor our veterans.

``Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends,'' or in this case his country.

This quotation embodies my sentiment on this Veteran's Day, as we honor those men and women who have laid down their lives for our great country, and those who stand ready in her defense.

I stand today to render my sharpest salute to the selfless, brave professionals who epitomize the most noble of citizens.

How can we express our gratitude and overflowing pride for our service men and women who have paid the ultimate price for their country, and those friends and family members who have endured the loss of their loved ones?

How can we ever truly appreciate the comfort and safety that the soldier, airman, or seaman affords us through his or her daily dedication to duty?

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the strong, silent, tall soldier whose steely eyes well up with tears at the sounding of our National Anthem.

Perhaps we could stand to learn some things from the weathered, silver haired, proud veteran who stands taller and breathes deeply as he hears another painful round of Taps.

Today we all stand in solemn remembrance of those Americans who gave their lives so that others may be free. Today I would like to remind everyone that those lives lost were not in vain. Because of these individual sacrifices we are able today to remain the greatest free nation in the world.

I would like to mention my personal pride for the men and women from Mississippi who so bravely currently serve and have served their nation in defense.

During the Vietnam War, 637 Mississippians gave their lives. In the Korean Conflict, from 1950 to 1957, 412 of our statesmen made the ultimate sacrifice.

Since the horrific day that will forever be remembered, September 11, 2001, Mississippi has lost nine soldiers during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

More than 3000 of Mississippi's sons and daughters have responded to this Nations latest call for arms in the global war on terrorism, and operations in Afghanistan in Iraq.

Unlike previous wars, the veterans of these latest operations will probably not have battle names to remember like Leyte Gulf or Vicksburg.

As the President has said, the global war on terror is a different kind of war, where some operations would be visible and others would not be.

In this global war, our troops are supporting freedom and democracy around the globe, and fighting terrorism in the homelands of the terrorists and those who support them.

The war on terrorism will be a long war, and it will call for the endurance and perseverance of every American. In the end, there probably won't be a truce or surrender document signed aboard a great battleship. What there will be is stability, peace, and representative government in places where terrorism used to breed--where dictators no longer use poison gas on their own people, or have mass executions.

And on this Veterans Day we should remember all veterans, including those who continue to serve in this different kind of war.

And it is most appropriate to honor and salute those Mississippians who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are: Kenneth Bradley, Army Staff Sergeant of Jackson, MS; Henry L. Brown, Army Corporal, of Natchez, MS; Larry K. Brown, Army Specialist, of Jackson, MS; James Anderson Chance III, Army Specialist, of Kokomo, MS; Therrel S. Childers, Marine Corps 2nd Lieutenant, of Harrison, MS; John K. Klinesmith, Jr., Army Specialist, of Carriere, MS; Jonathan W. Lambert, Marine Corps Sergeant, of Newsite, MS; Vincent Parker, Navy Engineman First Class, of Preston, MS; Joe N. Wilson, Army Staff Sergeant, of Crystal Springs, MS.

In the words of Boyd Lewis:

The tranquility we enjoy was purchased dearly. May we never

forget.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee for yielding me this time. I will adhere to the 4 minutes because I know that he wants to wrap this up, too.

First, I want to thank the chairman for his diligence in trying to make sure the Intelligence Committee does its job and does its job in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way. I went on the Intelligence Committee this year because I believe it was one of the most important committees in the Senate. I like the fact that while the committee's work is always difficult, the committee worked together in a bipartisan way and has not become a political tool.

I have also expressed myself that I am concerned about the intelligence that we have received before going into Iraq, and the intelligence that is available even today. So I am not one who is going around trying to make excuses for the intelligence community. But my approach is different. I think we need to find out where our problems are, where we need more assistance, and how we can do a better job in the future.

It should not be about the blame game. It should not be about politics. It should not be about trying to find a way to blame it on the President or the Vice President or anybody else, even though obviously there will be some criticism directed at one place or another. The thing we need to do is to make sure we have the intelligence that our officials need and our military men and women need, and that should be the focus.

This memorandum outlines a political plan of attack in the Intelligence Committee. Our adversaries around the world must be smiling this morning. They must be enjoying watching us fight among ourselves instead of focusing on doing what we need to do to get the kind of intelligence we require to do the job against the terrorists around the world. This memorandum is a very sad commentary. While I am not quite sure of its origin, whether it was written by a particular Senator or by a staff member at the direction of a Senator, it clearly is something that a Democrat staff member, working with some members of the Intelligence Committee, drafted.

When you start talking about castigating the majority or pulling the trigger on an independent investigation, or an independent commission, the Senate voted on that just a week ago and overwhelmingly defeated the idea that we kick the football over to somebody else, let somebody else do our job. I say we should do our job, do it here, and do it in a constructive, aggressive, nonpartisan, bipartisan way.

This is a very debilitating thing that we have seen. One might say, well, maybe we are protesting too much, that this does not necessarily reflect all of the Democrat members of the Intelligence Committee. But already the London Telegraph in London is quoting Democrats in the Senate Intelligence Committee using some of the exact words in the memorandum.

We want to know whether the administration put pressure on

the agencies to come up with certain kinds of information.

If the Republican leadership of the Senate Intelligence

Committee is determined to protect the administration at any

cost . . .

I have watched the chairman aggressively pursue information and insist that the administration provide information to this committee. We have not been shrinking violets. We are doing our job.

To have this attack plan come out and make it totally political is one of the most disquieting things I have seen in recent months in the Senate. We should not proceed in this way. I hope the Democrats will disavow this whole approach and say that is not their political plan, that is not their intent. The alternative is chaos in the committee that is so critical to making sure we have what we need in terms of intelligence.

Just this week I proposed that we make the membership permanent on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know there has been an argument that permanent membership on the committee could impact objectivity, but what I want are members who are experienced enough to do the job.

I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I am looking forward to hearing Democrats assure us that this is not what is going on.

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

I appreciate that because I believe Senator Roberts did respond to your question.

I didn't mention any names quoted in this London Telegraph article. But, Senator Durbin, you are quoted as saying that a public split and new inquiry is inevitable. I hope that is not a quote from you.

Because to prejudge----

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

Mr. President, for clarification for those of us who have an interest in the proceedings from this point forward, if I could inquire, do we have anything scheduled now other than morning business?

Do we have any idea how long morning business will last?

Do we anticipate morning business of 15 minutes--or how long? I would like to keep an eye on this place. I just as soon it not be any longer than necessary. I would like the staff to be able to go home.

Mr. President, could I inquire of the leadership? Do we have any idea what the schedule for the remainder of the evening will be?

Mr. President, I thank the leader for that information.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to give notice to Members and staff of the Senate that the Committee on Rules and Administration has approved amendments to six committee regulations. Pursuant to Title V of the Rules of Procedure for the Committee on Rules and Administration, and having provided advance notice of our intention to approve the following amendments to the regulations attached hereto, we hereby approve said amendments effective November 1, 2003, except for amendments to the regulations governing furniture, accessories and special allowances policy which shall be effective January 3, 2005.

I. The following regulations are approved as amended:

A. Committee Regulations Governing the Payment of Funeral Expenses of Deceased Members, as amended, by adding, deleting and substituting as follows:

Delete the last sentence in the first paragraph and substitute-- ``Such arrangements may include ordinary and necessary expenses for the following:''

Add the following after item 4--``(floral expenses themselves are personal in nature and are not considered an official expense, with the exception of one floral arrangement from the United States Senate);''

Delete the word ``Service'' and substitute the word ``Reasonable'' at the beginning of item 6, and insert the words ``use of a'' after the word ``for'' and before the word ``church''. Also insert the word ``other'' after the word ``or'' and before the word ``place''.

Substitute ``$5,000'' for ``$2,000'' for casket expense in item 9.

Substitute ``$2,000'' for ``$1,000'' for burial plot in item 10.

Add the following as item 11--``Miscellaneous expenses directly related to the funeral (e.g., fee for minister and musician) and not personal in nature (e.g., food, flowers, cards), not to exceed $2,500 in the aggregate.''

Add the following as item 12--``Any request for exceptions to this list must be made to the Sergeant at Arms, and approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration.''

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing funeral expenses for deceased Members, as amended, is included as Attachment A. These amended regulations shall be effective as of November 1, 2003.

B. Committee Regulations Governing Advance Payment, as amended, by adding new sections (l) and (m) as follows:

``(l) Metro subsidy, one week in advance of the new month''

``(m) Pre-paid cellular and telephone communications''.

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing advance payment, as amended, is included as Attachment B. These amended regulations shall be effective as of November 1, 2003.

C. Committee Regulations Governing Furniture, Accessories and Special Allowances Policy for Senate Office Buildings, as amended, by substituting as follows:

Substitute ``$5,000'' for ``$2,500'' under Operational Policy for Senators' Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance.

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing furniture, accessories and special allowances policy, as amended, is included as Attachment C. These amended regulations shall be effective as of January 3, 2005.

D. Committee Regulations Governing Payments and Reimbursements From

the Senate Contingent Fund for Expenses of Senate Committees and Administrative Offices (adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration on July 23, 1987 as authorized by Senate Resolution 258, 100th Congress, 1st session, these regulations supercede regulations adopted by the Committee on October 22, 1975 and April 30, 1981), as amended, by substituting as follows:

Substitute ``$50'' for ``$35'' in Section 1.

Substitute ``$50'' for ``$35'' in Section 3.

Substitute ``$50'' for ``$35'' in Section 6 in both instances.

Substitute ``$50'' for ``$35'' in Section 8.

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing reimbursements for Senate Committee expenses, as amended, is included as Attachment D. These amended regulations shall be effective as of November 1, 2003.

E. Committee Regulations Governing Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Accounts (adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration Pursuant to Senate Resolution 170 agreed to September 19, 1979), as amended, by substituting as follows:

Substitute ``$50'' for ``$35'' in Section 2.

Substitute ``$50'' for ``$35'' in Section 3.

Substitute ``$50'' for ``$35'' in Section 6 in both instances.

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Senators' official personnel and office expense accounts, as amended, is included as Attachment E. These amended regulations shall be effective as of November 1, 2003.

F. Committee Regulations Governing Assignment, Accountability, and Inventory Control of Equipment, as amended, by adding a new section as follows:

``De Minimis Exception for Use of Senate Equipment

Sec. 11. It is the normal and standing policy of the Senate

that official Senate resources may only be used in connection

with official business. However, in recognition of the

infrequent need for authorized users of official Senate

resources or equipment to take care of occasional personal

matters during normal business hours, pursuant to S. Res. 238

(108th Congress, 1st Session), the de minimis use of official

Senate resources (i.e. computers, Internet services, cellular

telephones, copiers and facsimile machines and other such

similar devices) is hereby permitted.

For purposes of this policy, ``de minimis use'' is defined

as the incidental, unofficial use of Senate resources or

equipment when such use is significantly negligible in nature

and frequency and at nominal expense to the government. Such

use must also not create the appearance of impropriety. The

de minimis use of official resources as described herein is

considered to be in the interest of the Senate. The de

minimis uses permitted herein are only acceptable when such

uses are performed without measurable interference to the

performance of the official duties of the authorized user and

are in compliance with the Senate Code of Official Conduct.

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to permit the

use of Internet services or any other official resources for

partisan, political or campaign purposes--such use is

strictly prohibited under any circumstances. Nothing

contained herein shall be construed to permit the use of

official Senate resources for any commercial activity or any

income-generating purpose or for any other illegal activity.

It is the responsibility of each Senator, Committee

Chairman, Officer of the Senate, or administrative office

head to oversee the use of official Senate resources by their

office and to ensure that the use is consistent with the

requirements established by this policy as well as any other

applicable laws and regulations. Nothing contained in the

above policy shall prevent a Senator, Committee Chairman,

Officer of the Senate or administrative office head from

adopting a more restrictive de minimis use policy.''

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Assignment, Accountability, and Inventory Control of Equipment, as amended, is included as Attachment F. These amended regulations shall be effective as of November 1, 2003.

I ask unanimous consent that the attachments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we will have the opening statement from the leader ready in a moment. He has been detained, but he will be here. I will review the schedule.

I do believe the first schedule of events would be statements regarding the nominee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi. I believe we will be ready to begin with that momentarily.

Mr. President, this morning we will be proceeding to the debate, as I just outlined, on the nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. There will be an hour of debate prior to the vote on invoking cloture on this nomination. The vote will occur sometime shortly after 10 a.m.

Following the vote, the Senate will return to debate on S. 139, the climate change legislation. There will be 2 additional hours for debate prior to the vote on that legislation.

Following the vote, the Senate will resume consideration of the Healthy Forests bill. We expect to have rollcall votes on amendments to that bill throughout the afternoon and hopefully we can complete action on the bill today. It sounds to me as if those involved in that legislation made real progress on the bill. It would be very positive if we could complete that action today.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Hatch.

It is a pleasure to serve with my distinguished colleague from Mississippi who will be speaking later today.

I say to Senator Hatch, thank you for your leadership, your sensitivity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and for your specific help in the confirmation process of Judge Charles Pickering to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I also want to express appreciation to Senator Frist, the leader, for giving us time in a very busy schedule to take up

this nomination. But it is time we go forward with a vote on the nomination of this good and honest and very capable Federal judge, Charles Pickering.

Mr. President, as I say, I rise today in strong support of Judge Charles Pickering's nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am pleased that this day has finally come, and that after almost 2\1/2\ years of waiting, we are finally moving forward with the consideration of Judge Pickering's nomination here on the floor of the Senate. I am grateful to Senator Hatch for his hard work in leading the Judiciary Committee to its recent approval of Judge Pickering's nomination to the Fifth Circuit, and this important vote has led to our being able to begin debate on this outstanding nominee.

As many Senators will recall, Judge Pickering was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee in the fall of 1990 to be a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. He was then unanimously confirmed by the full Senate. He has served honorably in this position for 13 years, and I am happy that the President has re-nominated Judge Pickering for a promotion to the Fifth Circuit after his nomination was blocked from consideration by the full Senate during the 107th Congress.

Charles Pickering and I have known each other for over 40 years, which doesn't seem possible, and I can personally attest that there is no other person in the State of Mississippi who is more eminently qualified to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, Charles Pickering graduated first in his class from the University of Mississippi Law School in 1961, and received his B.A. degree from Ole Miss with honors in 1959. He practiced law for almost 30 years in Jones County, Mississippi, and during this time served stints as the prosecuting attorney for Jones County and the City of Laurel during the 1960's. From 1972 to 1980, Charles served in the Mississippi State Senate. This was a part-time position, with full-time demands I might add, that allowed him to continue his law practice during this period.

Judge Pickering has had an impeccable reputation on the bench in Mississippi, and he is respected by all sectors of the Mississippi and national legal community. Scores of attorneys, community leaders, and other Mississippians from all walks of life have applauded his nomination to the Fifth Circuit. What a compliment to Judge Pickering, Mr. President, for him to have the support of those who know him best-- the people he works with in his professional life and spends time with in his personal endeavors. It is no surprise that the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary found him ``Well-Qualified'' for appointment as a Fifth Circuit judge.

Furthermore, he is highly respected within the federal judiciary. He served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Judges Association from 1997 until 2001, and was a member of the Executive Committee for the final 2 years of his term. He recently completed a term of service on the Judicial Branch Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Judge Pickering has been involved in numerous community and public service endeavors. He has headed the March of Dimes campaign in Jones County, Mississippi, and served as Chairman of the Jones County Chapter of the American National Red Cross. He was also a major participant in the formation of the Jones County Economic Development Authority, serving as its first chairman.

Charles Pickering has been a leader in his community and in the state on race relations, and in standing up for what is right. In 1967, at the risk of harm to himself and his family, he testified against the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, Sam Bowers, for the fire-bombing death of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer. He was active in his community's efforts to integrate their public schools, sending all four of his children to the integrated schools. In 1981, Charles Pickering represented an African American man falsely accused of robbing a white teen-aged girl. Although his decision to provide this legal representation was not supported by some in his community, he aggressively represented his client, who was found not guilty. He was a motivating force behind and currently serves on the Board of Directors of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi, our mutual alma mater.

He has also volunteered for the Jones County Heart Fund, the Jones County Drug Education Council, and the Economic Development Authority of Jones County. He has always been very active in his church, serving as a Sunday school teacher, Chairman of the Deacons, Sunday school superintendent, and church treasurer. From 1983-85, he was the President of the Mississippi Baptist Convention.

In addition to his many professional and civic activities, Charles Pickering has also been a good farmer. He was the first president of the National Catfish Farmers Association and was a leader in catfish farming during its early days. Most importantly, though, is the fact that Charles has always put his family first, even with the commitments I have just described. He has a wonderful wife and four grown children with spouses and families of their own, including his son, Congressman Chip Pickering, who is a former member of my staff. Representative Pickering's integrity is a further testament to the caliber of Judge Charles Pickering's character.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this important nomination today, because the Senate needs to act now to confirm Judge Pickering. He is exceptionally well-qualified for elevation to the Fifth Circuit, and I strongly endorse his nomination. He has been waiting far, far too long for a debate and vote on his nomination. I urge my colleagues to support moving forward with an up- or-down vote on this important nomination. I know that Judge Pickering's elevation to the Fifth Circuit is supported by a majority of Senators, and it is time for this majority to be heard.

As I said, he has been waiting 2\1/2\ years in this process. Unfortunately, last year he was defeated on a party-line vote and prevented from being reported out of the Judiciary Committee. But this year he was reported to the floor. He deserves to have his story told, and even a vote to occur on his nomination.

I have known this man and his family and his neighbors, the people in his church, the school officials, the minority leaders in his community for over 40 years.

I think there used to be a time when a Senator vouched for a person, a nominee from his State, and it carried real weight. I am here to tell you, this is one of the finest men, one of the finest family men, one of the smartest individuals, one of the best judges I have known in my life. There is no question that he has the educational background, the qualifications, the experience, the judicial demeanor, and also the leadership to bring about unity, not division.

That has been the story of his life. He has always been a unifier. He has always been willing to step up and take on the tough battles in his home county and in our State of Mississippi.

Senator Hatch made reference to the fact that when he was county attorney, years ago, in the late 1960s he had the courage to actually work with the FBI and to testify against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, something not very healthy for your political career or even your life at the time. But he took a stand and was defeated for reelection, to a large degree because of that.

He continued to work in his community and provide leadership. He practiced law for 30 years. If you want to look at his qualifications, here they are listed. He was not just an average student. He graduated first in his class from law school. He graduated from undergraduate school with honors. He has the highest rating by Martindale Hubbell. In 1990, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be a district judge. He has been very good in his rulings. In fact, of those that were appealed, the reversal rate is only 7.9 percent, which is extraordinarily good. He received from the American Bar Association-- not once but twice--their highest rating of well qualified. They looked into allegations that were made against him after his first consideration by the committee and came back and said: He is still well qualified--not a group known for dismissing allegations or charges that were made against him.

He certainly has the qualifications and the experience. In his community, he is endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, elected officials of both parties, the head of the local NAACP. The people who know him best, who know his family, who see him every day, say this is a good man, qualified to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He has served on the Federal bench for 13 years. He is highly respected within the Federal judiciary. In fact, he has served in a leadership capacity there. He has been on the board of directors of the Federal Judges Association from 1997 to 2001, and he was on the executive committee for the final 2 years of his term. He recently completed a term of service on the Judicial Branch Committee of the Judicial Conference. He is respected by his fellow judges.

I know some of the Senators on both sides of the aisle have had Federal judges in their States also vouch for this good man to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He has had letters of endorsement from a wide span of community leaders and State leaders in our State, including all five statewide elected Democrats.

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

I have other letters of endorsement and articles supporting Judge Charles Pickering, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

One of the criticisms was, well, the Judge was the intermediary in sending some of the letters of support. I am not going to belabor the point, but as a matter of fact, I have the list of who these people were. They were people he had known for 30 years, former college friends, law school friends, people he practiced law with. It was in the aftermath of the anthrax attack here on the Capitol. The only way he could make sure the letters got to the Judiciary Committee in a timely way was to send them himself. The allegation that there was something inappropriate about that is totally baseless, and it is just the type of thing that has been used against him.

Another allegation is that when he was a State senator he had some relationship with what was then known as the Sovereignty Commission. When he went into the Senate, I think when he was first sworn in, representatives from that organization said they had some concerns about Klan activity with regard to labor unions down in his home county.

He said: Keep me posted.

Seldom do they note the fact that he subsequently voted to abolish the Sovereignty Commission; again, a very frivolous charge. To have your name mentioned 30 years later in a report, that they had some happenstance contact with him, certainly should not be disqualifying.

From all walks of life in Mississippi, people are very much in support of this nomination. He hasn't just been a lawyer and a judge and family man. He has been involved. He helped bring his hometown school through integration. His kids went to the public schools. The first time I saw his son--now a Congressman--Chip Pickering, he was playing linebacker for the football team for the Laurel Tornadoes, R. H. Watkins Laurel High School. He was a great athlete on a team that was probably 80 percent African American. They have always been willing to take a stand.

He was head of the local March of Dimes. He headed the local Red Cross. He has been involved in economic development. He has been involved in the Heart Fund, the Drug Education Council, Sunday school teacher, chairman of the deacons, church treasurer, president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention. Some people look at that almost like it is an indictment. It is a great honor for the people of your faith to honor you to head their organization statewide.

He has even been a farmer and was the first president of the National Catfish Farmers Association. I had contact with him then.

President Reagan once wrote in a note where there was a picture of a mother and her son: The apple never falls too far from the tree. The point was, if the child is really an outstanding person, he probably came from a very strong and good tree. True. In this case, there is not a finer young man I know of than Congressman Chip Pickering who has labored valiantly to tell the truth about his dad. If you want to get emotional, watch a son work for his father. I think the kind of man Chip Pickering is tells you a lot about the father who brought him into the world, along with his mother.

This certainly is an outstanding individual. He had his reputation besmirched a couple of years ago. He has been willing to continue to stand and fight to have the record corrected and to see this through to a conclusion. I hope the Senate will not filibuster this judge. At least give him a direct vote. Or if we have to have a vote on cloture, vote to invoke cloture, and let's move this nomination forward.

There is a real fester developing here in this institution, institutionally and individually. We have to lance it or it is going to demean us as individuals and the institution. We have to stop it. This is the place to do it. This man should be confirmed for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, has all time expired?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote be vitiated and that the Senate immediately proceed to a vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and further, parliamentary inquiry, I was under the impression the Senator from New Jersey was going to offer an amendment, but he propounded instead this unanimous consent request.

Further reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we have a Federal Aviation Administration conference report that is due for consideration in the House maybe today or early next week. That issue will be coming to the floor of the Senate, I presume, shortly thereafter. It is a 4-year, $60 billion bill that is critical for our airlines, our airports, for general aviation, and for security in aviation. It reminds me of this Healthy Forests bill. A week ago, there were objections to the Healthy Forests bill. This week, with half the State of California on fire, all of a sudden we are going to get this Healthy Forests legislation.

I urge my colleagues to look seriously at this legislation and what it means for this great industry in our country, an important part of our economy--aviation--and for security in aviation before we just say we are going to go with the status quo. If a week from now or a month from now there is an explosion in an airport or a plane is driven into a twin tower somewhere, I would not want to be the one who is not passing this huge FAA reauthorization extension.

Further reserving the right to object, I don't like all that is in this bill either. I am not an advocate of some of the provisions that are in this bill or not in this bill. I am not even necessarily an advocate of privatization. But to threaten to kill this major legislation with an extension over that one issue is very dubious action.

I, with great pleasure, object to this unanimous consent request.

Reserving the right to object.

If there is going to be a unanimous consent request, I ask that there be an equal amount of time, if needed, for the other side.

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

Mr. President, I realize we need to get back to amendments on this legislation so we can complete Healthy Forests so I will try to be brief, but I have to respond to some of the things that were said.

First, the Senator from New Jersey and I have talked about this issue and about this legislation in the past. He knows that I was in hopes we could work out something in this area, but now we are talking about not going forward with the conference report and doing a 6-month extension for what is not in a bill.

We were told there was a problem with the language that was in the bill because it said, by the way, there cannot be any private takings of air traffic controllers. That was in the conference report, that there would be 69 medium and smaller airports that would be subject to possible contract towers. We were told that is a problem. The people did not like the contract tower concept. Others did not like the prohibition, by the way, on privatization of the air traffic controllers. So the conference took those two provisions out.

Basically, the conference says in that area you just had a 6-month extension, extend the current law. What are you gaining? There are a lot of things that are in this bill that make a huge difference that will not go forward if we do not pass the conference report: $60 billion, money that is needed for security in our airports; funds for the first time, over $100 million, that would go to the regional airlines, airport security, expansion, and improvement. We let $500 million go from the airport improvement fund into airport security. This legislation says, no, you cannot do any more of that. The security funds will have to come from other fees, but airport improvement money will go to improve the airports.

It has to do with general aviation, and we have some significant language in there for them. Manufacturers of airplanes from Kansas and Washington and parts suppliers all over America, all of that would be put on hold.

We are behind the curve already. Does anybody really think the airports are secure and that the airlines are secure, and that we have done all we need to do? I am not that critical of TSA. I think they are working hard and I think it is better, but we have a long way to go.

Then we are going to put a timeout on this huge, important part of our infrastructure? We want to create jobs. How about improving our airports and our air service and all the concessionaires that are involved in the airports, all the people who lost their jobs after 9/11 in the aviation industry? If we do that and do the highway bill, we are talking about thousands of jobs in America.

Also, the Senator is suggesting that we have no privatization in FAA at all, not just air traffic controllers but I guess the flight weather service people, the maintenance people, the service people.

Now, I am not particularly an advocate--in the past I have not been-- of privatization of air traffic controllers. But some of these? Maintenance service not even being possible to consider for the private sector? It is almost as if the private sector is incompetent; the

Federal Government can do it better. I do not think that is usually the case. I think most American people think when the Federal Government does it it gets worse and more expensive.

Then there is one other point. The President of the United States is not going to sign a bill that says there cannot be any privatization anywhere anytime in the FAA. We have tried to be accommodating, to go back to the conference and take out what we thought was the offending language.

If I could, let me complete, and then I will yield for a question, although we prolong this agony, which is not going to achieve anything right now.

If we took out the 69 contract towers, there are a lot of places in America which wouldn't have a tower. In fact, that is bipartisan. The idea of contract towers, I can tell you, came from a Democrat, a well- known one in a previous administration. I thought it made sense.

I don't understand. If we cannot have 100 percent purity, we don't want this bill. We don't want $60 billion. Aviation is about more than just the guy in the air traffic control tower. It is about security on the ground.

I plead with my colleagues to think this through. We are not pulling back and saying we are going to privatize. In fact, there is a letter from the Secretary of Transportation, Norm Mineta--not your basic every-day, run-of-the-mill Republican, a Democrat--the Secretary of Transportation, says we are not going to privatize air traffic controllers.

We are fighting ghosts here. If we don't watch it, we will be creating ghosts. We will talk more about this when this conference report comes up. But I plead with my colleagues. I talked about this with my colleagues. I tried to make sure it was bipartisan. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly. There have been some changes made from that, obviously. But if we leave here this year having not passed a Federal Aviation Administration bill or an Energy bill or a Healthy Forests bill, heaven help us when our constituents get hold of us.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate works well when it is served by very competent and dedicated staff members--on our personal staff, the people who operate the elevators, the security people, the policemen, but most importantly our staff at the committee level and here on the floor of the Senate.

Over the past few years, I think most of the staff members know how much I have appreciated their good work because I have taken the time occasionally to say so and because I tried to make the Senate a family- friendly place. Although they may look like just part of the furniture, there are really some fine, dedicated people who spend long hours here who really live outside this Chamber. Sometimes I see members of our floor staff in other parts of the Capitol complex, or at Pentagon City, and I am shocked to see them out of the cave they work in. Far too often, we don't take the time to say ``thank you'' and ``job well done'' because you have made us look good, because you have served some State in our great Nation well, and because you made America a better place.

So I am here today to say thank you to one of our dedicated staff members who has now retired and is moving on to her next life--probably the third generation of her very important life--one who has served us well and one whom I will miss seeing on the floor of the Senate every day. That person is Denise Greenlaw Ramonas.

I first got to know Denise because she lives in my neighborhood, but also because she was such a competent assistant to Pete Domenici. I noticed her when Senator Domenici, one of the most able legislators in this body, would come to the floor to handle a budget resolution or piece of legislation, perhaps from the Subcommittee on Energy that he serves on of the appropriations committee or something on behalf of New Mexico. There was this obviously competent staff member working with him in the Senate. I learned to talk to her and listen to her when she was in the Senate with Pete Domenici.

Over the years, I got to know more about Denise. Denise is from Utah. She graduated from the University of Utah College of Law, receiving her juris doctorate degree. She also graduated magna cum laude from undergraduate school. She has had a number of outstanding experiences in her life including serving as a law clerk in a Houston law firm, one of the best in the state, the Boswell, O'Toole and Pickering law firm. She has been an instructor at the University of Utah College of Business. That clearly is an interesting experience. To be an instructor you have to know your subject matter and you get to work with young people. I have learned from personal experience, sometimes hard experience, students are tougher in their questioning than people you might talk to at a chamber of commerce or civic club. Being a professor is a challenge, I am sure.

She has worked for the Department of Business Regulation for the State of Utah. She was an adjunct professor, City College of Chicago, in West Berlin and Weisbaden, Germany. She also has a business on the side selling a line of women's clothes.

Beginning in 1982, she served as legislative assistant to Senator Pete

Domenici, as I noted. She was legislative director to Senator Domenici from 1985 to 1991. Obviously she developed and executed legislative strategies on a wide range of domestic and international issues, including tax reform issues, the omnibus trade bill of 1998, the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and gained a lot of valuable experience in that position with Senator Domenici. She was counsel to the minority for the Senate Budget Committee where she worked the closest with Senator Domenici but a lot of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, learned to know her and respect her.

Finally, from 1992 to 1996, she was general counsel to the Senate Budget Committee, a committee that has played a huge part in what the Senate has done over the last 20 years. Keep in mind, we did not have a Budget Committee until the late 1970s because we never got around to having a process where we add up how much we take in and how much we send out. Senator Domenici deserves a lot of credit for us eventually moving for the first time in 30 years to balanced budgets in the late 1990s and early in this century. Right there beside him, time and time again, was Denise Ramonas.

As majority leader, you do have some staff turnover occasionally and when we had a retirement here on our floor staff in 2001, I stole, once again from Senator Domenici, a great staff member. Over the years I think I have acquired about three of Senator Domenici's former staff members, and Denise Ramonas became assistant secretary to the majority serving on the floor, keeping track of the flow of legislation, making sure Senators were properly notified, keeping track of the votes. It is a demanding job with long hours, dealing with a clientele that is not always pleasant. But she did it with a smile, with a radiant beauty and with a high intellect. She served in that position from 2001 to October the 10th, I believe, was her final day.

I wish nothing but the best for Denise as she goes forward into the rest of her life seeking other opportunities. I am sure she will find some good ones and it will be rewarding to her.

I also thank her for her dedicated service over the years to this institution, particularly her years on the Senate floor. She did a great job. I personally appreciated it. So to Denise and her loved ones, I say a fond adieu and a great deal of thanks for your service here. I hope she will stay in touch with the Senate, with the Senators, and maybe even we will find a way to call on her services again.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Is the vote going to be at 6:30? Was the Senator asking consent that the final passage be at 6:30?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, for yielding me this time.

Mr. President, should we just go ahead and eliminate committees in Congress? Should we just go ahead and limit the House and the Senate? We have a job to do. Are we going to turn everything over to so-called independent commissions that drag their feet. It takes months to get people appointed. They hire staff. What are we here for? Another ``independent'' commission?

We have one underway right now, headed by former Governor Kean. It is a very good, bipartisan group of capable men and women looking at the events prior to 9/11 but also looking at the intelligence component of what happened there. So there is already one independent commission.

But I have never liked these commissions. I have been involved in creating some of them. They are always an excuse to shove it off on somebody else. It is as if we are trying to put hands over our eyes and say, ``Oh, no, we can't do it'' or, ``Don't show me. Let's let somebody else do the job.''

What do we have the Intelligence Committee for? Formerly I would get briefings related to intelligence information, but I am a new member, actively sitting on the Intelligence Committee. I have faith in this bipartisan committee. It should be, and for the most part it is, a nonpartisan committee.

I have faith in Pat Roberts. He is not exactly a pushover on any issue, whether it is agriculture, defense, or intelligence. Jay Rockefeller, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, is very aggressive on this issue. We are doing our job. We are having hearings, lots of hearings. And we are going to get at the truth of the intelligence.

Do they have what they need? Were they giving us some bad analysis of the intelligence?

We are in that process. We are doing our job. Let's let the Intelligence Committee do its job. We don't need another independent commission. I trust this committee. The Senate should give us the chance to do the job. We should not have another commission out there spending money, hovering around and accomplishing very little.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1887

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9 a.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2003, in Room 301 Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a confirmation hearing on four Presidential nominees to the Election Assistance Commission.

The nominees are Paul S. DeGregorio (R) of Missouri (2 year term); Gracia M. Hillman (D) of the District of Columbia (2 year term); Deforest ``Buster'' Soaries (R) of New Jersey (4 year term); and Raymundo Martinez III (D) of Texas (4 year term).

For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.