Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is one of those rare occasions when the Senator from Maine and I disagree. I appreciate the fact that Senator Collins is trying to find a middle ground in this contentious debate. She gives the Transportation Screening Officers at TSA some employee rights but not the right to collectively bargain, which most employees in the Department of Homeland Security, and throughout our Government has. Presumably, the contention is that the right to collective bargaining would interfere with the security responsibility of the agencies, but TSA in the underlying bill and under Senator McCaskill's amendment would have absolute authority to take whatever actions are needed to carry out its mission in an emergency without bargaining with any units, without even considering any collective bargaining agreement. The fact is that Federal security forces generally have the right to collectively bargain: Border Patrol agents, immigration officers, Customs, Federal Protective Services, and the U.S. Capitol Police. Those collective bargaining rights do not interfere with their protection of our security, nor would those rights for TSOs at TSA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a unanimous consent request for the order of the speakers to follow. It would be, Senator Bunning of Kentucky be recognized for 5 minutes to call up an amendment and then set it aside; that Senator Schumer of New York then be recognized for up to 5 minutes to call up three amendments and set them aside; that Senator Kerry of Massachusetts be recognized for up to 10 minutes to offer a tribute to former Senator Tom Eagleton; that Senator Graham of South Carolina be recognized for up to 15 minutes to speak on an amendment; that Senator Wyden and Senator Bond be recognized for up to 10 minutes to call up an amendment; that Senator Kyl be recognized for up to 5 minutes; and, finally, that Senator Landrieu be recognized for up to 10 minutes to do a tribute.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Excuse me. Is Senator Kyl for 5 minutes or 15 minutes? I said 5 minutes only because it is on my piece of paper as 5, but it is 15 minutes we want to give to Senator Kyl.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I express my regrets to Senator Collins that she had not seen this list. I thought she had. We don't like to do it that way. It is a bipartisan list, as it turns out. I am going to propound a unanimous consent request again and do it in summary fashion without mentioning the topics again. I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers be as follows: Senator Bunning for 5 minutes; Senator Schumer for 5 minutes; Senator Kerry for 10 minutes; Senator Graham for 15 minutes; Senator Wyden and Senator Bond to share 10 minutes; Senator Kyl for 15 minutes; and Senator Landrieu for 10 minutes. In each case, it is up to that amount. I know the Senate would be grateful if the Senators choose not to use the full amount of time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. We have Republicans and Democrats running together. It is a totally nonpartisan list.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. There was no order for the Senator from Colorado to speak. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, will my friend from South Carolina yield for a question?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. I know the Senator from South Carolina has a background in military law, so he speaks with some authority on these questions. What interests me in this discussion is the rights of citizens as opposed to noncitizens. I wanted to ask my friend, first, am I right that you are not arguing against the principle that an American citizen, even one alleged to be an enemy combatant, does have habeas corpus rights?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. So I take his answer to say also--correct me if I am wrong--that the existing statute, including the MCA--which is the subject of the lawsuits we have been describing that are pending--the existing statute does not alter the right of American citizens who are alleged to be enemy combatants to use habeas corpus rights?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Again, I thank my friend. So in furthering what this discussion is about, it is whether non-American citizens seized in the war on terrorism and alleged to be enemy combatants should have habeas corpus rights under our Constitution?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Let me ask this final question. This is the part of this discussion that I struggle with, which is what is the appropriate status in the context in which we are talking about permanent lawful residents of the United States. In other words, if I understand what the Military Commissions Act-- again, correct me if I am wrong--says, is that a permanent, lawful resident of the United States who is apprehended as part of the war on terrorism and alleged to be an enemy combatant does not have a right of habeas, or a right to have a case heard in Federal court. That concerns me. This is what I want to ask my friend from South Carolina who has had experience with this to clarify, as to whether that may be--if I can use the term a ``denial'' of equal protection--to say a permanent, lawful resident of the United States cannot have the same rights in these cases that a citizen of the United States has.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. This, to me, has been a very helpful exchange. I would like to continue the discussion on the distinct question of what the habeas rights of permanent lawful residents of the United States should be.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I object. If I may explain with respect to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has, in the normal course of Senate proceedings, asked unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to offer an amendment of his own. I am objecting to that. I want to explain why. We now have 50 amendments pending. We have a group of amendments Senators Collins and I have agreed on and are willing to offer by consent, but at least two Senators are objecting to us doing that until there is an agreement to vote on amendments that they want a vote on. We have a very important bill that has a sense of urgency to it, the 9/11 legislation. Therefore, as the manager of the bill on this side-- and, incidentally, I will add that cloture was filed, surprisingly, on four of the amendments. We have come to a point where the bill as reported out of our committee on a nonpartisan vote is ready to go. But these 50 amendments are stopping it from getting to a conference with the House. Until we have an agreement across party lines as to how we are going to proceed, I am going to, respectfully, with no prejudice to my friend from Iowa, object to setting aside the pending amendment, which is the Stevens amendment, No. 299. That would be for anyone else who would want to offer an amendment at this time, until there is an agreement on how we are going to proceed to get this urgent bill passed, hopefully, by the end of the week.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish we could pass the bill tonight, but until disputes about the pending amendments are resolved--and I hope we can do that quickly overnight and tomorrow morning--there is nothing more we can do on the bill. With the agreement of my ranking member, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business for Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the section of S. 4, our committee's legislation, which will extend to transportation security officers--so-called TSOs who screen passengers and baggage at airports throughout our country--the same employee rights most everybody else in TSA and most everybody else in the Department of Homeland Security already has. I am going to stop for a moment. I note the presence on the floor of the Senator from Oklahoma. I believe there was an order for him to be called on next. I want to ask him if he intends to address the motion to table that will be made at noon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am going to yield the floor to him, and I hope I can take some time back after he is finished.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I object, Mr. President. I don't know which amendment the Senator wants pending. I need to have a conversation with the Senator from Oklahoma about which amendment this is.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the Senator from Oklahoma, and I remove my objection to his request. Amendment No. 345

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.