Floor Statements

Mr. President, if I could make a brief comment on the highway bill: I agree with the distinguished leader that we need to move forward on this bill. I have been advised over the last several days, and had a couple calls this morning, that they are having problems with the transit section of the bill. Senators Shelby and Sarbanes want a little different formula than is in the bill. They are working on that now as we speak. I hope they can get that worked out. A significant amount of work has gone into the bill not only by members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over transit, but also by the Finance Committee. It is a very complicated bill.

I underscore what the distinguished Republican leader said. It is my understanding that Senators Baucus and Grassley are going to lay down an amendment today. I hope everyone would offer their amendments on this bill. I have had a lot of comments from

Members saying they have concerns about what is in the bill. This is an opportunity to lay down the amendments. We have been told by the distinguished Republican leader today that if there is no progress on this bill he is going to file cloture. This is the highway bill. This is not a bill where cloture will not be invoked. There is wide-ranging support for this bill.

I hope everyone follows the admonition the Republican leader just gave and be ready with amendments because, if we wind up waiting much longer, we will not have an opportunity to do that.

Mr. President, of the initial Bush nominees, the 10 or 11 we are talking about today, 8 have been confirmed; only 3 were not. Of course, one of those, Miguel Estrada, has not been renominated. Another, Terrence Boyle, has never been reported by the Judiciary Committee, even after 4 years of Republican control. So only one of the initial nominees, Priscilla Owen, is currently on the calendar.

I think the Democrats have been responsible and reasonable in exercising advice and consent regarding this initial nominee.

Regarding Priscilla Owen, she served on the Texas Supreme Court with the President's lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, who is now the Attorney General. Judge Gonzales wrote that several of Judge Owen's opinions were acts of unconscionable activism.

I am concerned the Senate is heading toward an unnecessary showdown over judicial nominations. One of the Hill newspapers recently reported that my distinguished friend, the majority leader, is under enormous pressure from right-wing groups to trigger the so-called nuclear option. So many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, have contacted me and, I am sure, the majority leader, saying: Let's try to work something out. They want to avert this damaging confrontation because it would be bad for the Senate and bad for the country. So we need to take every step we can to avoid this confrontation.

We are prepared to be reasonable even with respect to these controversial nominations that are now before the Senate. But it seems that the White House, and maybe the Senate leadership, will not give the Senate a chance to put this issue behind us.

It is important to understand that this manufactured crisis has been forced upon the Senate by the White House. During President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10. This is a significant, strong percentage--more than 95 percent.

The President could have accepted that success and avoided confrontation by choosing not to resubmit the names of those who were rejected. Instead, the President sent back 7 of the 10 nominees the Senate declined to confirm, including: the very controversial nominations of Priscilla Owen, whom I briefly commented about; William Myers, who, by the way, is the first nominee to the Federal bench that American Indians have ever opposed; William Pryor; Janice Rogers Brown; and Henry Saad.

In fact, this whole crisis is really about five people. I have mentioned the five. Of the 10 previously rejected nominees, 3 were not renominated, and 2 are tied up in a separate controversy over the Sixth Circuit involving procedural matters. So we are talking only, I repeat, about 5 judges, 5 out of the

218. But this historically high percentage the President has obtained, creating one of the lowest vacancy rates in the entire history of the Federal judiciary, is not good enough for some. They have to have it all.

Meanwhile, the President has failed to send us new nominations. In the more than 4 months since he was sworn in to a second term, the President has sent the Senate only one new judicial nomination. Other than that one nominee to the District Court of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, every single one of the President's judicial nominees has been here before. I have said to everyone who will listen that Senate Democrats will be careful and judicious in the use of our procedural rights. I have said that judicial filibusters will continue to be rare. So why doesn't the White House test our willingness to be reasonable by sending new nominees who we can consider anew and fresh, instead of old nominees who have run into trouble before?

It is clear that the White House would rather pick fights than pick judges. One reason the White House will not send new judges to the Senate is that they do not want to give Senate Democrats a chance to show we are reasonable. They do not want the confirmation rate to increase from 95 percent to 96 or 98 percent. They want to paint us as obstructionists. But the facts are that the judicial confirmation rate this year is 100 percent and that there has not been a single filibuster of the four nominees the majority leader has brought before the Senate this year. But the radicals on the far right do not want to give us an opportunity to continue that cooperation because it would undercut their argument justifying the nuclear option. Maybe the White House wants to force the nuclear option on the Senate because it wants to clear the way for a Supreme Court nominee, because they are afraid the person they will submit is not going to be reasonable.

There are lots of reasonable people around. There are Members sitting in this Senate today who could be a Supreme Court nominee of President Bush. They do not want a David Souter, a Republican, or an Anthony Kennedy, a Republican, or a Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican, or a Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or a Stephen Breyer.

So, Mr. President, I want a chance to prove that Senate Democrats are reasonable. There is a nominee on the Executive Calendar named Thomas Griffith. Mr. Griffith is a controversial nominee to an important appellate court. But if he is brought before the Senate, I believe he will be confirmed. He is the former Senate legal counsel. He was here during the impeachment proceedings. His nomination to the DC Circuit was reported from the Judiciary Committee by a 14-to-4 vote. Ranking Member Leahy and other Senators who opposed Griffith were concerned, among other things, that he had failed to obtain a license to practice law in either the District of Columbia or Utah during the time he was working as a lawyer in those jurisdictions.

A number of Democrats will vote against confirmation on the floor, for these reasons and other reasons. But we on this side know the difference between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. We will oppose bad nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees. Democrats will use extended debate responsibly, and there is no cause for the majority to break the rules and 217 years of Senate traditions to take that right away. Mr. Smith should still be able to come to Washington, with either a Democratic or Republican Senate.

I emphasize that Mr. Griffith is nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the most important appellate court, separate and apart from the Supreme Court. Republicans say that our 95-percent confirmation rate is not relevant because many of the 208 judges we have confirmed are district court nominees--trial court judges, not appellate court judges. Well, here is a nominee to the most important Federal appellate court in the country, with the exception of the Supreme Court, and we are prepared to move forward. So I ask, do we get extra credit that this nominee is to the DC Court of Appeals?

Let me note that this same courtesy was not extended to President Clinton's nominees to the DC Circuit. Republicans held up the nomination of Justice Department official Merrick Garland for years before finally confirming him.

President Clinton then nominated two distinguished lawyers to the court: Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and Allen Snyder, a partner in the law firm of Hogan & Hartson and a former clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist. Both of these nominations were buried in the Judiciary Committee and were never given an up-or-down vote in committee or on the Senate floor.

I have heard my Republican friends say so many times this year that nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote. I would defy them to explain why Kagan and Snyder were denied votes on the Senate floor and why 69 Clinton nominees were buried and lost in the judiciary committee. But we want to move forward. To demonstrate our good will, we want to move forward on a controversial nominee to the DC Circuit. I want the majority leader to know that Democrats are prepared to enter into a unanimous consent agreement to move to the Griffith nomination. Under this unanimous consent agreement, we would proceed to the Griffith nomination immediately upon disposition of the supplemental appropriations bill. We would then have up to 10 hours of debate on that nomination, equally divided. Following that debate, we would be willing to have an up-or-down vote on this controversial nominee to the DC Circuit.

Let's take a step away from the precipice. Let's arrive at this step and have a decision made on Griffith and then move on. Let's try cooperation rather than confrontation, which seems to be the hallmark of what we have been doing here lately.

I just remind everyone: This has been a pretty good year for work being done in the Senate. My friend, the distinguished Presiding Officer, served in the House of Representatives where you can ram things through the House. If you are in the majority there, things go very quickly. But that is not how it works in the Senate. So we have been very fortunate this year to move legislation--important, landmark legislation, legislation that many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle did not especially like: class action legislation, bankruptcy legislation.

We have done a lot of work here. We are going to do the supplemental appropriations bill. We have finished the budget. We have done a lot of work. We are on the highway bill. So I would think we should move forward. I say to those people who are interested in moving forward and who are interested in cooperation rather than confrontation, let us move forward on a unanimous consent request--which I would be happy to propound at a subsequent time, or the majority leader could do it--to move forward on Griffith. We want 5 hours on our side to talk about this man. They could have whatever time they want on their side. And we would move forward on an up-or-down vote on a DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge. I would think that would get us down the road to doing work that needs to be done in the Senate.

I would be happy to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

I answer my friend: the answer is yes, even though this man is a controversial nominee. I know my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, has on a number of occasions criticized this nomination. I have mentioned already a number of the reasons, including his practice of law without a license in a couple of different jurisdictions. But I have stated that I would be willing to move forward on this nomination. We would have adequate time on our side--up to 5 hours--to talk about the merits or demerits of this gentleman, and the majority could have whatever time they wanted. We would move to an up-or-down vote on this man. I think this would be an appropriate way to move forward and--again, I repeat for the third time--have in this body cooperation rather than confrontation.

Let me say to my friend through the Chair, there is no question that Elana Kagan is qualified--she is the dean of the No. 1 rated law school in the country, No. 1. Yale and Stanford come close, but Harvard is the No. 1 law school in the country. She is the dean of that school. But the Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee, and they would not allow this woman to come to this floor.

I would love to have had her on the floor so somebody could have filed a cloture motion. I would have loved to vote on that, but they would not even bring that nomination to the floor for a vote. They would not let it come to a vote in the committee, because this woman was eminently qualified, not only by her legal experience and her education, but by her demeanor and personal attitude toward the law. So she would have been really good for the second highest court in the land.

And I say about the other person----

Allen Snyder, this man clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist. Again, there was not even the courtesy of having a vote in the committee. They come to the floor and cry crocodile tears about up-or- down votes. We would have taken a cloture vote on either one of these people. But they were unwilling to bring this person before the committee or the floor.

So I say to my friend, you are absolutely right, there is a different standard now than there was. We are bringing people to the court. They say there has not been an up-or-down vote. There has been a vote. Every one of President Bush's nominees has come before the Senate for a vote. And I think it is on 69 different occasions that President Clinton had a nominee turned down on even a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, even a vote in the Judiciary Committee, let alone coming to the floor.

So my distinguished friend is absolutely right.

I am happy to yield to my friend for a question.

Mr. President, the answer is yes. As I said earlier, we know the difference between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. I believe this is the time to put all of this behind us. Eight years of President Clinton, four years of President Bush, let's move forward. That is what this proposal is all about. Let's move forward. After we finish that, let's see where we are and see what else we can do. I think it is time to move forward. Again, I have no problem distinguishing between what happened to the 69 Clinton would-be judges who never showed up, never saw the light of day, and all those we have dealt with in the normal process in the 4 years President Bush has been President.

We have been very selective in those we have opposed. We think we are right on every one of them. Hindsight will tell.

This whole dispute is over 5 judges, 5 out of 218. It seems that people of goodwill can agree, as my distinguished friend from Nebraska Senator Hagel indicated this weekend on television, when he said: We should be able to work this out. We should. The world is watching us. We should not be changing the rules by breaking the rules. We should not do that. I hope the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, my friend, will accept the gesture of goodwill we have made. It is a step in the right direction. I hope we can let bygones be bygones and move forward.

Reserving the right to object, would the distinguished Senator from Texas give us a general outline of how long he is going to speak.

Just so we have a general idea. I ask unanimous consent then that the normal 10-minute rule be waived for the distinguished Senator from Texas and that he have up to 15 minutes to speak as in morning business.

There is no 10-minute rule unless it is ordered.

We have no morning business today?

I amend my request to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas be recognized for 15 minutes and the Senator from Vermont be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, what was the request?

Reserving the right to object.

I have no problem voting on this Talent amendment. I am disappointed that we have not been able to clear a resolution expressing support for the withdrawal of troops from Georgia. The President is there today. I am so glad he is visiting Georgia. I was there with a bipartisan congressional delegation a few weeks ago, and I repeat I am disappointed we could not do this while he is in country.

The leaders of Georgia would be so ecstatic if we could do this. In Georgia, there are leftovers from the Soviet Union military bases that are controlled by Russians, that are staffed by Russians. They will not leave that little country of Georgia. We have to do what we can in exerting influence to get Russia to pull their troops out of this little country. I hope the majority will look this resolution over and that

it can be approved in the immediate future. It would have tremendous significance with our President being there at this present time.

So I have no objection to the request by my friend from Oklahoma.

I object.

Mr. President, first, I express my appreciation to the distinguished Republican leader for his proposal. I am happy to see we are working toward a solution to this very difficult issue that now faces the Senate.

I say to my distinguished friend, no matter how many times you say it, if something is wrong, it does not become true. Over the course of this country's history there have been many filibusters of judges from the very beginning of our Republic. Until 1917, there was no way to stop a filibuster, so a number of judges fell by the wayside as a result.

As I said previously, in 1917, the Senate changed its rules, and two- thirds of the Senators elected could stop a filibuster. Then, in 1964 at the height of the civil rights battle, it was changed to 60 on most everything. Only one thing is still different, and that is as it relate to rules where it takes 67. Without getting into the numbers game, there have been a lot of filibusters of judges where a majority of the Senators liked a nominee. Abe Fortas is a good example of that. We do not need to reinvent history. It is simply the way it is. I am not going to get into the individual judges. We can do that, we can go over them one by one, but I don't think that is what the country needs at this stage.

We have heard in the Senate that 69 judges of President Clinton never made it to the Senate. We continually hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say: We need a vote on these judges. They had a vote in keeping with the rules of the Senate.

I agree with my friend, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, for whom I have so much respect and admiration. He said that the circuit court and Supreme Court are more important than the lower courts. I believe that, in fact, is the case. That being so, we need to focus more attention on them rather than less.

You have to break the rules to change them in this instance because if you follow the rules, you cannot do it with a simple majority. If you can break the rules to change the rules on a judge, then what about the other nominations of the President? We have a matter in the Senate now that is in the newspaper every day, regarding a man by the name of Mr. Bolton. I don't know him. I recognize him because he has a very uncharacteristic mustache, which I kind of like. My point is, that may be something that people will wish to talk a long time on. I don't know that to be the case. The hearings have not been completed. But I do know that the administration really likes this man. The Secretary of State likes him. She has said so. Does that mean the rules will be changed because this is one of the President's fair-haired persons he wants to become his ambassador to the United Nations? We cannot go down that slippery slope.

This proposal of Senator Frist is not exactly new. We had a proposal like this last Congress by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller. It was very similar to this proposal. I don't mean to demean the proposal, and I will take a close look at it and see if there is a way we can work with it. I would say, for lack of a better description, it is a big fat wet kiss to the far right. It just is not appropriate. The rules are the rules.

It is unacceptable for a number of reasons. First, this is slow- motion nuclear option. After 100 hours, the rights of the minority are extinguished. This has never been about the length of the debate. This is about constitutional checks and balances.

No. 2, this is probably worse than the nuclear option because it also speeds up the committee's consideration. I am happy to look at that. As the distinguished majority leader knows, I talked to him earlier about trying to do something in the committee system to make it better. I am happy to take a look at that. We will talk in more detail. I don't think this is appropriate.

Third, this deals with only half of the advice and consent. We have to deal with the pesky little document called the Constitution. This is something you take as a whole. This is very short, but we have to stick with this and advise and consent.

We have failed to recognize we have the future ahead of us, not what went on in the past. I am not here to criticize what went on in the Clinton years. I am not here to condone or criticize what went on in the last 4 years. I am here to look forward.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, any proposal I have made said let's look forward. Let's take this nuclear option off the table, and let's work on these judges we have ahead of us. I can never say there will never be a filibuster because I cannot say that, but I don't think this Senate is in the mood for a number of filibusters. I don't think Members feel like it. We should go forward.

I told my distinguished friend, the Senator from Kentucky, I told my distinguished friend--and I say ``friend'' in the true sense of the word--from Tennessee, if we somehow fail on the good faith, and they think we filibuster too much, talk too much, you always have the next Congress. Let's try to look forward. Let's not look back.

I want to leave here today or tomorrow--whenever we leave--with a good feeling. People get locked in: this is not good enough. I am not going to berate him for this offer he has made. It is an offer. I appreciate that. It is the first offer we have had. I have had one. He has had one. Legislation is the art of compromise.

While this is not truly legislation, it is in keeping with what we do here. We try to build consensus. We try to work toward an end that is satisfactory. I hope we can do that. I hope calmer heads prevail. I say that on my side as well as the other side of the aisle. If we did it right, we would take his suggestion to the Rules Committee, have them come back on it, and we would vote on it here. That is how we change rules.

I had the good fortune--and I say that without hesitation or reservation--to serve for many years on the Ethics Committee. I was chairman; I was vice chair. Senator Bob Smith from New Hampshire and I worked a full year, we worked hard, trying to change the very difficult rules we have in the Ethics Committee, which is part of the Senate Standing Rules. We brought it to the Senate after our staff worked hundreds of hours. Bob Smith and I worked on it many hours. We were rejected. I felt so bad because I personally believe the Senate did the wrong thing. But they did it. We tried to comply with the rules. That is what we should do here. We both tried to make our case to the public. And I will speak for a while this afternoon, not specifically on the leader's proposal but about things in general. In the very worst way, I want to try to work our way through this.

Again, I do not really like the proposal given, but I am not going to throw it away. I am going to work on it and see if I can come back with something that is in keeping with what I think is the ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' scenario. Because I really do believe that even though we are in the minority now--and I have thought about this a lot. I have thought about this. If someday in the future--and it will happen; I hope I am around to be part of that--I became the majority leader, I would not want this rule. I would not want this rule. I do not know if I would have the integrity, intellectual integrity to change it so that you folks could do what I thought was in keeping with the rules. But I have thought about that.

We are not always going to be in the minority here. I believe very seriously that this is something that every party should have. I say to my friends, and everyone within the sound of my voice, test us. Let's see how we can do in the future. I cannot say there will not be any filibusters, but I think we are going to have a much better situation. People are very concerned about the Supreme Court, and they should be. They should be. But let's not direct our attention to changing the Senate rules for fear of something that may never happen.

I repeat, what I would like to do is say there is no nuclear option in this Congress, and then move forward on this. And, as I say, they always have the power. I would like to think that a little miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time. I guess miracles never cease. But I say, respectfully, to everyone, I think the Republican Senators would have this power next Congress as they do now.

So I appreciate my friend making this offer. We have so much to do. We have the highway bill to work on today and finish when we come back. We have the budget, we have the supplemental appropriations bill. We need good feelings around here.

As we have indicated, there has been some talk about my closing down the Senate. I have recognized since the Newt Gingrich days that does not work very well. But I do think we would be working as much off our agenda as the majority's agenda--a big clash of heads. We would be talking about things we want to talk about and they want to talk about. I would hope we can get past that and go on to do some real legislative work in the months to come.

I would hope that the legacy I leave and that Bill Frist leaves is that we had two leaders who, in spite of their tremendous political differences--and we have some different political philosophies--I hope people can look back at us and say: Those are two men who worked very hard to try to get this institution to work.

I am saying this in good faith. I want the other side, in good faith, to trust what we are going to do on the judges in the future. That is all I ask.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I suggest the absence of a quorum I then be recognized when the quorum call is called off.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what is the order now before the Senate?

Mr. President, under the order previously entered, it is my understanding when I have completed my remarks, Senator Wyden will be recognized. Is that correct?

Mr. President, I have finished my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my opposition to this budget resolution. Before I discuss the budget, I will take a minute or two to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman and ranking member.

I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the committee. We served in the House together. He left the House to become Governor of the State of New Hampshire. He returned as a Member of the Senate. He is a knowledgeable man with knowledge of what goes on in our country. Even though I may disagree with his political ideology, as a person I have the greatest respect for him. He is a person who always tells you how he feels, and I think he adds a great deal to the Senate.

I especially thank our ranking member, Senator Kent Conrad, for his outstanding leadership for the people of North Dakota, the country, and our caucus. No one understands the budget better than Kent Conrad. We could not ask for better leader on the budget than Kent Conrad. He and his staff are exceptional. I told him earlier this evening, I really miss this budget battle. For 5 years I sat with him on this floor and was with him every minute of the way. And I enjoyed that. He is a man of vision and there is no one who knows numbers better than he does.

I oppose this budget for two primary reasons. First, it is fiscally irresponsible. Second, it makes the wrong choices and sets the wrong priorities. Let me talk about both of these problems for a short time. To understand the current state of our Nation's fiscal policy, it is helpful to review history. It always helps.

In 1992, the Federal Government ran a record deficit of $290 billion. In 1993, with the Budget Deficit Reduction Act, without any support in the House or the Senate from a single Republican, we made hard decisions to get the budget under control. In fact, the Presiding Officer on the night we had the vote was Al Gore, and he broke the tie to allow the Budget Deficit Reduction Act to pass. I can remember that night and I will never forget it. George Mitchell assigned Tom Daschle and me to work to see if we could get Bob Kerrey's vote. That is a story in itself. When we started looking for him, he had gone to a movie--just like Bob Kerrey. Anyway, it worked out. Bob Kerrey decided to vote with the President and change history.

Largely because of those decisions made by us in this body, the budget moved from record deficits to record surpluses. That is why in the last 3 years of President Clinton's Presidency we paid down the national debt. We were spending less money than we were taking in. Unheard of, but it happened 3 years in a row.

Unfortunately, one of the first acts of this administration and the Republican-controlled Congress was to reverse the great strides we made in the

1990s. Instead of maintaining fiscal discipline and saving for the future, the Bush administration opted to provide lavish handouts to special interests and to the powerful. The result has been a record run of red ink as far as you can see.

Now, my distinguished friend, the chairman of the committee, said that budget deficit is going to be cut in half. I cannot believe someone I bragged on so much a minute ago believes that. Last year, we ran a deficit of--nobody knows how much because Social Security was used to mask a lot of it, but it was approximately $500 billion, the largest ever. This year, according to the administration, the deficit will even be larger. Running deficits of this size, of course, would always be a concern. But at a time when we badly need to save to prepare for the baby boomers' retirement, such huge deficits are especially irresponsible.

That is why it is so troubling that a budget resolution before us not only fails to reduce the deficits, it makes it worse, much worse. In fact, this budget increases the debt each and every year by more than $600 billion and passes a burden of repaying the debt to my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren.

What does this mean for Social Security? Under this budget, every dollar of Social Security surpluses would be taken and spent on other Government activities--every dollar. Think about this. We are going to have a $2.5 trillion surplus in Social Security over the next 10 years. I say to all the people listening tonight, that is your money. We are supposed to be saving it so we can pay your Social Security benefits in the future. But does this budget save the surplus for Social Security benefits? No. Every single dollar would be used for other purposes. That is not fiscally responsible and it is not right.

This budget's irresponsibility is the first reason I oppose it. Unfortunately, the flaws go much deeper than that. This budget resolution also makes wrong choices and repeatedly shortchanges the priorities of working Americans. The budget cuts education--I could talk about the budget cuts in education, but let's talk about adult education. This budget cuts adult education by 60 percent. Who are those people who need adult education? It is young men and women who have dropped out of high school, people who, before finishing high school went into the military; it is a lot of people for a lot of different reasons who decide they want to come back and get an education. A 60-percent cut. That is wrong. Health care, Medicaid, homeland security--it targets rural America with cuts in agriculture and other programs. It slashes funding for new police officers. It cuts funding for firefighting programs, and at a time when we are asking hundreds of thousands of our men and women to place their lives on the line, it forces them to pay more for their health care when their service is done. While making deep cuts in priorities such as these, the budget continues the recent pattern of Congress favoring special interests and the powerful.

The budget calls for providing millionaires with additional tax breaks worth over $35,000 a year, while doing nothing to close loopholes that allow huge corporations to avoid paying their fair share--their fair share of paying for our Government responsibilities. It calls for opening a pristine wilderness area in Alaska for the oil and gas industry. It calls for maintaining a large slush fund for HMOs who have had record profits, and it calls for continuing to ban Medicare from negotiating with drug companies to get better prices for prescription drugs. That is hard to comprehend. Medicare cannot negotiate for lower prices. They can go, like I do, to Rite Aid and get their prescriptions there, but no negotiating for prices. These, I am sad to say, are the priorities of the party in power. But the record should be spread; they are not Democratic priorities, they are not the priorities of the American people, and they are certainly not the priorities of my friends and neighbors in Searchlight, NV. You see, in Searchlight, as in other towns and cities all across America, people are working hard and struggling to make ends meet. They are proud people. They are not looking for handouts. They want their Government to be on their side in dealing with gas prices, which in Nevada average $2.70 a gallon. They want Congress looking out for them as they confront skyrocketing health care costs and they want us, the Congress, working to give their children opportunities for a good education, so they can enjoy the promise of America, as all 100 Senators do.

Sadly, though, this budget wasn't designed with the people of Searchlight in mind. It doesn't address their needs. It won't make their lives any better and won't make our Nation stronger. It will make it weaker, more dependent on borrowing huge sums of money from Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia.

For all these reasons, I believe the budget before us deserves to be defeated. It abandons fiscal discipline and leads to an explosion of debt. It takes Social Security dollars and uses them for other purposes, and it abandons middle-class Americans and those in need in order to give billions in breaks to the special interests and the powerful. I want everybody to know I am not the only one who feels this way.

I know that maybe there has been too much religion in the Congress in the minds of some and I have not joined in that, but I am going to tonight. I have here a letter that is from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. I read this:

This was issued today:

On March 8, we . . . issued a joint statement questioning

the priorities of President Bush's 2006 Federal budget. We

remembered the Gospel story of Lazarus and the rich man and

noted that the 2006 budget had much for the rich man but

little for Lazarus. It was our hope that Congress would take

action on behalf of ``Lazarus.'' Sadly . . . that has not

been the case. . . .

We believe our federal budget is a moral document and

should reflect our historic national commitment for those in

our own country who suffer from hunger, lack of education,

jobs, housing, and medical care, as well as concern for our

global community. There are good programs that can help solve

all these programs. We know, we have seen them work and we

are doing our part with our own programs. But we cannot do it

alone. Government must be a partner in providing

opportunities for our fellow women and men to pursue their

God given gifts. . . .

As we view the FY '06 Federal Budget through our lens of

faith this budget . . . continues to ask our nation's working

poor to pay the cost of a prosperity in which they may never

share. We believe this budget remains unjust. It does not

adequately address the more than 36 million Americans living

below the poverty line, 45 million without health insurance,

or the 13 million hungry children. Worldwide it neither

provides sufficient development assistance nor adequately

addresses the Global AIDS pandemic . . . We ask Congress to

reject the budget and begin anew.

We conclude . . . by asking that together we ``pledge

ourselves to creating a nation in which economic policies are

infused with the spirit of the man who began his public

ministry almost 2,000 years ago by proclaiming that God had

anointed him ``to bring good news to the poor.''

It is signed by the Most Reverend Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Right Reverend Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Reverend Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church, USA, the Reverend John H. Thomas, General Minister and President, United Church of Christ, and Mr. James Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church.

Mr. President, those are their words, not mine. I quoted it verbatim.

This is not just a bad budget. It is not just an unwise budget. It is an immoral budget. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the Johnson nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Orchard Detention Basin Flood Control Act for myself and Senator Ensign. This Act will release approximately 65 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Clark County, NV; from the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area to allow the construction of an important flood control project.

The Orchard Detention Basin project is part of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District's Master Plan to protect the Las Vegas Valley from flooding. This comprehensive floodplain management program is designed to protect private and public lands from flood damage and to save lives in this rapidly growing metropolitan area. When completed, the Orchard Detention Basin project will protect approximately 1,800 acres of urban development from flooding and reduce the magnitude of flooding further downstream.

The boundary change executed by this legislation is needed because a portion of the detention basin project lies within the boundaries of the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area. An ``instant study area'' designation places development restrictions on public lands similar to those on wilderness study areas. This designation currently prevents the construction of this important flood control project, leaving the land and residents living downstream vulnerable to flood damage.

Even though the Las Vegas Valley is a desert, flash flooding is an all too common problem affecting the people in Las Vegas. Along with property damage and deaths related to flooding, Clark County residents experience inconvenience resulting from impassable roads during flooding events. Support services such as police, fire and ambulance can also be delayed, creating life-threatening incidents.

I look forward to working with the Energy Committee and my other distinguished friends to move this bill in a timely manner during the current session.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Orchard Detention Basin Flood Control Act for myself and Senator Ensign. This Act will release approximately 65 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Clark County, NV; from the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area to allow the construction of an important flood control project.

The Orchard Detention Basin project is part of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District's Master Plan to protect the Las Vegas Valley from flooding. This comprehensive floodplain management program is designed to protect private and public lands from flood damage and to save lives in this rapidly growing metropolitan area. When completed, the Orchard Detention Basin project will protect approximately 1,800 acres of urban development from flooding and reduce the magnitude of flooding further downstream.

The boundary change executed by this legislation is needed because a portion of the detention basin project lies within the boundaries of the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area. An ``instant study area'' designation places development restrictions on public lands similar to those on wilderness study areas. This designation currently prevents the construction of this important flood control project, leaving the land and residents living downstream vulnerable to flood damage.

Even though the Las Vegas Valley is a desert, flash flooding is an all too common problem affecting the people in Las Vegas. Along with property damage and deaths related to flooding, Clark County residents experience inconvenience resulting from impassable roads during flooding events. Support services such as police, fire and ambulance can also be delayed, creating life-threatening incidents.

I look forward to working with the Energy Committee and my other distinguished friends to move this bill in a timely manner during the current session.

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

Mr. President, today the American people have spoken, and they have spoken very firmly. It should be a day of celebration in the United States Capitol. A few hours ago, we saw responsible Republican leaders in the House of Representatives come together to do the right thing by abandoning the attempt to change the ethics rules. We will await the final outcome but I am told it has all been done, that they will have to go to the House floor and approve changing the rules back from where they are now to where they need to be--that is, the way they used to be. The American people are very perceptive. They can tell when something is going on that simply is not fair. What we had in the House of Representatives is one of the leaders, with the abuse of power that takes place so often around here, took himself out of the criticism that he was receiving from the Ethics Committee. He was reprimanded on three separate occasions within 1 year but he did not have to worry about any more censures or reprimands because they simply changed the rules.

That is where the American people came in. They know that the rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game. Today, the Republicans in the House heard that message.

As this Chamber wrestles with its own possible rule change in the next few weeks, I urge my Republican colleagues to pay attention to how the American people feel about what is being attempted. It does not matter how many times one comes to the Senate floor and says there has not been a filibuster on a judge ever before, it is simply not true, underlined and underscored.

I note the tone has been different, and I am happy about that. My distinguished friend, the Senator from Utah, came to the floor today and said there has not been a filibuster of a judge that has come to the floor. Well, that still is not true but it is better than what he said before. What he was saying, in the language we understand in Congress, is the Republicans in the Judiciary Committee turned down 69 judges that President Clinton wanted. They did not come to the floor. They did not come to the committee. Senator Hatch is right, they certainly did not get a floor vote.

Also, we keep hearing we have to have up-or-down votes on judicial nominations. I was somewhat amazed yesterday by what people from the other side of the aisle said, that we are going to allow filibusters on other nominations that come from the President. Now, let us see what logic there is here. On a lifetime appointment, that is a judge who becomes a district court judge or a circuit court judge, they can be appointed at age 35 and serve for the next 40 years, and we cannot use our advise and consent that we have as Senators? But if someone is going to serve for a few months or a few years, as other nominations, then we can talk as long as we want, our ability to speak is not taken away there?

If we look at this, there might be something more there than meets the eye. The American people are not interested in seeing us fight about the rules or pursuing partisan goals. That is why this body has to come together and worked out this issue. We need to take on issues the American people wrestle with every day. Whether it is in Chicago; Oklahoma City; Reno; Pittsburgh; Dover, DE, wherever it is, the people in those communities are interested in health care--as a subset, prescription drugs--and they certainly are interested in gas prices. As I have said on the floor the last few days, Nevada is paying $2.65 a gallon. If you have a small car it is $30.

Veterans--we need to take care of veterans, better than what I see in this budget. The American people want us to talk about this.

They want us to talk about education.

They also want us to see that the checks and balances created by our Founding Fathers are not trampled on, this provision of the Constitution. I hope we are not heading down that road with the nuclear option, which turns the Senate into a rubber stamp, which destroys the checks and balances. As I said in the past, I will do everything within my power to avoid that option and today gives me hope we can avoid that.

The American people did not like what they saw with the abuse of power in the House of Representatives. What did they do? They spoke out loudly. As a result, the Speaker and others in the House of Representatives said we are no longer going to protect one of our own, because it is an abuse of power, and we are going to go back to the rules the way they used to be. That is a victory for the American people. I hope we can accomplish the same here today.

As I said yesterday, it would be a great visual if Senator Frist and I could walk down this aisle--he stands here, I stand here--and say we have got a deal for the American people.

There is so much work to do, we should not be fighting over these rules. If the Republicans insist on putting politics ahead of the American people, we are going to make sure the Senate works for the American people.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I would answer to my friend, not only is there a suggestion about changing the rules, but they are going to do it by breaking the rules. To change a rule here in the Senate takes a simple majority. But if somebody wants to speak in an extensive manner relating to that rule change, you have to break a filibuster. They are not willing to do that. They are going to use brute force and break the rules to change the rules. That is what they are talking about.

So even though what went on in the House of Representatives is bad, what is contemplated here is even worse than that.

I say in answer to my friend, I applaud, I commend the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the State of Illinois for realizing that what had gone on was wrong, and it is being changed as we speak. So the Speaker got the message loudly and clearly from the American people.

I say to my friend, the answer is yes. Yesterday, I got a copy of an editorial from a newspaper in Nevada, a newspaper out of Fallon, NV. In 1998, I got 21 percent of the vote in that county. I have said before, a homeless person could have gotten that many votes in Churchill County, but that is how many votes I got. So I got the editorial and it said, ``Stop Mr. Smith.''

As we know, there are some ads running that show the great movie with Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith coming to Washington to give a long speech as a Senator.

I said: I will read it. I read that editorial. It was so magnificent. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the first paragraph--and I am paraphrasing but not by very much--starts out by saying: You remember when you were growing up and you had this kid who was never happy? You couldn't win a game because he kept changing the rules in the middle of the game, and if you didn't allow the change, all he did was whine about it?

They went on for long, maybe six or seven paragraphs, saying: What is going on in Washington? Trying to change the rules in the middle of the game is un-American.

This is from Fallon, NV.

So the answer is yes, the American people are speaking. If you can get a newspaper in Fallon, NV, to write a harsh criticism of the Republican leadership we have in the Senate, they should listen because, believe me, I got 21 percent of the vote in that county.

Let me say to my friend, a perfect example of that is what is going on on the floor as we speak. One of our colleagues, the distinguished junior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, has an issue. He offered an amendment to this bill.

The reason he offered it to this bill is he wanted to make a statement about something that is going on in China. He believes trade policies there are unfair and unbalanced. He offered an amendment on this bill.

You can debate whether it should be on this bill, but it is on this bill. He offered an amendment. We have a right to do that. He, as a result of what he has done, held up the nomination of Rob Portman, Congressman Portman to be Trade Representative. I like Congressman Portman, a good man. I think he will do a good job as our Trade Representative.

As we speak, because of this filibuster that he, in effect, is conducting--not necessarily on this bill, but he is not going to let Portman go forward, so we will have to vote 2 days from now--the parties have come together. They are talking. I am confident we will work that out and Portman will be approved tomorrow.

The answer is yes. One of the good things about this institution we have found in the 214 years it has been in existence is that the filibuster, which has been in existence since the beginning, from the days of George Washington--we have changed the rules as relates to it a little bit but never by breaking the rules.

I say to my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Illinois, in all the political writings about filibuster, that is one of the things they talk about as a positive. It forces people to get together because sometimes in this body you become very fixed. You think you are the only person who knows what is going on and you need to examine yourself. The other person has an issue. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. It brings people together.

I say to my friend, first of all, in defense of Senator Frist, the statement he gave was before we had our meeting. I have confidence Senator Frist is weighing the offer I gave him.

Let me say this to all my friends, including the distinguished junior Senator from Pennsylvania: I am not going to dwell on what took place during the Clinton administration. Most people would acknowledge it was not right. I am not going to dwell on what took place these last 4 years of the Bush administration because I am sure people can make a case, as advocates can, that maybe we did not do the right thing in those years.

I am asking my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle to give us a chance. Let's work our way through this. We are not out plotting to take the next Supreme Court nominee who comes before the Senate, waiting in the wings to knock him or her out. We are not waiting to knock out circuit judges or district court judges.

Test us. We have proven so far this year that we are willing to work with the majority. We have done some pretty good stuff in spite of a number of things we could have held up for a long time. As I said yesterday, we could have held up class action for a long time. Just to go to conference takes three separate cloture votes. Bankruptcy could have taken a lot of time.

We legislated the way the Senate used to legislate. We had a bill come to the Senate. A person offered an amendment. He spoke in favor of it. People came and joined in that. People spoke against it. And we did things the old-fashioned way--we voted on them and then sent the bill to the House. That is the way we did it.

We have to develop faith in what we are trying to do. I am saying to everyone, trust us. Yes, I have spoken to Republican Senators. I have spoken to every one of the Democrat Senators. I have spoken to quite a few Republican Senators. I hope they give us the benefit of the doubt.

We are not working from a position of weakness. The American people want us to do this. They want us to join together, to pass legislation. They do not want anyone breaking the rules to change the rules.

This is so important for our country. We need to come together to work out our differences. It is not only important to this institution, it is important to our country.

I thank very much my friend from Illinois for his questions.

Mr. President, I have no problem with my friend speaking. My friend has to catch a train, and he has had unanimous consent to speak here for a long period of time. I think he should be able to go first. I object. I want my friend from Delaware to go first.

Mr. President, I object.

I would like to give a short speech, if the distinguished manager of the bill would not mind.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, I am not on the committee now, but I have been on the committee during a number of these highway bills. This highway bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Senate considers. One reason it is such a good exercise is that it forces bipartisanship. It is extremely important legislation. This is one issue on which Democrats and Republicans work together. I certainly wish my friend well. It is an important bill, as he and I know. We worked so hard last year to get it done, and for a lot of reasons it did not happen, but the Senator from Oklahoma has my good wishes on this most important bill for not only Nevada but the country.

Judicial Nominations

For the last several months, the Senate has operated under a cloud, a nuclear cloud. I would like to give just a brief history for those who are here today. Filibusters have been part of our history from the very beginning of our Republic. In the early years of our country, there were a number of filibusters, but there was no way to stop them. As a result of that, because of the filibuster, a lot of things were not accomplished that Senators wanted to accomplish. In fact, a number of very important Cabinet nominations did not happen because of the filibuster, and a number of judicial appointments in the early years of this Republic simply did not go anyplace because of the filibuster.

It was in 1917 that this body decided to change the rule so that there could be a way of ending filibusters. They decided that two- thirds of the Senators voting could stop a filibuster. Then, during the height of the civil rights movement in this country, the Senate decided to lower that threshold to 60, the way it has been since then.

We, of course, had filibusters of judges prior to 1917. We have had filibusters of judges since then. In recent years, we have had the person who was nominated to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Abe Fortas, who was a member of the Court, filibustered. He was not able to go forward. There are a number of other people who were nominated to be judges, specifically circuit court judges, and there were filibusters conducted by my friends, the Republicans. There were efforts made to stop those with cloture motions. The two that come to my mind are two judges from California.

I worked very hard on one of them--a man by the name of Richard Paez. The other was a woman by the name of Marsha Berzon. A cloture motion was filed, and cloture was granted as a result of 60 Senators voting for cloture.

My friend, the distinguished Republican leader, knows filibusters have been conducted because he voted against cloture. While he was a Member of the Senate, he voted against cloture on a circuit court judge. So for

people to say there has never been a filibuster of a judge is simply wrong. Twenty-five percent of all Supreme Court Justices have been rejected--not always by filibuster, but for various reasons. More than half the filibusters have been conducted by Republican Senators. I do not think that was unconstitutional.

During the tenure of this President, we have had 215 requests to have his nominations approved. We have approved 205 of them. We have turned down 10. That is a 95- to 97-percent confirmation rate, 10 rejected judges, 7 of whom are currently before the Senate. This does not seem reason enough for me, and I think for most people, to think that longstanding rules in the Senate should be changed.

Remember, everyone has to understand that to change the rules as anticipated with the so-called nuclear option, the majority would have to break the rules. The only way a rule change can be stopped when people want to talk--and that is, in effect, what is being done--is to change the rule. If somebody wants to talk, there must be the votes to stop that. That is not what the majority is talking about doing. They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate.

That is not fair, and it is not right.

The claim that there have been no filibusters, as I indicated, ignores history, including recent history. Throughout the years, many judicial nominees have been denied up-or-down votes. As we know, during the Clinton administration, 69 judges never even got a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. They were dumped into this big dark hole and never saw the light of day. Some of them waited for a very long time, including Richard Paez, who waited for over 4 years. Some of the loudest proponents of the so-called nuclear option opposed cloture on the nominations of President Clinton's nominees.

America is paying attention to this hypocrisy. Citizens are alarmed about what the Republican majority is planning to do. According to a poll that was released yesterday, Americans oppose this--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--by a 2-to-1 margin. They oppose changing the rules to make it easier for the President to stack the courts with radical judges. The American people, in effect, reject the nuclear option because they see it for what it is--an abuse of power, arrogance of power. Lord Acton said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The American people need to understand what is going on here in our Congress. Across the way in the House of Representatives, the majority leader was censored three times within 1 year. He will not be censored again because they changed the rules in the middle of the game. That is what is going on. The rules are being changed in the middle of the game. They are breaking the rules to change the rules.

Regardless of one's political affiliation, Americans understand this is a partisan political grab. Nearly half the Republicans polled opposed any rules changes, joining 8 in 10 Democrats and 7 Independents.

Over the last several months, I have talked about a solution. We need to step forward and try to work something out. Before I came here, I tried cases before juries. I had more than 100 jury trials. Every time I had a jury trial was a failure. It was a failure because it indicated the participants could not work things out on their own. That is how I feel about this. We should be able to work this out. We should be able to work it out. My door has always been open to responsible Republicans who do not want the Senate to head down this unproductive path.

I wrote to the majority leader on March 15 and expressed a willingness to find a way out of this predicament we find ourselves in, to find a solution. My friend, the distinguished majority leader, replied 2 days later he would propose a compromise for resolving this issue. We are still waiting on that proposal.

Now, it appears maybe--and I hope this is untrue--that Republican leaders in the Senate do not want a compromise. Senator Frist and I do not do our negotiations in public, but he and I had a nice conversation about a number of issues about 12:15 today. One of the issues we talked about was my proposal to try to resolve this. I thought it was a very constructive meeting. I walked into a conference at quarter to 1, and I was told he issued a statement that there would be no compromise. I don't believe that. The wires are crossed here somewhere. I hope that, in fact, is the case.

This is something that needs to be resolved. One of my concerns involves Karl Rove. I know Karl Rove was up here today. Karl Rove is world famous. He is from Nevada. I like Karl Rove. He has not been elected either to the executive branch of Government or to the legislative branch of Government. I believe in the separation of powers. I believe this legislative branch of Government is as strong as and as important as the executive branch and the judicial branch of Government. We should conduct our business, especially when it deals with procedures and rules of the Senate, without interference from the White House. In fact, I thought this is where we were headed.

I spoke to the President at the White House. My distinguished friend, the assistant majority leader, was there. I asked the President if he would step into this issue dealing with the nuclear option and help us resolve this, because we have lots of important legislative issues to accomplish.

The President, without any hesitation, said to me, in effect, that this is a legislative matter. He said he was not going to get involved in it at all.

I was dumbfounded to find that the Vice President, a few days later, was giving a speech--and I know under his constitutional role he has certain obligations, one of which is if we are in a tie, he breaks the tie; I have no qualms about his having the ability to do that--he gave a long speech on the history of the filibuster and how we were stopping this constitutional option. Frank Luntz gave nuclear option a new name. And bang, today we get Karl Rove telling everybody that there will be no compromise, saying that we want all of our judges, plus Bolton.

These are not positions that allow for compromise. I want to work this out. These are not positions that allow the Senate to proceed with the work of the American people. These are positions that force a confrontation. I don't think we need that. These are positions that divert attention from the real problems facing America today--gas prices, nearly $2.75 a gallon in Nevada. That is higher than in California. We have poor schools, problems with schools all over America. Minnesota is no different from Nevada. They have problems in their schools. They have inadequate health care coverage.

Again, 95 percent of the President's nominees have been confirmed. The majority leader has said he is willing to break the rules, to change the rules. He will be gone in 15 months and we will still be around. It would not be the right thing to do.

Ultimately, this is about removing the last check in Washington against complete abuse of power, the right to extended debate.

Ronald Reagan sent people to the Supreme Court. Richard Nixon sent people to the Supreme Court. There are still two men there who were nominated by Nixon. We have people whom George Bush No. 1 sent here. Seven of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are Republican appointees. Yet there have been attacks on these people, vile things said about David Souter, vile things said about Justice Kennedy, and others.

The radical right, not representing the mainstream Republicans in this country, wants a different kind of Supreme Court, a different kind of judge--maybe that is the case--one who would roll back equality, liberty, and the rights of all Americans. I don't think that is why President Reagan put his appointees on the Supreme Court. I don't think that is why President Bush No. 1 put his appointees on the Supreme Court.

I think those who were elected to this body, the people who sent us here--not Karl Rove, not James Dobson, and not radical elements of our society--should work out a solution.

There is a way to avoid this nuclear shutdown. I have outlined a proposal for my collective colleagues in some detail in an effort to protect an independent judiciary and to preserve the Founding Fathers' vision of the Senate. I am not going to go into the details of my conversations with my

friend Senator Frist and other Members of the majority. I spoke in private. But I want to talk about why compromise is necessary.

We stand united against the constitutional or nuclear option, all 45 of us. We have a responsibility to protect checks and balances, not violate them; to protect the separation of power. My offer protects those checks and balances. My offer renews procedures to allow home State Senators to have a say in who sits on the Federal courts in their States. The procedures encourage consultation and will lead to the nomination of consensus judges, judges who will be confirmed unanimously in most cases.

As I indicated on more than one occasion this afternoon, we have approved 205 judges and turned down 10. The 10 were denied confirmation for a lot of reasons. I will not detail that here. We need to ensure the Senate remains as a check on the President's power, especially with respect to the Supreme Court. We were willing to compromise on this, which is hard to do. I believe my proposal strikes the right balance. I hope so because I tried. It protects our democracy and the independence of our Federal courts. The separation of powers doctrine means so much to our country. It protects the American people, lets us do our business, and can break partisan stalemates that are unnecessarily divisive. I emphasize that any potential compromise is of course contingent on a commitment that the nuclear option will not be exercised in this Congress or any Congress. It is very important to understand this is not all done in a vacuum.

What I have spoken to my Republican counterparts about is an effort to work our way through this. I always felt that a good settlement in all those cases I had, the best settlement was when both parties walked out saying, I am happy. We cannot make both parties happy. We will have to compromise. We will have to be statesmen and come up with something the American people will accept.

I recognize the same poll I talked about here, how people feel about the nuclear option--I know, reading these polls, that the present numbers are tumbling downward. I know that because of what has gone on, for a lot of different reasons, numbers for the Senate Republicans are falling. But the general view of the Congress is not that good.

I think it would be a good moment for the American people if Senator Frist and I could walk out before the American people and say that we have been able to work out our differences. I think the American people would like that. If we do not do that, it is going to be a difficult situation, as I have indicated in great detail. This is not a Newt Gingrich threat. We are not going to shut down the Government. But we are going to work on a number of issues that we feel are important to the American people. In fact, our hours will probably be longer, rather than shorter.

Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's courtesy, and I especially thank my friend from Oklahoma.

If I could say this: During the Clinton years, and during the first 4 years of President Bush, we had a workhorse in the Judiciary Committee. He was chairman; he was ranking member; he was chairman. It went back and forth. He has taken a lot of spears for a lot of different people, standing up for what he believes is right for this country. So I want the record to reflect how much I appreciate the support and the advice and counsel that I have received from Senator Pat Leahy during the years I have been in the Senate, but particularly during the last 5 months.

Mr. President, I appreciate the statement of my distinguished friend. We have worked together for I don't remember how many years because I had his job. A lot of my previous life has been blurred as a result of the past 5 months, but I enjoyed working with him then. He is a master of procedure, certainly understands the Senate. I appreciate not only what he said but the tone of it.

I would just like to say this to the Presiding Officer, being a new Senator, and some others here: One of the problems I have is the deference to the President. George Bush is my President. I didn't vote for him. When he was elected the first time, I didn't vote for him. But we are a country that is so unique. When his election was decided by the Supreme Court after that election, there wasn't a window broken. There wasn't a demonstration held. There were no fires set. He became President of the United States. He became my President and everybody else's. But the fact that he is President of the United States does not take away the fact that he is President, not king. With all the power that he has in that vast bureaucracy, he has no more power than we have in the legislative branch.

My distinguished friend, the Senator from Kentucky, said: We need to give deference to the President's nominations. Yes, I think we need to give deference to the President's nominations, but we are not a rubber stamp for the President. We have an advice and consent role. My friend said he doesn't think it is right to have 41 Members hold up a vote on his judicial nominations. I think it speaks volumes to a

statement that was issued by the majority leader last week. Obviously, one of his Republican colleagues said: Is this rule that you are breaking to change the rules going to apply to legislative filibusters? He issued a one-paragraph statement and said: No, it won't apply to legislative filibusters.

But what it didn't say was anything about Cabinet officers, sub- Cabinet officers, people we have to confirm by law. Do we have a right to say the Senate rule should be in effect and we have a right to hold one of these up by filibuster? Using the logic of my friend from Kentucky and the statement issued by my friend, the distinguished majority leader, obviously they think he should get his choices there, too.

There have been would-be Cabinet officers from the very beginning of this country who never made it, Cabinet officers who were nominated but were never confirmed because people in the Senate, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 50 years ago said: No thanks. They didn't have a majority but they had enough to filibuster. That is the Senate. If we continue on this path on which we are going, we will just be an extension of the House of Representatives. I have served there. With every matter that comes to the House floor, without exception, there is what they call a rule on it that comes from the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is chosen by the Speaker. There are Democrats there, but they are only token because whatever the Committee on Rules says, that is what happens on the House floor.

You can bring a bill to the floor, and the Rules Committee can say: No amendments, debate time 20 minutes evenly divided. Or they can bring a piece of legislation to the floor and they can say: Five amendments, an hour each. They can do anything they want to do. They set a rule on every piece of legislation.

Not right now. When Senator Inhofe brings this bill to the floor, the highway bill, this bill is a free-for-all. That is what the Senate is. It is kind of a cluttered, clumsy procedure, but that is what the Senate is. I hope we are not an extension of the House of Representatives where everything we do here is like in the House--a rule is set on it. If people feel strongly enough to break the rules, to change the rules, as they will have to do here, they can change it as to the nominations I have also mentioned. And next, they can change it on legislation. The Senator from Florida has not been here long, but he is certainly an experienced man, a former Cabinet officer of this country. I know he came here a few weeks ago with an important piece of legislation. To him, it was very important because it was important, he believed, to the people of Florida. But you knew, because of Senate procedures, if we wanted to stop that with 41 votes, we could do that. It should apply to everything we do here.

I agree with my friend from Kentucky. I don't think we should be looking to pick fights and say that everybody the President sends up here has to be what we want. We know it is the President's prerogative. But for 214 years, the President consulted with the Senate on judicial nominations, and for many years the committee honored the blue slip, which ensured consultation. We know that during the last few years of the Clinton administration, Senator Hatch said: We are not going to approve anybody unless you run the names past me. That is how we came up with Ginsburg and Breyer. Orrin Hatch and the Republicans, at that time in the majority, and in the minority other times, said that they liked Breyer and Ginsburg. These nominees flew right through here. Perhaps President Clinton would have liked to have had somebody else. Maybe they were not his first choice. They got out of this body quickly.

So we had this consultation for a long period of time. We honored the blue-slip policy, which ensured consultation. I haven't yet mentioned that one of the many positive things all the political writers talk about is that the filibuster brings about compromise and consultation. You are forced to come and talk about issues, whether it is a piece of legislation the Senator from Florida is trying to get through or whether it is a nomination. I got a call from a Senator today saying: I have a hold on a Senate Cabinet officer, and I want to talk to you about it and see if you can help me work something out. It brings people together. I am confident that on an important issue for the President, we can do that.

Mr. President, I very much thank my friend from Kentucky--not only what he said, but how he said it. I hope something can be resolved here. The right to unlimited debate is something this country has had and something that is needed. I don't think we should be filibustering a lot of judges unnecessarily, but a filibuster is sometimes warranted. There may be unusual situations in the future where we will need to rely on this procedure.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Kentucky.

I am happy to answer a question.

Mr. President, I say to my friend that if a filibuster is OK for a person who is going to serve 4 years as a member of the President's Cabinet, or some lesser period of time, which is usually the case, why would it be wrong, for someone who is going to get a lifetime appointment, to take a look at that person? Why in the world would that be any different? Don't we have an even higher obligation to look at somebody who is going to be appointed for life? Certainly, we have an obligation to do that. There is no reason in the world that the President should get all of his people. I would say that my friends in the majority should understand that we consider our position as Senators. It gives up power to the executive branch of Government.

I am happy to yield to my friend from New York.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, this was the Great Compromise during the Constitutional Convention, where these visionary men, our Founding Fathers, worked out the difference between the House and the Senate. They did this purposely and specifically.

I say to my friend, there are many issues here that are decided not by 51, not by 60, not by 67, but many issues take unanimous consent. In fact, most things we do in this body are by unanimous consent. All of us have to agree.

We cannot commit to not having any filibusters, but we will exercise to the very best of our ability discretion, judicious discretion, because we think we are in a new day. We believe this is a new Congress, and we want to show the American people we can work together. And I say to everyone listening that I think we have proven that this year. We have worked on issues that have taken 15 years to get to the Senate floor. We know that many people on this side of the aisle did not particularly like the class action bill. We know that many people on this side of the aisle did not particularly like the bankruptcy bill, but we took 15 years of history and came here and did things the old-fashioned way. We had a bill on the floor, we offered amendments-- some failed, some passed--and moved on. Those bills are now law. People may not like that--some do not--but it shows we can work together here.

My plaintive plea to every one of my 99 friends in the Senate is, let's work something out. Let's try to get along. Let's set a picture that Bill Frist and Harry Reid can walk out here not representing these special interest groups but representing the American people and trying to keep this body as it is and has been for over 200 years, and walk out here together and say: We have resolved our differences. We are going to move forward with the business of this country. That is my desire.

Mr. President, first of all, I have no problem with what I said. I believe we should have had some votes in the committee. Remember, 69 never even came before the committee. Following that, there should have been votes here on the floor. Remember, every one of these judges turned down had votes on the floor. They were cloture motions.

My distinguished friend says he does not know of any time in the history of this country where there has been a majority that favored somebody, that there was not cloture filed, or words to that effect. The point is, we do not need to relive history, but 69 of President Clinton's people never even got there, and that is what I was talking about in 2000 and 2001. I would never, ever consider breaking the rules to change the rules. I never suggested that at all.

I say to my friend, I want to work something out. I repeat that for probably the fifth time here today, but in the process we cannot give up the basic rights this country and this Senate have had for more than 200 years. We are willing to compromise, and, as my friend from New York said, compromise means just that. If we are seen as not acting appropriately, then people can respond to us at election time. It is interesting to note, I say to my friend, in talking to some of my Republican friends, of all the circuit nominees I have heard of, there are only a few that I have a problem with. My Republican friends have told me that they have a problem with a couple themselves.

We can work through this. Let's not have a hard-and-fast rule that the only way we are going to do this is through an up-or-down vote on judges because if that is the case, we are wasting our time here. They are going to have to break the rules.

I yield to my friend from Missouri--he has been patient-- for a question without my losing my right to the floor.

And my answer is yes, and I am going to get off the floor just as quickly as I can.

Yes.

I appreciate everyone's patience.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Rosemary Vitavec, a third grade teacher at Walter Bracken Magnet School in Las Vegas, who was selected as one of 95 winners from across the Nation for the Presidential Award for Mathematics and Science Teaching for 2004.

The awards were created in 1983 and are administered by the White House and the National Science Foundation. Each year the program recognizes outstanding mathematics and science teachers from across the United States and four U.S. jurisdictions for their contributions in the classroom and to their profession.

This distinction highlights the fundamental importance of math and science education in preparing our Nation's students for the global economy. It also highlights the outstanding work done at Bracken Magnet School in emphasizing math and science learning with technology.

Mrs. Vitavec, a 23-year veteran, has taught in the Clark County School District for 12 years.

I salute Rosemary Vitavec for her service and dedication to the students of Clark County, and extend my best wishes for a successful future.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize several young people who were recently selected by the American Automobile Association to receive special awards for their work as school safety patrollers.

More than 500,000 students in 50,000 schools across the country participate in AAA's School Safety Patrol program. These young people have taken on the important responsibility of making the streets around their schools safer for their classmates. Though their responsibilities are often routine, the patrollers on occasion must place themselves in harm's way in order to save lives. It is my honor today to recognize six students who were selected to receive the AAA Lifesaver Award for their selfless and heroic actions in fulfilling their duties as patrollers as well as the National Patroller of the Year.

The first AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is Jessica Zeiter, a 10-year- old student at Huron Park Elementary School in Roseville, MI. On February 9, 2004, Jessica was on a patrol when a pickup truck driver sped on icy snow in heavy traffic. The driver probably could not have stopped even if he had seen the small first grade student step into the street, but fortunately Jessica quickly grabbed the student by the coat and pulled her back to safety. Others who were at the crosswalk that day thought the child was going to be hit and were shocked that she was saved.

The second AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is Michelle Grimm, a 12- year-old student at Weems Elementary School in Manassas, VA. On March 5, 2004, a kindergarten student fell off of the sidewalk and was lying directly in the path of a school bus. The student was struggling to get up but could not regain his balance because of his heavy book bag. The bus driver did not see the child lying in the street, but Michelle ran to the student's aid, helping him out of the way of the approaching bus.

The third AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is Estefan Santos, a 10-year- old student at Jackson Road Elementary School in Silver Spring, MD. On September 10, 2004, a 6-year-old child broke free from his sister's care and ran to cross the street towards her father who was waiting in his car. Estefan realized that the 6-year-old was not going to stop at the corner and held him back from the approaching traffic. Though bitten and kicked while holding the 6-year-old back, Estefan undoubtedly saved the child's life that day.

The fourth AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is also from Maryland. Her name is Pytrce Avonnia Farmer, and she is a student at Eva Turner Elementary School in Waldorf. On October 4, 2004, a 6-year-old child was waiting on the street curb under Pytrce's direction. The child's mother, however, moved her car forward into the second lane of traffic, and the child stepped into the street without noticing another car approaching. Pytrce acted quickly and bravely to pull the child from the path of the car. The child's mother has said that her son would not be alive today if not for Pytrce.

The fifth AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is Jared Smith, an 11-year- old student at Combee Elementary School in Lakeland, FL. On January 7, 2005, a 7-year-old student dashed past the group of children who were waiting for a van to pick them up, darting out into the path of the van. Fortunately, Jared stopped her before she was hit, though the van was only a few feet away.

The sixth AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is Naomi Wall, an 11-year-old student at Dan Emmett Elementary School in Mount Vernon, OH. On March 19, 2004, a 5-year-old student named Braden walked into the road, obeying a walk sign though against his sister Naomi's patrol flag telling him to stop. At the same time, a car had run a red light and was headed right for a car going through the intersection. Had Naomi not held her brother back by the arm, he would have been in the middle of the crash.

In addition to honoring these six brave patrollers, AAA also recognizes one student as National Patroller of the Year for demonstrating leadership qualities, strong academic performance, and civic involvement. This year, the National Patroller of the Year is Deanna Constantino, a fifth grader at Cross Street School in Williston Park, NY. Deanna is a member of the student council, serves on the school newspaper, has been a Girl Scout for 4 years, and participates in charitable fundraising activities through her school. Deanna, like all the other safety patrollers recognized by AAA, is clearly an impressive young person with tremendous potential.

I also thank AAA for making the school safety program possible. The program has helped save many lives over the years and has made our schools safer for our students, though, as the stories of the Lifesaver Award recipients demonstrate, the streets around our schools are not safe enough. That is why I have worked for the last 2 years to create a national Safe Routes to School program. This program would fund safety improvements on roads near schools so that children

can safely walk or ride their bicycles to school. I hope Congress passes my program this year, but whether or not it does, I am comforted to know that 500,000 AAA patrollers across the Nation will be working hard to keep the streets around our schools safe.

I understand we are in a period for morning business. I will use leader time.

Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my friend from South Dakota, but his assertion of facts is simply without foundation. When the Democrats took the majority in the Senate, I, along with others, said that this was not payback time; we were not going to treat the Republicans the way they treated us during the Clinton years. During those years, they did not have the decency even to have hearings for judicial nominations; they simply left them, 60 in number, in the committee. We thought that was inappropriate, and that is the reason during the time that President Bush has been President--we were in the majority, and we are now in the minority--we have approved 205 judges for President Bush and turned down 10, which is a pretty good record.

For people to say there have not been judicial filibusters in the past is simply without historical foundation. In the early days of this Republic, there was no way to stop a filibuster. The only way one could stop a filibuster on judges or anything else was by virtue of agreeing to stop talking. Many judges were simply left by the wayside. They were talked out and they simply never came forward for a vote before the Senate.

The most noteworthy filibuster of a judge that would require a vote that failed was in 1881. There was a filibuster of a judge that went to a vote. Prior to that time, they never even went to a vote.

It was determined in the Senate in 1970 that it would be appropriate to figure out some way to break a filibuster--on judges, on Cabinet nominations, and on legislation. At that time the Senate changed its rules by a two-thirds vote and had filibusters broken, then, by 67 votes. In the 1960s it was determined that was a burden that was no longer necessary, and it was changed to 60 votes. From that time to today, there has been the ability to break a filibuster by 60 Senators voting.

There have been filibusters since that rule was changed in 1960, filibusters of judges. The most noteworthy, of course, was Abe Fortas. There was a filibuster, and there are wonderful statements in the Congressional

Record by Howard Baker at that time, who extolled the virtues of the filibuster.

During the time I have been in the Senate there have been filibusters of judges. I can name two that come to my mind: Berzon and Paez. We had a vote to break those here, on the filibuster. The majority leader voted against breaking those filibusters. So we have had votes on many occasions dealing with filibusters of judges. This is no new thing.

What we have to keep in mind is that we, the legislative branch of Government, are separate but equal. That is what checks and balances are all about. The President should not have, from the Senate, a rubberstamp for everything he wants. We have the advise and consent clause in the Constitution and we have the obligation to look at these judges. We have approved 205 and turned down 10. For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American.

The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can't do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can't do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you.

You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un- American. I ask my friends to look at what is going on in the press. In the Post today, David Broder, a nationwide columnist, talks about how bad it would be. Dick Morris, who certainly is no lapdog for the Democrats, has stated very clearly it would be the wrong thing to do. The political damage would be done to Republicans for many years to come.

This is something we should work out. This is something that should not cause the disruption and dysfunction of our family, the Senate family. If this is done, the Senator from South Dakota is absolutely right; we will be working off the Democrats' agenda. We will let things go forward. Of course, we will let things go forward to take care of the troops and let us make sure the Government is funded. We are not going to do the Gingrich plan.

But things around here work by unanimous consent. Maybe the majority wants an excuse not to complete business because most of their business is a little faulty anyway. But we have worked very hard and showed our good faith in the first quarter of this Congress. We have passed, for example, the class action bill; we passed the bankruptcy bill--both of which were 15 years in the making. These are bills the majority of the Senators on this side of the aisle opposed. But I thought it was appropriate that we do business the way we should be doing business: have people speak, debate the issue, and take your wins and losses as they come. We had a couple of losses. But the fact is, we believe the business of the Senate should be conducted in this manner.

I do not know what is going to happen in the Foreign Relations Committee as it relates to Bolton, but the fact is, that is how things should be decided. They should debate publicly and openly and then make a decision as to whether he is good or bad for the United Nations. They are going to have some more hearings in that regard. I think that is appropriate. But to think that just because you do not get your way that you are going to change the rules is wrong.

I have said once or twice on the Senate floor, when I was a little boy I took a big trip. My brother was 10 or 12 years older than I. He was working for Standard Stations in a place in Arizona. It was a little town. It seemed like a big town coming from Searchlight. It took quite a few hours to drive over there. I spent a week with my brother. I thought it was going to be a week, but he had a girlfriend and I didn't spend much time with him at all. I spent time with his girlfriend's brother. I could beat her brother in anything--all card games, board games, running, jumping, throwing. But I could never win because he kept changing the rules in the middle of the game. That is what is happening in the Senate. The majority can't get what they want so they break the rules to change the rules.

We believe the traditions of the Senate should be maintained. We believe if you are going to change the rules in the Senate, change them legally, not illegally.

I hope my friends, people of goodwill on the other side of the aisle, will take a very close look at this and see if it is the right thing to do. I think we do have people of goodwill on the other side of the aisle who understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of this body.

As Senator Dole said when asked on Public Radio last week what he thought about the so-called nuclear option, He said: Watch it because we are not going to be in the majority all the time. It will come back--these are my words, not his but the same meaning--it will come back to haunt us because the majority changes all the time.

I think it would be wrong for the Democrats to be able to do what the Republicans are talking about doing. I think it would be wrong for the Republicans to do what they are talking about doing. That is why we, Senator Frist and I, working with our caucus, have to try to tamp down the emotions on this issue and do what we can to bring the Senate family together and do things the right way so we can continue to do legislation.

I spoke to the distinguished majority leader a few minutes ago. We want to do the highway bill. We have the Energy bill. Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman are working hand in hand, more than they have in many years. They are going to come up with the Energy bill. The Senators are going to bring it to the floor and we will debate it.

As the President was told several days ago by Senator Baucus when they were called to the White House, Senator Baucus said: You do the nuclear option, there will be no Energy bill. That is the way things are and that is wrong.

(Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, I hope we will be able to work our way through this issue and come up with something appropriate and move on. We have a number of judges who are pending now. They should not have to wait around.

In the situation we now have there is no question the committees are working so well together. Senator Specter and Senator Leahy are working well together. I do not like the asbestos bill. I am not sure there is anything that can be done to make me happy about the asbestos bill because I have such strong feelings about the people who died of mesothelioma and asbestosis. But one of the things I did when I became leader, I told my ranking members that they were their committees. They could do whatever was appropriate in the confines of that committee.

Senator Leahy did what he thought was appropriate. I may disagree with that asbestos bill, but he had every right to work with Senator Specter and come up with a bill. That bill is here at the desk right now. That is the way things should work.

Senators Specter and Leahy have gotten so much done during the first few months they have been working together. There is a lot more we can do. That Judiciary Committee has some of the most interesting but controversial issues that we have. When you have two people working together as closely as Leahy and Specter have been, we can expect some things on the floor of the Senate that will be interesting and controversial, but that is our job.

I repeat for the third time, I hope we can move forward and get the work of the American people done. That is what this is all about. We do not come here to please any particular constituency. We come here to please the people of our States and the people of this country. That is our job.

We need to recognize we have equal power to the judicial and executive branches of Government. A number of years ago, when President Kennedy was President, there was a chairman of the Rules Committee in the House by the name of Smith. He was a Democrat. President Kennedy was a Democrat. He called Mr. Smith because he

wanted an appropriate ruling from the Rules Committee of which Mr. Smith was the chairman. And Smith wouldn't even return the President's call. He knew he did not have to. He stood for the legislative branch of Government. He didn't have to take orders or suggestions or even talk to the President.

He may have carried things a little too far, but that shows the strength of the legislative branch. We are as powerful as the judicial branch of Government and the executive branch of Government. When we come to the realization that we are not, it is not good for this country.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the nominations of Ambassador John Negroponte and General Michael Hayden to be Director and Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

The Senate's swift action on these two nominations is but the latest example of how the Senate's confirmation process should work, and, for the vast majority of President Bush's nominees, has worked.

It is really a simple formula for success: the President puts forward good, qualified nominees and the committee of jurisdiction and the full Senate act expeditiously to approve the nomination.

In nominating Ambassador John Negroponte and General Michael Hayden to be Director and Deputy Director of National Intelligence, the President has put forward people with long years of dedicated service to the country.

Some have concerns about Ambassador Negroponte's previous service on Latin American issues, and these questions are certainly legitimate to explore.

Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden are men who have wide support across both parties, men who have proven track records as professional public servants.

Together, these two men are good choices for the important new positions at the top of our intelligence community.

With Ambassador Negroponte's recent experience in Iraq, long experience in diplomatic matters, and years of time as a ``customer'' of intelligence, I am hopeful he will focus on improving how intelligence is used.

It is essential that he put in place the personnel and processes necessary to help the intelligence community avoid future colossal failures like Iraq, where in an effort to make the case for the use of force there, the President and the intelligence community repeatedly asserted that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

As has become increasingly clear over time, Saddam did not possess stockpiles of these terrible weapons and a number of questions have been raised about whether the administration shaped or misused the available intelligence.

Never again should a Secretary of State be sent in front of the United Nations to make the President's case for war based on evidence that was so terribly flawed.

If Ambassador Negroponte can prevent such misuse of intelligence, and speak truth to power, he will be a successful Director.

If Ambassador Negroponte is to succeed in developing the right intelligence and ensuring that it is used properly, he will have to dramatically transform our intelligence agencies.

In the intelligence reform bill we passed last year, we demanded that someone take charge of improving the intelligence agencies' performance. In that bill, we gave him the tools and the mandate needed.

Working with his Deputy Director, General Hayden, who has nearly 3 decades of experience in transforming intelligence as a military officer, I expect Ambassador Negroponte to transform the intelligence community.

The first step in this critical transformation must be to dramatically improve our intelligence collection capabilities, especially our human intelligence efforts, against the 21st century threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I hope these nominees will maximize their use of the strong, new authorities Congress provided them in last year's bill. Our Nation's security rests in large measure on their efforts. I wish them every success in their endeavors.

Mr. President, I will speak briefly. If this time is taken from the time scheduled for a vote at 3:45, I ask unanimous consent whatever time I use extend the vote that amount of time.