Floor Statements

Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee wishes to speak on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. I also wish to do that.

I ask that the Senator from Vermont be recognized.

I intend to vote against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This youthful, relatively inexperienced nominee lacks the credentials to be approved for a lifetime appointment to the second most important Federal court in the country.

At the outset, let me contrast this nomination with a circuit court nomination we recently approved: the nomination of Milan Smith to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Smith is a pillar of the California legal community, a distinguished practicing lawyer with 27 years of experience in complex legal transactions. His nomination was the product of extensive consultation with Democratic Senators. The Judiciary Committee approved his nomination 18 to 0, and the full Senate gave its consent unanimously.

The Smith nomination is an example of the way the process is supposed to work. The Constitution gives the President and the Senate a shared role in filling vacancies on Federal courts. Working together, we can move highly qualified nonpartisan nominees through the process without rancor or delay.

But when the President uses judicial appointments as a reward to the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party, he invites controversy and conflict. Regrettably, that may be just the result that the White House wants.

Cesar Conda, a former domestic policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, recently wrote in the Roll Call newspaper: ``For Bush, a renewed fight over conservative judges . . . just might be the cure to the Republican Party's current political doldrums.''

One of my Republican colleagues is quoted in the National Review earlier this month as saying: ``A good fight on judges does nothing but energize our base. Right now our folks are feeling a little flat. They need a reason to get engaged, and fights over judges will do that.''

At the same time, a lengthy debate over judges serves to distract attention from the pressing problems facing the Nation: an intractable war in Iraq, soaring gas prices, millions of Americans who lack health insurance. Instead of addressing these vital issues, this Senate has been forced to spend days and weeks and months talking about divisive judicial nominees.

The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh is nothing if not divisive. All eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee oppose his confirmation. Every leading civil rights, environmental, and labor organization in the country has urged that he be rejected.

This nomination is not the product of consensus and consultation--it is a poke in the eye to the Senate. It is a wedge that disrupts the wonderful bipartisanship which has characterized the immigration debate over the past 2 weeks.

I recently met with Brett Kavanaugh. He seems like a bright young man. But he is a 41-year-old lawyer who has spent his short legal career in service to partisan Republican causes.

His two principal accomplishments as a lawyer are his work as an aide to Special Counsel Kenneth Starr during the misguided crusade to impeach President Clinton, and his current duty as a political lawyer in the Bush White House. Those positions do not disqualify Mr. Kavanaugh from future service, but they do not constitute the kind of broad experience in the law that we should expect from a nominee to the District of Columbia Circuit.

The DC Circuit is a uniquely powerful court. It has jurisdiction over challenges to Federal activities affecting the environment, consumer protections, workers and civil rights. This court hears appeals from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other agencies.

As a result, DC Circuit judges sit in a unique position to judge Government actions that affect our lives in fundamental ways. Mr. Kavanaugh's slim, partisan record gives me no confidence he is the right person to assume this awesome responsibility.

In the 113 years since the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit was established in 1893, 54 judges have sat on the court. Only three of those judges came to the court with less experience than Kavanaugh. DC Circuit judges have averaged over 26 years of legal experience at the time of their appointment to the DC Circuit. Mr. Kavanaugh, in contrast, graduated from law school a mere 16 years ago.

It is not just Mr. Kavanaugh's youth but his lack of practical experience that renders him unfit for this post. In his 16 years as a lawyer he has never tried a case to verdict or judgment. When questioned about this deficiency at his committee hearing, the nominee presumed to compare himself to Chief Justice John Roberts. But at the time of his appointment to the DC Circuit, Roberts had argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has argued just one such case, on behalf of the Starr investigation.

There are other kinds of experience one might bring to an appellate court. Some nominees are respected scholars. Some are sitting judges. Kavanaugh is neither. His high-ranking position in the Bush White House might constitute relevant experience, but we have little idea what he has accomplished in that role. He largely refused to answer questions from the committee about the issues he has handled or the positions he has advocated.

We know he helped to select many of the controversial judicial nominees

who have tied the Senate in knots in recent years. We know he was the author of a far-reaching government secrecy policy, despite his own role in stripping President Clinton of every vestige of privacy and privilege during the Starr investigation. Other than that, all we know is that Mr. Kavanaugh has had a fancy west wing title.

Most nominees gain more stature over the course of their legal careers, but Mr. Kavanaugh is headed in the opposite direction. The American Bar Association recently took the rare step of lowering its rating of this nominee.

Lawyers and judges interviewed by the nonpartisan ABA Committee described Mr. Kavanaugh as ``sanctimonious,'' ``immovable'' and ``very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'' A judge before whom Mr. Kavanaugh appeared considered him ``less than adequate'' and said he demonstrated ``experience on the level of an associate.'' A lawyer who observed him during a different court proceeding stated: ``Mr. Kavanaugh did not handle the case well as an advocate and dissembled.''

Needless to say, these are not qualities that make for a good judge.

Still others described Mr. Kavanaugh as ``insulated.'' That is the last quality we want in a 41-year-old man who will soon begin the cloistered life of an appellate judge. Mr. Kavanaugh lacks the wide- ranging experience that breeds wisdom and judgment, and he is unlikely to acquire those qualities on the bench.

Mr. Kavanaugh's thin legal resume contrasts with the resumes of the two Clinton nominees who were blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate when they were nominated to the same court. Elena Kagan, now the Dean of Harvard Law School, had been both a practicing lawyer and a leading administrative law scholar at the time of her nomination. Allen Snyder, a former clerk to Justices Harlan and Rehnquist had been a litigation partner at the law firm of Hogan and Hartson for 26 years.

Under what definition of fairness do my Republican colleagues insist that Brett Kavanaugh is entitled to a Senate vote while Elena Kagan and Allen Snyder were denied a vote? By what standard do they consider Kavanaugh qualified to sit on the DC Circuit when these two other distinguished lawyers were denied that honor?

Unlike Kagan and Snyder, Mr. Kavanaugh will be considered by the Senate. But I will cast my vote against confirmation. This nominee's record is too sparse and the court to which he is nominated is too important to the rights that Americans hold dear.

I urge the Senate to reject this unacceptable nomination.

Mr. President, even in this Bush Presidency, I continue to believe that a judge should have experience in a courtroom. I know that is somewhat heretical in the environment we have, but I really believe that if you are going to be a judge, you should have some practical experience, at least picking a jury, arguing to a jury, appearing before a court, making your views known to the judge. That is largely lacking with this young man.

We have testimony before the Judiciary Committee from two judges for whom he worked. It is unusual that people clerk for two separate judges. These clerkships are usually a year long, and you sit back there and you shuffle papers for the judge and you draft opinions for the judge on the cases that come before the judge--but that is very different than courtroom experience as a practicing lawyer. You may go watch a few arguments, but clerking for two judges doesn't do the trick. That doesn't give you the experience to be a judge, especially a judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land.

I understand that Mr. Kavanaugh has argued several appeals. But not very many, and in any event that's not the same as trying cases in my view.

I am going to vote against confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. I want to make four brief points about this nomination.

First, Brett Kavanaugh is a youthful partisan who lacks the credentials to be approved for a lifetime appointment to the second most important Federal court in our country. He is 41 years old. He has spent his short legal career in service to Republican causes.

He worked as an aide to Special Counsel Kenneth Starr. I think the work of Kenneth Starr will go down in history as a blight on this country. This partisan investigation disrupted this country and it was aided by the nominee who is before the Senate at this time.

He has been a lawyer in the White House for President Bush. The fact that he worked for Starr and now works in the White House doesn't disqualify him, but these do not add up to the kind of experience we should have from a nominee to the District Circuit Court. It doesn't add up.

Second, Mr. Kavanaugh's lack of practical experience renders him unfit for the post. In his years as a lawyer, he has never tried a case to a verdict or to judgment.

There are other kinds of experience one might bring to an appellate court. Some nominees are respected scholars and some are sitting judges. Mr. Kavanaugh is neither.

His high-ranking position in the White House might constitute relevant experience, but we have little idea about what he accomplished in that role. He has largely refused to answer questions from the committee about the issues he has handled or the positions he has advocated.

The big push for this man comes from partisans who want to push the majority in the Senate toward the nuclear option. They think it would be a great thing to disrupt the Senate in this way.

Third, the American Bar Association recently lowered its rating of this nominee. Most nominees gain more stature over the course of their legal careers, but Mr. Kavanaugh is headed in the opposite direction, and rightfully so. Lawyers and judges of the nonpartisan ABA committee described Mr. Kavanaugh as being ``sanctimonious'' and ``frustrating to deal with.'' That says it all.

A judge before whom Mr. Kavanaugh appeared described him as ``less than adequate'' and said he demonstrated experience ``at the level of an associate.''

A lawyer who observed him during a different court proceeding stated that:

Mr. Kavanaugh did not handle the case well as an advocate

and dissembled.

Needless to say, these are not qualities which make a good judge. But the right wing wants him, and he is going to become a judge.

Finally, let me say this: The nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh is divisive. All eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee oppose his confirmation. Every leading civil rights, environmental, and labor organization in the country urged that he be rejected.

The Constitution gives the President and the Senate a shared role in filling vacancies on the Federal court. Working together, we can move highly qualified, nonpartisan nominees through the process without rancor or delay. But when the President uses judicial appointments as a reward to the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party, it invites controversy and conflict. And that is what we have. In sum, this nominee's record is too sparse. The court to which he is nominated is too important. I hope we get a lot of votes against this nomination. I understand that everyone on the other side of the aisle will walk over here and vote for this unqualified candidate, but that is not how it should be.

If there is no one else wishing to speak, I ask that we proceed to the vote on Mr. Kavanaugh.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of General Hayden as the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Based on my review of his long record as a career intelligence man and his answers to some important questions during his confirmation hearing, I am hopeful General Hayden will provide the CIA the kind of non-partisan leadership it has sorely lacked for the past several years.

And I am also hopeful that this nomination signifies that the Bush administration has recognized, finally, that professionals, not partisans should be put in charge of national security.

General Hayden has impeccable credentials and a career in intelligence matters that is as impressive as it is long. Anyone can read the public record and quickly see that this man is more than qualified for this job.

And my personal meeting with General Hayden shortly after he was nominated only served to reinforce that impression. I met with him privately--one on one--in my office just off this floor, for more than 45 minutes.

During the course of that meeting, we discussed General Hayden's career in the Air Force from 1969 until today and his dedicated service to America's intelligence community that ultimately earned him a fourth star.

My meeting convinced me that General Hayden understands and respects the role of Congress in national security matters. He seems to grasp how essential it is that he consult regularly with the congressional leadership on these critical issues. And he seems to recognize the need to keep the congressional oversight committees fully informed about the intelligence community's activities.

All of these are important because we are a nation at war and actions by the Bush administration have left our intelligence community--this Nation's eyes and ears on those who mean us harm in disarray.

As a direct result of this administration's actions, the Central Intelligence Agency and those it placed under contract have been directly implicated in numerous instances of abuse of detainees that have given this nation a black eye around the world and been counterproductive to winning the fight against terrorism.

The findings of our intelligence community are increasingly questioned by the American people and the world.

And scores of incredibly talented and experienced career intelligence professionals have been driven from their jobs because they insisted on speaking the truth rather than tow the Administration's line.

Things apparently got so out of hand at CIA in recent months that the President's intelligence advisory board finally had to intervene and recommend change.

All of these developments have harmed national security and placed Americans at greater risk. And it is against this difficult backdrop that the Senate debates the nomination of General Hayden. As Senator Levin said in the confirmation hearings, ``The next Director must right this ship and restore the CIA to its critically important position.''

I want to briefly lay out the three major challenges that I believe General Hayden faces in ensuring that he achieves the success the Senate expects of his tenure.

The first challenge is independence.

General Hayden needs to speak truth to power and call the shots as he sees them, not as he thinks his boss wants them seen. Rebuilding the independence of intelligence also means ending its politicization. General Hayden must stand up to an administration that has either attempted to bully the intelligence community into saying what it wanted or worked around it when it couldn't get the answers it needed. General Hayden must provide assurances to Congress that intelligence assessments, and professional intelligence civil servants, will be protected from outside interference, not politicized.

The second challenge is openness to oversight.

This administration has refused to follow the law and Senate rules that require keeping the intelligence committees fully and currently informed of important intelligence practices. Administration ideologues have apparently authorized detention and interrogation practices that have backfired in our efforts in the war on terror, and concocted controversial legal arguments for presidential powers backing a warrantless surveillance program that circumvents the law--all without keeping Congress properly informed as required under the law. General Hayden must ensure that Congress is able to carry out its constitutional obligations on critical national security matters.

The third challenge is fixing our strategy in the war on terror.

After more than 4 years of the war on terror, Osama bin Laden remains at large and al-Qaida and other radical fundamentalist terrorist organizations pose a grave threat to our security. Terrorist attacks have increased not decreased on this administration's watch. Two of the three so-called axes of evil are more dangerous today than they were when President Bush first uttered that memorable phrase and the third, Iraq, is on the verge of becoming what it was not before the war--a haven and launching pad for international terrorists. And America's standing in the world has reached record lows in critical regions of the world.

In the short run, General Hayden must insist that the Bush administration redouble and refocus its efforts that go after ``high value targets''. It is a travesty--a travesty--that nearly 5 years after 9/11, the Bush administration has not captured or killed Osama bin Laden. The CIA must lead efforts to understand the challenge posed by Iran and North Korea and their nuclear ambitions.

General Hayden must also build a global human intelligence capability over the next several years with diverse officers who understand the cultures and speak the languages of every key target across the entire globe. The CIA must play a leading role in understanding how to help win the battle of ideas going on within the Islamic world, and how to change the calculus of the young so that new generations of terrorists are not created.

These are all large and important challenges, with grave consequences for America and the world. Based on

everything I have seen I am hopeful he is up to the task. And I am hopeful this administration will let him do the job for which it nominated him.

Mr. President, I yield 1 hour of my time postcloture to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. President, I will use leader time so as not to interfere with the schedule on the floor.

I said at the beginning of this debate 2 weeks ago that this was a blockbuster. I said that this is the summer season for movies and this is the time for blockbuster movies. ``The DaVinci Code'' and ``Mission Impossible III'' came out, but I said we had our own blockbuster here in the Senate: part 2 of immigration. Prior to the Easter recess we know how immigration fared. It didn't. It stopped for a lot of different reasons. But now we start part 2. I said that 2 weeks ago, and now for me, this has been such a reminder of how the Senate used to be. We held a number of votes. I was on the prevailing side of some and I was not on the prevailing side of others. Coalitions were built here in the Senate, Democrats with Republicans and vice versa. That is the way we used to legislate.

In this most important bill, no one got everything they wanted. There were compromises made in the committee and certainly compromises made here on the Senate floor. But we have had bipartisan cooperation. This is comprehensive immigration reform, focusing first on border security.

This legislation will do so much to make our borders more secure. We have done a lot of things that have never been tried before to improve the security of our Nation by doing something about our borders. I have gone to the borders and I have seen the hard-working Border Patrolmen. They work so hard with so little attention. And this legislation is the opportunity for them to do their jobs better, because we are going to give them more resources. I would hope that we will do that. We certainly need to.

Before we finish, I would caution everyone from confusing what we are doing here today--we are going to complete passage of this bill shortly--with ultimate victory. This is not the final scene of this blockbuster that we have on the Senate floor. There is another act to go. But I want to express my appreciation to the two managers, Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy. They have done yeomen's work to sort through all of the hurt feelings that people have in offering these amendments and not getting the votes they wanted when they wanted them. This is a big bill to manage, and I think these two very senior Members of the Senate have done a tremendous job. I also want to express my appreciation to Senator McCain.

I also want to focus attention on someone who I think has done a great job on this bill, who is behind the scenes always trying to grow the compromises that the managers and Senator McCain haven't been able to work out, and that is the senior Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. I really have appreciated the work he has done on this bill. He has been a tremendous asset to Senator Kennedy, Senator Specter, and Senator McCain.

I want to also say that my assistant whip of the Senate has done a great job. We all know that Senator Durbin legislates so much with his heart. He is a good person and has a good sense of what is right and what is wrong. He was heavily involved in this legislation, being a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I want the Record spread with my appreciation for the work that he has done, being our counterpart to Lindsey Graham, working through different issues that we have had.

For all of the good that we are going to be able to accomplish by passing this bill, there is a lot more work to do.

I want to say something about someone who opposes this legislation. No one has been a bigger opponent of this legislation than Jeff Sessions of Alabama. If there has been a bigger opponent, I haven't seen him. I have told him this personally and I will say it publicly. Jeff Sessions and I don't agree on too much politically, in the political spectrum, but I admire how he approaches issues, because every time he came to the floor to talk about an issue, he believed sincerely what he was doing was right, and I admire that and appreciate it. Now, the fact that I disagreed with him doesn't make me any more right than he is. That is the purpose of legislation. We present our cases to this body and the body decides. But I want the Senator from Alabama to know that I appreciate his adversarial efforts.

Finally, Mr. President, for all the good work that we have done here over the past 2 weeks, it can be eliminated in a heartbeat when we go to conference with the House. We have seen it happen so much these last few years where the minority is eliminated from decisions made, public conferences are not held, items that the Senate supports are stripped, and there is nothing to prevent the same thing from happening on this bill but for the good faith we have in moving forward.

We should know the dark clouds are forming on the horizon. Influential Members of the House of Representatives in the Republican leadership are still pushing for the bill they passed, a bill that makes felons out of millions of immigrants and those who assist them, such as a member of the clergy, a health care worker, a social worker. In fact, the House Majority Leader, my friend, John Boehner, yesterday, was quoted as saying:

Trying to find a pathway that is acceptable to the House

and Senate is going to be very difficult.

I acknowledge and say that is true. But the words we have heard from the House leadership are not encouraging.

The one thing we fought for was to have a fair balance on the conference committee, and we have gotten that. I express my appreciation to the majority leader. We have the ability to name conferees on our side who I think are going to be just fine. Knowing the Republicans who are going to be part of this conference committee, it is going to work out well. We have people who are going to work hard to uphold the position of the Senate.

But we also need the active involvement of the President. I appreciate what he has done to this point. I said that on a number of occasions before. But his biggest work is ahead of him if he wants comprehensive immigration reform.

Yes, this bill includes border security. It includes help for guest workers. Mr. President, 45,000 to 50,000 hotel rooms are going to be built in Las Vegas in the next 4 to 5 years. I just had a meeting in my office with the head of the MGM Hotel, a man who has 80,000, 90,000 employees and was part of the group who got me interested in this legislation. The hotel owners, the Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas, and the unions have said unless we get some help on guest worker programs, we can't find people to work in those 45,000 to 50,000 hotel rooms. That is in this bill.

Another thing that is in it I am proud of, and we should be proud of, is a pathway to legalization for people who are in America and are undocumented: Pay your taxes, have a job, learn English, stay out of trouble, pay your penalties and fines, go to the back of the line--but you can come out of the shadows.

Then, finally, what we have in this legislation is better--better employer sanction enforcement, and we need that.

We are authorizing things, but they are not worth anything unless we appropriate the money to do them. All the measures we have relating to security, they must be favored with appropriations bills, as with everything else in this bill. I hope we will have the carry-through to do that. This is a two-step process from this point forward. We have to have a conference and then we have to have appropriators who will do the right thing.

Again, I feel so good today. This is what the Senate is all about. I spent 24 years of my life in the Congress of the United States, 20 of them here in the Senate. This is the way it used to be. This is the way it should be in the future. I have every hope and belief that we can make it that way.

I appreciate the courtesy of all my colleagues here allowing me to have this time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

My question is, What time does the leader want to come in in the morning? I understand it is 9:15.

Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I had the honor of serving on the Environment and Public Works Committee with John Warner. During part of my tenure there, he was chairman of that committee. No one is more of a gentleman than John Warner.

John Warner has a background that is really something all Americans should understand. John Warner was born in Virginia, attended Washington and Lee College, Virginia Law School. At age 17, he joined the Navy. That was during World War II. But that wasn't enough for him for military service. He again joined the military during the Korean conflict, joining the Marine Corps. He thereafter became Secretary of the Navy and served with distinction as Secretary of the Navy.

I think it is only appropriate that John Warner cast his 10,000th vote just a week or two after his partner and friend, Carl Levin. There is no better example of teamwork than we have had on the Armed Services Committee with John Warner and Carl Levin. It is good that these two brothers were both honored for having cast their 10,000th vote within a matter of weeks of each other. It has been a pleasure to work with both of them.

(Applause, Members rising.)

Mr. President, from April 29 to May 1, 2006, approximately 1,200 students from across the country participated in the national finals competition of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, an educational program developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The We the People Program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education through an act of Congress.

During the 3-day competition, students from all 50 States demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles. The students testified before a panel of judges in a congressional hearing simulation focusing on constitutional topics. I am pleased to announce that Incline High School from Incline Village, NV, received the Western Region Award.

I had the chance to meet these bright young students from Incline High while they were here in Washington, DC. Of the many groups from Nevada that I have met with, I have rarely been asked such intelligent and thoughtful questions. I was impressed with their interest and knowledge of complex constitutional issues. These young students are an example of the future of America, and they should be commended for their hard work.

Mr. President, the names of these outstanding students from Incline High School are as follows: Kent Bergantz, Roxanne Casselberry, Dan Driver, Julie Gregory, Amy Hanna, Andrew Herr, Annie Horton, Alisa Johansson, Taylor Lane, Cara Langsfeld, Stephen McKay, Scott Nikkel, Courtney Pennacchio, Mia Perhacs, Tony Ring, Cara Sheehan, Ryan Spizman, Lara St. John, Christin Thompson, Shea Wickland, Alethia Williams, and Carly Wood.

I would also like to commend the teacher of the class, Milt Hyams, as well as the State coordinator, Marcia Stribling, and the district coordinators, Daniel Wong and Shane Piccinini, who have donated their time and energy to prepare these students for the national finals competition. Without the hard work and dedication of these individuals, our students would have missed an amazing learning experience.

Mr. President and my colleagues in the Senate, please join me in congratulating these young constitutional experts for their outstanding achievement.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. President, I was just notified a few minutes ago that Lloyd Bentsen died. For those of us who have had the pleasure of serving with Lloyd Bentsen, this is a sad day. There was no one who better represented the Senate than Lloyd Bentsen. He looked like a Senator, he carried himself so well, and he acted like a Senator. He legislated like a Senator. He died at age 85. He was sick for a number of years. He was a person who had a great political record. He served in the House of Representatives for three terms, and he served in the Senate--he could have served as long as he wanted--and became Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton administration. He, of course, ran for Vice President and he ran for President.

For me personally, he was such a guiding light. I can remember when I was elected to the Senate, and I was trying to get on the Appropriations Committee. I met in his hideaway.

This speaks about the way Lloyd Bentsen conducted his life. I was telling him why it would be good for me. I had been through a tough race. It was the most noted race in the cycle at that time. I was talking to him a lot about why it was important for me to get on the Appropriations Committee. He ended the discussion very quickly.

He said: It doesn't matter if it is good for you. I believe it is good for the Senate.

That was how he conducted his life. He was someone we all looked to. As a new Senator, I could talk to him with reverence. I can remember visiting with him when he was Secretary of Treasury. He told me how much he missed the Senate and how lonely it was down there and how he missed the collegiality of the Senate.

The State of Texas has had great Senators, but no Senator has ever been a better Senator than Lloyd Bentsen.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, with the consent of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the recess begin now, 12 minutes early.

Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished majority leader a couple of questions, we had a lot of trouble last year and we finally worked something out on the Defense authorization bill. This is such an important bill, and I hope in the planning which is taking place that we will find some time to spend on that most important piece of legislation. I ask the majority leader if we have an idea how the supplemental is coming along? The reason I ask the question is there is no end of questions coming to me and people saying it is really important to get this done before we leave.

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

Mr. President, I just finished a meeting in my office. It was emotional, to say the least. Two mothers--both mothers of Marine Corps men--came to my office to tell me about their boys who were killed in Iraq. I asked each of them to tell me about their sons.

Helena Lukac, of Hungarian ancestry, a beautiful woman, spoke with an accent telling me about her boy. He had better than a 4-point grade average at Durango High School. He loved math and science. He wanted to be an FBI agent or a CIA operative.

He told his mom: I am not sure I can do that because we came from a Communist country. I am not sure they would let me do that.

He joined the Marine Corps when he was 18, and at 19 years old he was killed.

Gloria Salazar's son was 23 when he was killed. He wanted to be in the Marine Corps from the time he was little, but at the first attempt he couldn't pass the physical. But he worked on his deficiencies and came back and joined the Marine Corps. She was very proud of him. She showed me a picture of his arrival in Iraq with his camera that he used which was part of his job in Iraq.

The mothers told the same story. They knew when their sons had been killed.

Ms. Salazar was shopping in a mall, and that afternoon her son's picture kept falling out of her purse. She was so troubled she went home, and during the day she went to sleep, which was unusual. The time was assessed thereafter. She slept from the time he was injured until the time he died. The same thing happened to Helena Lukac. She was at work. She described her feeling as ``a nut with nothing inside it.'' She felt empty.

I expressed to them my sorrow and sympathy and the appreciation of a grateful nation for these two young men having given their lives. It was a very emotional experience to hear the mothers talk about PFC John Lukac killed in Anbar Province and CPL William Salazar in Karabilah, Iraq.

Mr. President, like most Americans, I welcomed the news over the weekend that the Iraqi political leaders had created parts of a new government. It is certainly a useful step toward the kind of Iraq we all want to see.

Like most Americans, I hope this new government will be able to bring security and order to a country wracked by insurgency, extremist attacks, and sectarian strife. We know more work needs to be done, both with forming this government and with fashioning a secure and stable Iraq. Three of the most important security ministers are still unnamed. That is hard to comprehend. We have been waiting and waiting for a cabinet to be formed, but is it really a cabinet? As unbelievable as it may seem to many, there is even talk of disgraced Ahmed Chalabi filling one of those security posts. That is hard to comprehend, but that is what the news accounts indicate.

I wonder how much longer this administration will insist that the burden of securing Iraq continue to fall squarely on the backs of our heroic U.S. troops, troops such as John Lukac and William Salazar. Secretary Rumsfeld was asked the question in Senate hearings last week. It turned out to be a question he could not answer. This past weekend, when he was asked about the possible redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq coming home, going someplace else, Secretary Rice said that it depends on the outcome of discussions with the Iraqi Government. Apparently, Secretary Rice believes Iraqi leaders should decide the fate of our troops.

We are almost at the midpoint of 2006, the year a bipartisan majority in Congress said must be a year of significant transition. That is the law of the land. It passed on a bipartisan vote during the Defense authorization bill. An amendment was offered and passed on a bipartisan basis saying that the year 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq, with Iraqis assuming responsibility for governing and securing their own country.

Unfortunately, there appears to be little evidence of this transition. In fact, we learned on Friday that there will be an increase in U.S. troops to deal with the recent surge in violence. But none of us should be surprised that this administration in this instance is not following the law. It hasn't on many other occasions.

April was the deadliest month of the year for coalition troops. If the current rate of violence is sustained, May will surpass April. The situation is similar for Iraq's security personnel. More Iraq military and police were killed in April than any time in the previous 6 months.

Economically, the trends are no better. Oil production is still about 400,000 barrels per day, less than it was prior to the war. Available electricity in Baghdad dropped from 16 hours per day prior to the war to its current average of 4 hours per day. Clean water is below prewar levels, and because of mismanagement and violence, only 49 of the 136 U.S. funded projects in the water sector will be completed. The rest have been abandoned. All of these factors reduce Iraq's support for our activities there and fuel anti-American sentiment and insurgent activity.

While we all should welcome this partially formed new government, we recall other political milestones that were achieved and quickly swallowed by more violence. For example, since the December election, 325 coalition troops have been killed.

In order to ensure the milestone produces a different, more lasting result, Iraqis, working with the Bush administration, must address outstanding issues surrounding their Constitution. They must form a police force and diffuse the sectarian conflicts which have left their country on the brink of civil war, if not in a civil war.

Let's not forget that while the President and his team have chosen to focus this Nation's attention on Iraq, we see resurgent Taliban activity in Afghanistan. Iran and North Korea are thumbing their noses at the international community, and there has been a surge in terror attacks across the globe. Also, the mastermind of the deadly attacks on this Nation, Osama bin Laden, remains at large, while his al-Qaida network has morphed into a global franchise operation.

This is a time of great challenge for our Nation and for the Iraqis. Great challenges require strong leadership. Today's speech by the President was yet another missed opportunity to provide that leadership. We heard little about his plan to engage Iraq's neighbors in finding a regional solution to

Iraq's problems. We heard little about his diplomatic efforts to end the sectarian strife. We heard little about his thoughts on how to put Iraq's reconstruction back on track. We heard little of what he is doing to counter extreme ideology making such dangerous inroads in Iraq and around the world.

Instead of kicking the can down the road and letting future Presidents find our way out of Iraq, as we have been told by Secretary Rice and the President himself will happen, it is time for the President to lay out the comprehensive strategy that our troops, our families, and the American people have been waiting for. They have been waiting a long time.

The Nation should no longer have to guess what is on the President's mind and grapple for some insight on what ``condition based'' withdrawal actually means, a phrase the Defense Secretary does not even understand. We should all understand, a full-page ad in major newspapers around the country, paid for by current CEOs, says Secretary Rumsfeld should go. These are CEOs of some of the major companies in America. ``Condition based withdrawal'' is a phrase the Defense Secretary does not understand. It is time for a clear plan that is as good as the men and women who serve our Nation each day. It is time for the Iraqi people to take control of their own country, their own affairs, and long past time for this administration to come up with a plan that places the burden of securing Iraq forces on Iraq itself. The burden of securing Iraq should be on Iraqis, not the United States. We have done a lot. Even though the news over the weekend creating part of the new government is a step forward, we still have a long way to go.

I apologize to my friend from Iowa for taking as much time as I did. I appreciate very much his courtesy, as usual.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding citizen from my home State, Dr. Carol C. Harter. As the longest serving president in the history of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Carol has brought a real vision for Nevada's future to her work and to our communities.

On June 30, 2006, Carol will step down president of the university and leave behind an extraordinary legacy of accomplishments. Under her direction, the university created 100 degree programs. She was instrumental in the creation of the William S. Boyd School of Law, the School of Architecture, and the School of Dental Medicine. She increased the size of the university, adding to the number of buildings, programs, students, and faculty. During Carol Harter's tenure as president, she raised over $556 million in gifts and pledges, which accounts for more than 80 percent of all gifts received since the UNLV Foundation's inception in 1982.

Carol brought a style of leadership to the university that was both effective and inspirational. Her strength, vision, and compelling personality provided an example to her students, faculty, and the community. I am well acquainted with her abilities because I have had the privilege of working with her on numerous projects. One project that has great meaning to me personally was the founding of the School of Dental Medicine. Growing up, my family did not have access to good dental care, and I know what a tremendous impact the dental school's community outreach programs will have on families like mine.

Carol's dedication did more than simply benefit the university; her efforts improved the quality of life in Nevada. Under Carol's leadership, the university has grown to be an institution that attracts professionals and academics to Nevada, provides for a cultural meeting place, trains the minds of all who come through its doors, and raises the level of culture and society in our community. I wish her only the best as she continues her career as executive director of the Black Mountain Institute. Her many accomplishments as president of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, will benefit the university and the residents of Nevada for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National Trails Day, which will be celebrated on June 3. One of this country's greatest natural treasures is its trails. Trails offer an opportunity for people of all ages to recreate, exercise and explore the great outdoors. Oftentimes they are a reflection of our history--a link to our past that allows us to literally follow in the footsteps of those who came before us.

Since its inception in 1993, National Trails Day has increased the awareness

of trails in our communities, and it has also provided support to the volunteer trail clubs that do so much to enhance the access and enjoyment of our trails. I extend my thanks to the volunteers who put forth so much time, passion and energy into maintaining the 200,000 miles of trails we are fortunate to call our own.

The theme for this year's National Trails Day celebration is ``Experience Your Outdoors.'' From hiking and climbing to biking and horseback riding, there are many things we can do to experience our outdoors. I encourage all Americans to participate in National Trails Day and truly enjoy their outdoor experience.

I know that many of my fellow Nevadans will be enjoying National Trails Day this year with celebrations scheduled at The John Day Trail and the Greenhorn Cutoff of the California National Historic Trail in Elko, The Pony Express Trail in Eureka, The Tahoe Rim Trail at Lake Tahoe, Condor Canyon in Caliente and the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area in Las Vegas to name a few.

Nevada's trails are rich with history and uniquely beautiful. I invite you all to visit Nevada's trails and experience all that they have to offer.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Would you like me to help explain some of that for you?

I have forgotten quite a bit about that, so maybe you should go ahead and explain it.

Mr. President, we just received word that Senator Dorgan wants 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the two managers want that modified. Rather than 20 minutes on this amendment, it will be 55 minutes, the time evenly divided between now and 10. I ask unanimous consent for that modification.

No second-degree amendments would be in order?

Mr. President, English is today, as I speak, the language of America. In spite of the fact that in Nevada, we have the beautiful Sierra Nevada mountains; in Las Vegas, the meadows. In one of our counties, White Pine County, 200 miles from Las Vegas, Ely, a longtime mining community, I can remember going there to the Slav festival and being taken to the graveyard because in the days of early Kennecott, they had a section in that graveyard for Greeks, for Slavs, for Italians.

Today, as I speak, the language of America is English. Things have changed around the world. If a person wanted to join the Foreign Service, whether they were in England, the United States, or any country in South America, to be in the diplomatic corps of their country, they had to learn French. That was the language of diplomacy. Not anymore. It is English. The language used in diplomatic relations around the world is English.

If I am a pilot and I am flying into National Airport, the air traffic controller is speaking English. If I am a pilot and am flying into Lima, Peru, the air traffic controller speaks English. If I am a pilot flying into Moscow, the air traffic controller in Moscow speaks English. The language of flying is English. It applies to every country in the world where they have an airport and they have air traffic controllers. English is the language, and my distinguished friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, knows that. He himself has flown around the world as a pilot.

I have affection for my friend from Oklahoma, but I have the greatest disagreement with him on this amendment. While the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist. I think it is directed basically to people who speak Spanish.

I have three sons who speak Spanish--fluent Spanish. One of them lived in Argentina for a couple of years, one lived in Ecuador, one lived in Spain. They speak fluent Spanish. I am very proud of these young men. They have acted as interpreters for me when I do radio programs that are in Spanish. I can remember once being so frustrated. I was a guest in a hotel. I had locked myself out of my room. There was a lady pushing the cart, and I told her I would like to get back in my room. She did not know what I was saying. She could not converse with me in Spanish. So as luck would have it, here comes one of my sons. The minute he spoke to her in Spanish, her whole demeanor changed. She became a different person because, through my son, we could communicate.

I have a young man who works for me, an American citizen, of course, Frederico. Frederico comes from Puerto Rico. We were talking today after this amendment had been laid down, and Frederico said it wasn't long ago--and these were his words--that a cleaning lady, a janitor, was buying a home here in Washington, DC. She had been an American citizen for 10 years, doing her best to become part of society. She was very concerned, though. She was buying a home. Maybe by some standards the home wasn't much, but to her, it was her first home. She was so frightened. She had papers; she couldn't understand them. She asked Frederico if he would help her, and he did that. She was able to buy the home.

He also told me that he became ill--very sick. He didn't know what was wrong with him. He speaks Spanish, and I don't think I would embarrass Frederico in saying that even today--he is well educated, a longtime citizen--he still speaks with an accent, a Hispanic accent, for want of a better description. He speaks good English with a slight accent. He was so sick. He didn't know what was wrong with him, and he was afraid, when he went to the hospital, the emergency room, he was afraid that he couldn't communicate to the health care workers what was wrong with him, and he asked: Is there anybody here who speaks Spanish? And there was--one of the nurses--and he was able to communicate. He felt better and the emergency room personnel felt better because he could explain to them what was wrong.

I believe this amendment cuts the heart out of public health and public safety. I gave you the example of the emergency room. I don't know all of the reasons that the Executive order was issued by the President. I think one reason is because of public health. It is so important for us, English speakers only, that when someone goes to get help and they are sick, that they are able to tell the health care personnel everything they need to know because it is important to me if, for example, it is a communicable disease.

So I believe we have to understand that this amendment would hurt public health badly. We need people to be able to take their children, when they are sick, to a facility, whether it is for mumps that is going around now or whether, Heaven forbid, it is avian flu at some later time.

I have served in the Congress of the United States with Jim Inhofe for many years, and we disagree on issues on occasion. But even though I believe this amendment is unfair, I don't in any way suggest that Jim Inhofe is a racist. I don't believe that at all. I just believe that this amendment has, with some people, that connotation--not that he is a racist but that the amendment is. So I want to make sure the record is spread with the fact that I have only the strongest, as I indicated early on, affection for Jim Inhofe, the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

Public safety. Mr. President, one of the earmarks I got a number of years ago in our appropriations bill was for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department because they needed police officers who were fluent in Spanish. Why? Because we have a large influx of Spanish speakers coming to southern Nevada, and the sheriff of Clark County believed he could do a better job with law enforcement if he had people who could communicate. And that is true. That worked out very well. I believe funding for police could be affected by this amendment if it passes.

Domestic violence is a perfect example. There is a lot of domestic violence, and we need people who can speak the language that people understand.

Reporting crimes--it is so important that law enforcement has the ability to understand when people report crimes. In Nevada, 6 percent of the population is Asian American. We have now in Las Vegas a very large, burgeoning Chinese-American community. One of my former employees went from here to the district attorney's office and is now working for a private individual and/or company, building a big hotel in what we call Las Vegas Chinatown.

I have been there. A lot of people there are not real good at speaking English. We have to do everything we can, whether people speak Chinese or whether they speak Spanish, to have them assimilated into our society. It is good for all of us. One of my concerns is that this will turn us back in the wrong direction.

I have said before, my wife is Jewish. Her father was born in Russia. He learned to speak English as a little boy. He spoke good English. His parents didn't. We know what happened in years past. I have heard Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, state on many occasions that there were signs in his State of Vermont: No Catholics or Italians need apply for jobs. We know that applied to people who emigrated from Germany.

I think this turns us in the wrong direction. I think we should make sure that people who are 911 operators can immediately switch to somebody who can speak Spanish. I think what I did, to get a little extra money there for the metropolitan police department so we could have people who were fluent

in Spanish, I think that is the right way to go. I am not too sure this amendment wouldn't stop that, or certainly slow it down.

Today, as I speak, the language of America is English. We want people to integrate, to learn English, but they need tools to do this no matter what their native language. This amendment takes some of those tools away, and we need all of those tools.

The fastest growing component of adult education in America today is English as a second language. This will slow that down. This amendment impacts English speakers, reporting of crimes, reporting of diseases, involvement in commerce. Next, is it going to impact upon the right to vote?

This amendment is divisive. We should be here to unify our country, not divide it by ethnicity or language differences. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Everyone who speaks with an accent knows that they need to learn English as fast as they can. Success in America means the ability to speak English. That is the way it is now. We don't need this amendment. Speaking English is critical to the functioning of anyone in our country. It is the language of our Government, of our Nation, and as I have indicated before, air traffic controllers and diplomacy. This amendment, I believe, is unconstitutional. It raises serious concerns that American citizens could lose some of their rights.

This amendment directly conflicts with several provisions of Federal law, I believe, that guarantee the right of non-English-speaking students to learn English in our public schools. Does this amendment apply to a Presidential order, an Executive order? Does it apply to a city ordinance? A county ordinance? A State statute? What does it apply to? Federal law.

This amendment conflicts with provisions of Federal law that require language materials or assistance to be provided to voters in some areas of non-English languages, where there is evidence of educational discrimination resulting in high illiteracy and low registration turnout.

One of the problems we are having all over America is children dropping out of school. This amendment will not help that. Do we benefit by children dropping out of school? Of course not. Don't we want high voter turnout? Don't we want people to vote? This is going to slow that down, people asking to register to vote.

There has been substantial evidence of harassment, intimidation, even violence against language minority voters. This provision makes a blatant violation of the 14th and 15th amendments and criminal provisions of the Voting Rights Act more likely to occur. Look at history. In Nevada, Chinese who came over to build the railroads, the transcontinental railroad, were treated like animals. There were laws passed, State laws, county ordinances, local ordinances promulgated against the Chinese. Those laws which were discriminatory did not help our country. They hurt our country. This amendment is not going to help our country, it is going to hurt our country.

By the very terms of this amendment, persons accused of crimes would be denied the ability, I believe, to receive information material in their native language to assist in their own defense. This clearly violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment of our Constitution.

I have talked about public health. This amendment will stand in the way of efforts made to facilitate the transmission of vital information necessary for the receipt of health care and public safety, including informed consent by non-English-speaking patients.

Doctors need this. Health care workers need this. This undermines our Nation's public health and safety.

The foregoing things I have talked about are not exclusive. There are many more areas, public service and public safety, that will be negatively impacted by this amendment, hurting all Americans in the process. I hope we all support civic integration, but this amendment is not the way to do it.

Why don't we spend more money so we can educate more people who want to learn English? We are short of money. We have programs that are cut every day. That is the way it is in Nevada and around the country. That is where we should be directing our efforts. That brings people together. That is good for all of us. This does not bring people together. It makes it far more likely that we will end up with civic exclusion, including the denial of rights they should have to millions of U.S. citizens.

I hope we reject this amendment. It is bad policy. It is un-American. It turns back the clock on the substantial gains that language minority citizens have made. I hope that there will be a resounding vote against this.

I have no problem going home today and telling the people of the State of Nevada: English is the language of America. We are not going to change that with this amendment. This is divisive, it is mean spirited. I think it is the wrong way to go.

Mr. President, I also want to express my appreciation to the manager of the bill and Senator Inhofe for giving me extra time. We had not enough time over here, and it was gracious of him to allow us the extra time.

Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?

We just received a call from one of our Senators who objects to the Ensign amendment. So let's do the hour and a half on Kyl, and maybe we can work that out while we are doing that.

That certainly is appropriate. Mr. President, as you know, we don't run this place. I don't know why we need to wait an hour and 45 minutes to vote. We are going to have votes in the morning anyway. I talked to Senator Kennedy. It is all right to go ahead for 90 minutes prior to a motion to table tonight on Kyl; we have no objection. Following that, we can decide what we will do for tomorrow.

We will take 30 minutes prior to a motion to table.

Mr. President, that is not fair to our folks over here. If we are going to have a vote tonight, let's vote and let people go home. Those people

who want to still stand around and talk--that is Nelson and Ensign and Landrieu or anybody else--let them do it.

It is my understanding we are going to have 90 minutes of debate on Kyl--60 for the majority, 30 for the minority--prior to a motion to table the Kyl amendment, no second-degree amendments would be in order, and following that there would be 10 minutes for Senator Ensign and then Senator Bill Nelson 10 minutes after that.

Mr. President, I will make a brief comment.

Mr. President, we started out on this with the decision that we were going to try to do some legislation on this very difficult bill. This is from our perspective. We wanted to move through this an amendment at a time. I think it worked out well. We are at a point now, I think, as we have done earlier in the day, that we don't have to live by that. We have proven that we can legislate. We can always go back and do an amendment at a time if we have to. We are going to take an amendment at a time on a case-by-case basis, and we have no objection tonight--or very likely in the near future--to being able to set amendments aside and move on. I think we have been able to accomplish a great deal in this short week.

This bill is not finished yet, so there is no reason to give high fives and say work well done. There is still a lot of real hard work to do. I have submitted at the request of the manager, the distinguished chairman of the committee, a list of Democratic amendments that we have hotlined--a lot of them. I have indicated to the managers that I am confident that most of them will not have to be offered. You asked for that and you have gotten that.

I think that this coming week we all have to keep our heads down and push hard. There is a lot of work to do, and we have very significant amendments. I applaud and commend Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy for the way I see the Senate working. I think we have done good work. We have had some very timely amendments and difficult amendments. We have had winners and losers. That is what legislating is all about. Some of the compromise takes place not in the back room but on the Senate floor when we vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring recognition to one of the most majestic places in Nevada--the Desert National Wildlife Refuge. On Saturday, May 20 the refuge will have been in existence for 80 years. Established in 1936 during the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Desert National Wildlife Refuge is a key part of the National Wildlife Refuge System that protects sensitive lands and species throughout our great Nation.

Covering 1.5 million acres of the Mojave Desert in southern Nevada, the Desert refuge is the largest National Wildlife Refuge in the continental United States. The Mojave Desert is known for its wide variety of geology, plant life, and animal life. The Desert National Wildlife Refuge epitomizes this diversity. It contains six different mountain ranges and four different habitat types. With an average rainfall between 4 and 15 inches, elevations ranging from 2,500 ft to 10,000 ft, and over 300 different animal species, the

Desert refuge offers a truly varied landscape.

The Desert National Wildlife Refuge was originally established for the preservation and management of Nevada's desert bighorn sheep population, which had begun to decline as early as the 1880s. The desert bighorn sheep is the State animal of Nevada and, thanks in large part to the refuge and the work of groups such as the Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, our bighorn sheep population has been steadily rising in recent years.

I would be remiss if I didn't also take a few moments to talk about the incredible sheep range that runs up the east side of refuge. Rising nearly 10,000 feet out of the desert floor and running over 50 miles in length, this mountain range has engaged the imaginations of Americans since well before southern Nevada was settled. This most memorable natural landmark is one of the key reasons that President Nixon proposed much of the refuge for wilderness designation in 1974.

On this occasion of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, I thank all those who have worked to protect these lands. I also salute those visionary individuals--some generations ago--that recognized the need to preserve this incredible habitat for desert bighorn sheep and the myriad of other species that still thrive on these lands.

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

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