Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer knows that I don't always agree with him or he with me, but in response to the Senator from New Mexico about the process here, the Presiding Officer was exemplary in how Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg were chosen to be members of the Supreme Court. There have been books written about it and chapters of books written about it.

The Presiding Officer, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in communication with President Clinton, said: I don't like this person, this person, this person. And so there was a process set up, nonpublic in nature, where the chairman of the Judiciary Committee conferred with the President and his people and waded through lots of names that, in the judgment of the distinguished Senator from Utah, were not appropriate. Now we have two Members on the Supreme Court whom I think have distinguished themselves.

I wish we could have a procedure like that in the future. I think, I repeat, it was exemplary. That is the way things used to be done. I would hope in the future that the President's men and women would be willing to meet with their counterparts in the Senate and come up with a procedure that is somewhat along the lines of the distinguished Senator from Utah. I would hope that would be the case.

The hearings of Ginsburg and Breyer were short and directly to the point. I hope in the future we can do more of that. I extend my applause and congratulations to the Senator from Utah. No matter what happens in the future regarding the long career of the Senator from Utah in the Senate, this, as far as I am concerned, will be an important chapter in his public service.

Mr. President, I will use leader time.

I want the record spread with the fact that Senator Ensign will miss the vote today. The Senate is very fortunate. He was in a head-on collision in Las Vegas going to the airport to return to Washington, DC. I spoke to him from the hospital. He is going to be fine. He has no head injuries. The bags inflated, and I am sure saved him great bodily pain. I talked to him. He was under some medication. He said he is sore but he is going to be fine.

With all the travel we do, we all live on the edge of something happening. I am so happy Senator Ensign is fine. He is a wonderful man. He has great faith. He is a good friend of mine and to all of the Senate. I know all of our thoughts and prayers will be with him. I am confident he is going to be fine.

As indicated, I spoke with him. I want Darlene, especially, to know our thoughts are with her and the children.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have seven speakers lined up this afternoon. We hope they will all show up. I am confident they will.

LIHEAP is something the distinguished majority leader and I have spoken of several times. We know it is an important issue. We have made commitments to the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. It is something we need to do as soon as we can.

In regard to the PATRIOT Act, I had a number of conversations, again, with the distinguished majority leader. Also, I spoke yesterday afternoon to Senator Sununu, who indicated he has been in conversations with the White House and is confident he is not far away from working out that matter with the other interested parties, one of whom is, of course, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I also have had a number of conversations with the distinguished majority leader as to how we should move forward on the matter relating to Judge Alito, and there are a number of possibilities. I think we are at a point now where we may well enter into a unanimous consent later today. I would hope so.

Based on that, and based on the fact I have not spoken to Senator Frist yet today--we spoke several times yesterday--I object.

Mr. President, I am happy to respond to my friend. We will have speakers tomorrow. The weekend will be another item. We will talk about that later, whether that is necessary.

As I indicated, I have spoken to the distinguished majority leader on several occasions--not today. Yesterday we had a number of conversations, in fact into the evening last night, and I think it would be best for Senator Frist and me to talk about this rather than now.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania. I enjoy my relationship with him. But the only thing I would do is defend the Senate a little bit. I know he was being facetious. Senators are here in Washington. There are a few Senators attending a very important economic conference in Switzerland, but that is a handful of Senators, three or four, as I understand it. I am glad they are there. I am confident that if any votes are required in the near future--they have been advised and have agreed to come back in a few hours' notice.

As I said, I know the Senator was being facetious, but we do not have more Senators overseas than we have here ready to work.

I am not sure our conversation would wake them up, though.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to express the appreciation on our side for giving us adequate time to talk about this most important nomination. The distinguished majority leader could have filed cloture last night because I told him I didn't have it cleared yet for a time- certain vote. There has been adequate time for people to debate. No one can complain in this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro or con. We have had a dignified debate. We have gone back and forth, and I hope this matter will be resolved without too much more talking. But everybody has a right to talk.

Again, I express my appreciation to the distinguished majority leader for making sure everybody had ample time to talk on behalf of Samuel Alito or against him.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember Dr. John Robert Murren, a renowned oncologist, cancer researcher, and a beloved husband, father and son.

I first met Dr. Murren 3\1/2\ years ago. He visited me in my Capitol office with his brother and sister-in-law, Jim and Heather Murren. In this meeting, they shared with me their vision for a new world-class cancer research facility in Nevada.

Like so many Americans, the Murrens had been touched by cancer. They had witnessed first-hand the devastation caused by cancer and were motivated to do something to lessen the toll of this horrible illness. As such, the Murrens resolved to combine Heather and Jim's business skills and extensive network with John's medical expertise to create a cutting-edge comprehensive cancer institute in Nevada. In 2002, they founded the Nevada Cancer Institute and built a 142,000 square foot facility in Las Vegas that is dedicated to researching, preventing, detecting, and curing cancer. Dr. John Murren served on the institute's board of directors as well as an adjunct faculty member. Dr. Murren's death will inspire those he left behind to make the Nevada Cancer Institute even better. John would want this.

Dr. John Murren's vision for the Nevada Cancer Institute was based on an impressive medical foundation. He earned his B.A. in chemistry and history from Duke University cum laude followed by his M.D. in 1984 from the Loyola-Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago. He completed his internship and residency in Internal Medicine at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York where he was chief resident. In 1988, Dr. Murren accepted a postdoctoral fellowship in medical oncology at the Yale-New Haven Hospital where he was an attending physician as well as an associate professor of medicine. Since 1992, he had been awarded grant funding to study cancer drug therapies yielding invaluable contributions to the understanding of the effectiveness of cancer drug therapies, particularly chemotherapy.

Dr. Murren was the chief of the Yale Medical Oncology Outpatient Clinic and director of the Lung Cancer Unit at the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. At Yale, Dr. Murren had the largest clinical practice at the Cancer Center and treated thousands of patients and their families over a distinguished career. His clinical research widely published. He sat on several peer-review boards and was sought out worldwide for his expertise. He was also a member of the board of trustees of the Frisbee Foundation.

In addition to his clinical, educational, and research endeavors, Dr. Murren served on the Clinical Research Subcommittee of the American Association of Cancer Research and the American College of Surgeons Cancer Committee. He also served as cochair of Novel Therapeutics for the American Association of Cancer Research National Meeting in 2001. He was a member of the Research Grants Council in Hong Kong and was an active lecturer and writer.

The loss of Dr. Murren will be felt beyond medical and scientific circles. Dr Murren is survived by Nancy, his wife; John, his son; Jean Perkins Murren, his mother; Jim and Michael, his brothers and Kathie, his sister as well as sisters-in-law: Heather Hay Murren and Mary Kay Murren and brothers-in-law George Koether as well as Jeff and Bill Hughes and wives, family and mother-in-law, Doris Hughes, as well as several nieces and nephews.

Dr. Murren will be missed by his community in Fairfield, CT, where he

led an active life. He was a parishioner of St. Thomas Roman Catholic church there, and he enjoyed reading, skiing, tennis, and watching his son, John, play ice hockey.

No one is immune to cancer not even those individuals who, like Dr. Murren, dedicate their life's work to cancer research and treating individuals suffering from cancer. If we in Congress want to honor the life of Dr. Murren and the 1 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer this year, then we must invest more Federal money into cancer research. Otherwise, we will continue to lose too many of our family members and friends to this devastating illness.

In closing, I extend to his family, friends, and associates, my sympathy on the passing of a good American, Dr. John Murren. It is my wish that his legacy will be a country that defeats the dreaded disease we call cancer.

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

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

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

If the distinguished Senator will yield.

Mr. President, I have received calls from a significant number of Senators. Senator Frist is right, we will have a dignified debate. It will be organized. We will do whatever is appropriate according to who wants to speak. Most all Democratic Senators will want an opportunity to speak in regard to the nomination of Samuel Alito. We look forward to that sometime next week.

I also ask that following the swearing in of Congressman Menendez, the only two speakers allowed in the Senate on this day are Senator Menendez and Senator Lautenberg, the two Senators from New Jersey. This is in keeping with the agreement I have with Senator Frist. I ask consent that be the case.

Mr. President, we have announced on this side that there will be no morning business, no speeches, other than Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez to speak about this important day in soon-to-be Senator Menendez's life. That is an agreement I have with Senator Frist. Members desiring to speak on other issues will not be able to do that today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have a resolution at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and there be no intervening action.

Mr. President, last night we passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report. We all know how important that bill is to our country and our troops. Prior to passing that bill, we were successful in removing provisions to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Those provisions had no place in that bill.

As was noted on the floor last night, there were other provisions that did not belong in the conference report. They were not included in the House- or Senate-passed bills. They were not at all related to the Department of Defense's appropriations. In fact, conferees had been assured that these provisions would not be included at all.

But Republican leaders swept in and declared that they would be included, in violation of promises and the rules. And that is not the worst part. The provisions themselves bestow on drug companies sweeping immunity from the consequences of reckless wrongdoing. It was the Republican leadership's big Christmas present to their friends in the drug industry.

This immunity extends to all aspects of the development and production of drugs or vaccines so long as they are used to prevent, treat, or diagnose what the administration declares an ``epidemic.'' Republican leaders have insisted that these provisions are about preparing for pandemic flu or bioterrorist attack. They are exploiting our fears to go well beyond that.

What is an ``epidemic''? Secretary Leavitt recently said obesity is an ``epidemic.'' Many have said diabetes, heart disease, and methamphetamine addiction are epidemics. And it gets worse. The provisions also apply to any product that mitigates the side effects of a drug used to counteract an epidemic. That could include pain or high blood pressure medication.

Even reckless or grossly negligent drug companies will not be held responsible for the injuries they cause. The provisions in the conference report only allow for an injured patient to hold a drug company responsible if he or she can prove using clear and convincing evidence that the company acted with ``willful misconduct.'' This burden is virtually impossible to meet.

This gift to the drug companies comes at the expense of injured patients and the success of our future programs to ensure vaccinations. The provisions establish a ``compensation fund,'' but provide no money for it. Patients who are injured by products covered under this legislation will find that because there is no money in the fund, there is no compensation.

Under this administration's watch, the absence of a promise of compensation resulted in the failure of the program to vaccinate first responders for smallpox. The legislation we passed last night creates the same problem and condemns future similar vaccination programs to failure. Who can blame people for saying no when we are asking to take the risks of what may be an adverse effect if they are not assured that we will take care of them?

Mr. President, the inclusion of these policies in the DOD Appropriations bill was not just bad form, it was bad for Americans. I strongly opposed their inclusion. And I am strongly committed to revisiting this damage in the first days of our return.

Mr. President, I was in my office early this morning, and Gary Myrick, who works for me, came in and said, Is there anything you need? I said yes, patience.

I mentioned that to the distinguished Republican leader a few minutes ago. I think everyone needs that today. It is going to be a difficult day.

I hope we will all have patience and understanding, recognizing that these are tense times--not only because of the legislation we are dealing with but also the holidays. We are all anxious to get back to our families, but we have work to do. I hope we all have patience.

Mr. President, the matter now before the Senate of the United States is a budget. But it isn't a budget based on mainstream American values; it is an ideologically driven, extreme, radical budget. It caters to lobbyists and an elite group of ultraconservative ideologues here in Washington, all at the expense of middle Americans, those with the greatest of needs, and future generations.

I rise today to express my strong opposition to the budget reconciliation conference report before this body. Rather than sharing the sacrifices

needed to get this Nation's fiscal house in order, this Republican budget and this legislation target ordinary Americans by cutting programs such as student aid, Medicare, Medicaid--all to pay for another round of budget-busting tax breaks for special interests and multimillionaires. This budget is an attack on the middle class and those in greatest need on behalf of lobbyists for the powerful. This budget is un-American. In fact, as the leading clergy of Protestants in this country has said, it is immoral.

It is important to consider what is happening in America today. Of course, we know there needs to be fiscal constraint in this country. We are spending $2 billion a day in Iraq alone. Middle-class Americans are being squeezed. Their wages have been stagnant now for several years. Meanwhile, their costs are increasing for everything from a visit to the family physician--if, in fact, they are fortunate enough to be able to get in to one--to college tuition, home heating, gasoline for their cars. As a result, more Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

This administration and this Congress should be helping middle-class families deal with these family issues. Democrats have developed a variety of proposals to do so. Unfortunately, every one of our proposals has been repeatedly blocked by the Republican majority.

We are debating a reconciliation bill, the centerpiece of a Republican budget that not only fails to address the middle-class squeeze but makes it worse and saddles our children--my 5 children and my 15 grandchildren--with billions and billions of dollars in additional debt.

This budget which is before the Senate has a name. Every piece of legislation that comes before this body has a name. The name given to this piece of legislation by the Republican majority is the Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Try that one on. The Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It increases the deficit of this country because of the tax cuts they are giving to those who don't need them by some $50 billion over and above these cuts. Budget Deficit Reduction Act? Is that Orwellian doublespeak?

This legislation includes the largest student aid cut in this Nation's history. We have read all the articles about the costs of college increasing. You go to a State university now in Nevada. They are considering that everyone can go to school at the University of Nevada--Reno or UNLV--or the community college system. There were no basic academic requirements. If you graduate from high school, you can go to college. They are considering raising qualifications to get in those schools to a B average--eliminating people like me from being able to go to college. That is wrong. That is what this legislation is doing. A child's ability to be educated should not be dependent upon how much money their parents have.

This legislation, instead of helping middle-class families struggling with these increased burdens, simply increases their costs and makes it even worse for them. Rather than opening doors of opportunity to all Americans, this bill will close the doors for many. Higher fees on students increase the rate of interest on student loans, weaken the financial foundation of higher education, and, I submit, weaken our country. Forcing middle-class families to pay more for college in order to partially pay for another fiscally irresponsible round of special interest tax breaks is not fair. It is bad economic policy.

In today's global and high-tech economy, America's competitive edge depends increasingly on our commitment to education. It used to be that we could go to India and grab all the engineers and bring them here. India needs them now. We cannot do that anymore. We need to educate our own students. We should be increasing a commitment to educating our children. Instead, this bill goes in the opposite direction.

Beyond the cuts in student aid, this bill also contained harmful health care cuts that will increase costs and deny access to millions of Americans. For example, Part B premiums for Medicare will go up, up for all seniors. Home health services are cut. I can remember 20 years ago, I went--a physician asked me to--to Las Vegas to visit his patients who were in hospitals. He said: They shouldn't be here, but under the rules we have, I cannot give them their medication at home. He said: Think how much money this is costing the Federal Government.

We changed it so that people could stay home and be taken care of. We are changing that. We do not save money, we lose money.

While at the last minute the Republican leadership decided under certain provisions to protect certain favored health care interests, they did not provide such protections for ordinary American seniors.

Even more troubling than the cuts in Medicare are the cuts in Medicaid. Medicaid--health care for the neediest of all Americans. This bill targets Americans with the greatest needs and the fewest resources by forcing them to pay more for health care, cutting benefits, and making it harder for them to get the prescription drugs they need. Many of these people are hurricane survivors. We saw the huddled masses on television. We saw them in New Orleans because of the disaster, but there are many communities all over America, and the huddled masses are there, also. We just did not see them on TV. What do we do to help them? Nothing. Nothing.

Many people in America are struggling to survive. These people need more help with their health care, not less. This bill cuts what little health coverage they have, if any, and increases their costs. For what? To pay for another round of tax breaks for special interests, multimillionaires, and billionaires. That is immoral.

This legislation rips and tears at Medicare and Medicaid. This bill's cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are largely why this legislation is strongly opposed by all seniors. The largest seniors organization in America, the American Association for Retired Persons, does not like this legislation. Their chief executive officer, Bill Novelli, writes the following:

The final conference agreement does not ask for shared

sacrifices to achieve budgetary savings. Rather it protects

the pharmaceutical industry, the managed care industry, and

other providers at the expense of low-income Medicaid

beneficiaries and Medicare beneficiaries who will foot this

bill.

That is not Senator Reid speaking, that is Bill Novelli, CEO of the

Mr. President, is there a quorum call in effect?

Whose time is running now?

Mr. President, if the Senator from Washington will yield, I think what we would like is maybe to have some back-and-forth debate here. I am wondering if there is someone on the majority side who wishes to speak at this time and can use their time. There is somebody here who could yield that time, I am sure.

I don't think we will ask the time be extended. Madam President, does Senator Cantwell have 5 minutes for him?

Senator Byrd has asked for 5 more minutes out of the time of the Senator from Washington. Madam President, does she have it?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the majority and minority be extended 5 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Alaska be given the last speech on this matter.

Madam President, Senator Frist and I have spoken. After the distinguished Senator from Alaska gives the closing statement, Senator Frist will speak, and then I will speak. We will use leader time.

All time is expired; is that right?

I claim my leader time.

Mr. President, the Senate is a body of process and a body of order. We have rules. These rules separate us from the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers, visionary as they were, recognized that. That is why this Senate has worked so well, the Constitution. These rules separate us from the House of Representatives. The House is subject to partisan desires of the majority. We are not.

For more than 200 years, through Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, the Senate has lived by these rules. But twice this year-- once this spring and now today--the Republican majority has shown us how far they are willing to go outside the rules to get what they want.

The first attempt to flex their muscle, to show their power and change the Senate rules, was the so-called nuclear option. This was stopped when courageous Senators, Democrats and Republicans, from both sides of the aisle stood against it.

We need to see this same bipartisan courage today. The majority is threatening to break the rules again--that is what this is all about-- but this time they are holding the U.S. military--yes, those men and women, as we stand here, are standing up in Iraq and Afghanistan--our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling.

Senator Stevens is violating rule XXVIII in order to pass ANWR. The Senator knows he lacks the votes to get this boon for special interests passed the right way, so he is willing to break the rules to jam it through.

Yes, I have worked with Senator Stevens all the time I have been in the Senate. I have great admiration and respect for the Senator from Alaska. But the bill does not leave just the ANWR provision standing out there like a sore thumb. Another gift to special interests is the drug immunity provision. The legislation was not included in either the House or the Senate versions of the Senate appropriations bill, and conferees were given written assurances it would not appear in the conference report. Yet here it is because

House and Senate leaders, in the middle of the night, insisted that the rules be broken to include it.

This process is not fair to the Senate, and certainly not fair to the U.S. military, and certainly--certainly--not fair to the American people. It is time we said no to an abuse of power, no to those who seek to abuse the rules in the name of special interests, and no to turning the Senate into the House of Representatives.

We have rules for a reason. We have rules in the Senate for a reason. Why? To create stability. It creates certainty. These rules serve the majority, and they serve the minority, and they should not be broken because of special interests. They should not be broken because of the powerful.

I am going to vote against cloture today. Now, I know there are some in the majority who have threatened various things if cloture is not invoked. But I say, Mr. President, thankfully, we have Senator Stevens' own words to tell us what will happen. Here is what the distinguished Senator from Alaska said, the bill manager. He told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, this past Sunday:

If a Senate filibuster over ANWR stops the defense bill,

the legislation can be quickly modified and passed so there

is no impact on the military's finances.

He went on to say:

If we lose, then . . . ANWR will be out.

It is that simple. Senator Stevens is a man of his word, as he stated on the floor today. And he said if we don't get cloture, the bill goes back to the conferees. Mr. President, I do not know how this vote is going to turn out. We all know it is very close. But I hope ANWR gets taken out. All of us stand with our troops. And all of us want to do what is right for the Senate and for our country. That is why our best course of action is to vote ``no'' on cloture and follow the roadmap Senator Stevens himself has provided.

Yes, there are.

Without reservation.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I yield back the time on this side.

I ask for the yeas and nays.