Floor Statements

I say to my friend, we should be able to do this in the next few minutes, one way or the other.

Mr. President, the way I read this, we save 30 minutes. Isn't that right? It is.

I have no objection.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senator from Texas wishes to speak as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak.

I ask that the consent be modified so we have a vote on Prado at 2:15 today.

I am sorry. I missed that. I was visiting with someone else.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the distinguished majority leader wishes to have a vote on Cook at 4:45 on Monday. Is that true?

I ask consent that that be part of what we are doing today. I ask consent that the vote occur at 4:45 and there be a period prior to that of 4 hours for debate on the Cook nomination.

And that 1 hour of that time be reserved for Senator Kennedy.

The statement of the Senator is absolutely correct. There will be no filibuster. I would only ask, as the Senator has already indicated, that there be ample time--it may take as much as 6 hours of debate--prior to a vote on that. The Senator said it would be on Thursday. It may have to spill over until Friday. We may not be able to do all 6 hours on Thursday.

I was just saying--I know the Senator was preoccupied--we may take as much as 6 hours, 3 hours on our side; the other side may not need as much time, and so we may not be able to complete all that on Thursday. That is strictly up to the leader, but we have already indicated we would need up to that much time.

Mr. President, Senator McConnell and I worked as much as we could to get this to a point where we are today. I do not like to acknowledge this often, but we were unable to do that. It was only because of the intervention of the two leaders that we were able to arrive at this point. We need not go into all the details of what went into this agreement, but I want to publicly acknowledge the good work of the Democratic leader and the majority leader in allowing us to get to this point. This has been done very quickly on the Senate floor, but to arrive at this point has taken literally hours of time.

This is a significant breakthrough. I think, with all the difficulty we have been having with judicial nominations, that this is a significant advancement. It is typical of what has to be done when dealing with legislation. A lot of people have to give up what they felt was something they could not give up.

I also would say that Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy have been involved. I think they have helped the advancement of the Senate by their agreeing to things to which a little while ago they

would not have agreed. I wish to publicly commend the two leaders, and the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch and Leahy, for some excellent work. This is not anything that will ever be written in the history books but in my mind I have some knowledge of what is good for the Senate and I am convinced that what we have done today is some of the best work we have done all year.

Mr. President, I am pleased we are going to move to the nomination of Judge Edward Prado. While my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio, is on the floor, I want to extend early congratulations because it appears that on Monday we are going to approve a judge on which he has worked so hard. Because of his advocacy and a number of others, we have been able to move through this circuit court process a little more quickly. The Senator from Ohio told me how much he thought of Judge Cook, and being the fine lawyer the Senator is, I am certain we are going to get a good addition to the court. His recommendation goes a long way with me. I congratulate the Senator from Ohio for his advocacy on the part of someone he knows and speaks so well of.

Mr. President, I am pleased we now are on the nomination of Judge Edward Prado, a well-qualified nominee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Prado is being considered for the same court as Justice Priscilla Owen, a nominee we on this side find to be a divisive choice for the circuit court. The swift consideration of Judge Prado's nomination illustrates again how the nomination process can work when the President sends up fairminded and mainstream choices for lifetime seats on our Federal bench. It happens quickly.

This came about as a result of our being involved in another judicial nomination that was not going anywhere, and on this side we moved to the nomination of Judge Prado. I think that and other reasons moved us along the path very quickly.

While some have decried the confirmation process is broken, certainly the numbers belie that charge. With the two district court judges confirmed before we recessed and Mr. Sutton on Tuesday, the number of confirmations has already risen to 120. This afternoon it will be 121. These numbers dwarf the confirmations achieved by my Republican colleagues under President Clinton.

Last year alone, in an election year, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 72 judicial nominees, more than in any of the prior 6 years of Republican control. Overall, in the 17 months of Senate Democratic control, we were able to confirm 100 judges and vastly reduce judicial vacancies. We were able to do so despite the refusal of the administration to consult with Democrats on circuit court vacancies and many district court vacancies.

As I have indicated, if we confirm Judge Prado, which I am confident we will do, he will be the 121st judge. He will also be the 11th Latino judge serving in our circuit courts. Judge Prado is supported by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and many others.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus expressing their unanimous support be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chafee in reintroducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. Senator Chafee and I serve together on the Environment and Public Works Committee where we have had the opportunity to take a closer look at different environment-related health concerns. After a number of children in the small town of Fallon, NV, were diagnosed with leukemia, the committee traveled to Nevada to investigate what environmental factors may have contributed to the cancer cluster.

The Fallon hearing reminded me how little we know about what causes cancer and what, if any, connection exists between the environment and cancer. Three decades have passed since President Nixon declared the ``War on Cancer'' and scientists are still struggling with these and other crucial unanswered questions about cancer. This is particularly true in the case of breast cancer. We still don't know what causes breast cancer. We don't know if the environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer, and if it does, we don't know how significant that role is. In our search for answers about breast cancer, we need to make sure we are asking the right questions.

To date, there has been only a limited research investment to study the role of the environment in the development of breast cancer. More research needs to be done to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would give scientists the tools they need to pursue a better understanding about what links between the environment and breast cancer may exist. Specifically, our bill would authorize $30 million to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to establish eight Centers of Excellence that would focus on breast cancer and the environment.

In the year 2003 alone, it is estimated that 258,600 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States. In Nevada, an estimated 1400 new cases will be diagnosed in 2003, and tragically, approximately 300 women in Nevada will die of breast cancer this year. If we miss promising research opportunities because of Congress' failure to act, millions of women and their families will face critical unanswered questions about breast cancer. During the 107th Congress, almost half of the Senate cosponsored this important legislation. There is no reason we should not be able to work together during this session to pass this bill so we can find answers for the millions of Americans affected by breast cancer. I urge my colleagues to join in our quest for answers about this deadly disease and to support the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chafee in reintroducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. Senator Chafee and I serve together on the Environment and Public Works Committee where we have had the opportunity to take a closer look at different environment-related health concerns. After a number of children in the small town of Fallon, NV, were diagnosed with leukemia, the committee traveled to Nevada to investigate what environmental factors may have contributed to the cancer cluster.

The Fallon hearing reminded me how little we know about what causes cancer and what, if any, connection exists between the environment and cancer. Three decades have passed since President Nixon declared the ``War on Cancer'' and scientists are still struggling with these and other crucial unanswered questions about cancer. This is particularly true in the case of breast cancer. We still don't know what causes breast cancer. We don't know if the environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer, and if it does, we don't know how significant that role is. In our search for answers about breast cancer, we need to make sure we are asking the right questions.

To date, there has been only a limited research investment to study the role of the environment in the development of breast cancer. More research needs to be done to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would give scientists the tools they need to pursue a better understanding about what links between the environment and breast cancer may exist. Specifically, our bill would authorize $30 million to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to establish eight Centers of Excellence that would focus on breast cancer and the environment.

In the year 2003 alone, it is estimated that 258,600 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States. In Nevada, an estimated 1400 new cases will be diagnosed in 2003, and tragically, approximately 300 women in Nevada will die of breast cancer this year. If we miss promising research opportunities because of Congress' failure to act, millions of women and their families will face critical unanswered questions about breast cancer. During the 107th Congress, almost half of the Senate cosponsored this important legislation. There is no reason we should not be able to work together during this session to pass this bill so we can find answers for the millions of Americans affected by breast cancer. I urge my colleagues to join in our quest for answers about this deadly disease and to support the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act.

Would the distinguished majority whip yield?

Mr. President, we have completed a number of unanimous consent requests this evening. A number of them--about 10 in number-- deal with various positions that have been confirmed by the Senate this evening. These we read off by virtue of numbers. We do this almost every night, but I think sometimes we fail to realize these are real people and they are more than just numbers. The people on this list that we have read off today, they will have celebrations tonight. These are extremely important days in the life of every one of these people whose names we have read off today.

I think it does us good to once in a while just pause and recognize that the things we do here deal with more than just numbers. I ask we all once in a while stop and join in the celebration of these victories that these people have.

It is difficult, with the present situation--present situation? I think it has been going on for 20 years, how difficult it is to get nominations that the President sends to us, Democrat or Republican. The process is not very good.

We are now into the second year of this administration and we are just getting approved people he submitted earlier--some of whom he didn't submit earlier--just because the process is so slow. I hope someday a bipartisan commission or some organization can be set up so we can do this separate and apart from the situation that involves the judiciary. But just on nominations that come from the President, we need a system that works much better, more quickly than what we have.

I don't want to prolong the point other than to say congratulations to all these people who have been approved tonight.

No objection.

Mr. President, we have scheduled to appear in the Capitol today Secretary Wolfowitz from 2 to 3. I think it would be to everyone's best interest if we were not in session at that time. I would ask the acting majority leader to visit with the majority leader and find out if we could enter into a unanimous consent that we could be in recess during that period of time.

We have had a lot of interest on this side. This is the first major briefing we will have the opportunity to have after the recess. I think a lot of people will want to attend.

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa is yielded such time as he may consume. Rather, the Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, it is my understanding the distinguished Senator from Virginia has spoken with the majority leader, and the majority leader is going to let this vote go for some time. It is my understanding there are people on both sides who are doing other things--early and late--and this vote may have to be dragged for some time.

Is that right?

Madam President, further reserving the right to object, as I indicated early today, I certainly think we should be in recess during the Wolfowitz briefing, but there is a ranking member's meeting, for example, that does not end until 2 o'clock. So I ask that there be some consideration given to extending the vote for 5 or 10 minutes past 2 o'clock.

Madam President, I am wondering if my friend would also allow me to modify the unanimous consent request, that following the closure of the vote the Senate stand in recess until 3 o'clock.

I have no objection.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have, along with Senator Daschle, worked very hard on this request the majority leader has read into the Record. Senator McConnell and the majority leader have also worked very hard. Over the years I have been involved in other matters where we have had very complicated, substantive issues we have been able to work out. I am very disappointed we

cannot work this out because this really does not compare to some of the difficult issues we have been able to resolve previously. But we have not been able to resolve this.

I am really disappointed for a number of reasons. It involves individual Senators who have also devoted a lot of time on this issue, both Democrats and Republicans. But if there were ever an effort in good faith by the two sides, this has been it.

I hope my objection, which I will enter in just a few moments, will not be the end of this. I hope we can, with a night's rest, work something out. For the last two nights we have come within a whisker of an agreement on these three judges. But in the Senate sometimes a whisker stops us, and it has done that.

So I reluctantly object.

Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, I know the hour is late. I don't want to talk longer than necessary. I just want the record to be spread with the fact that we have a couple of Senators who have a different understanding as to what the majority leader and the minority leader and Senator McConnell and I thought had been agreed to. Senator McConnell was not on the floor; just the three of us thought it had been agreed to. There is an honest dispute as to a fact or two. This is just me speaking personally, not for my colleagues. I really think we should be able to work our way through this. It should not be as difficult as it is.

The Democratic leader and I acknowledge that the majority leader intervened right before the recess to get Roberts back for a hearing. We know that wasn't easy for him to do. We acknowledge that. We appreciate that. And we hope we can resolve this procedural quagmire. There certainly has been no bad faith by the leadership on the Republican side or the Democratic side.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Emilie Wanderer, of Henderson, NV, on the occasion of her 101st birthday, which she celebrated earlier this month.

Emilie Wanderer is the oldest member of the Nevada bar, but her significance goes well beyond her longevity. She both contributed to, and exemplifies, the progress our society has made in terms of quality. She broke down barriers for herself and for others. During a time when many women were discouraged from pursuing higher education and many were excluded from professional opportunities, Emilie Wanderer embarked on a legal career in addition to raising her children.

Her noteworthy accomplishments include becoming the first woman to practice law in Las Vegas, being the first woman to run for district judge in Nevada, and joining with her son John Wanderer in the first mother-son legal practice in the State. She has been an inspiration and a role model for Nevadans, especially for women pursuing careers in fields traditionally dominated by men.

Through her legal work and through her life, she has made our State a better, kinder, fairer, and more just place.

Emilie Wanderer is considered a legend in the southern Nevada civil rights community. Several decades ago, racism and segregation plagued Las Vegas like so many places throughout America. Earlier this year when we celebrated African American History Month we rightfully recalled the role that Black leaders played in the civil rights movement, but I think it is important also to recognize that some whites--not only famous and prominent people but also those who never received much attention or credit--were committed to the pursuit of justice and fairness.

Emilie Wanderer is one such person who helped bring about progress in race relations in Nevada. Early in her career, she served as legal counsel for the Nevada chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and she held NAACP meetings within her own home, even at the risk of harassment, threats and intimidation. She believed it was the right thing to do, and she had the courage of her convictions.

Emilie Wanderer's commitment to, and contributions to, promoting social justice and securing equal rights for all the people of Nevada deserve to be recognized and praised. On behalf of our State, I thank her and send my best wishes.

Mr. President, I believe I am the only former Capitol Policeman serving in the Senate. I am quite sure that is true. I didn't serve 175 years ago, although it seems like it. I have great affection and a real soft spot in my heart for the Capitol Police, having been a former Capitol Policeman.

The men and women of the Capitol Police today are different than during the years I served. Now they do very extraordinary things in protecting this beautiful Capitol, the employees here, the tourists, and the Members of the Senate. When I was a Capitol Policeman, the most dangerous thing I did was direct traffic. I didn't have their qualifications, but I am certainly just as proud as I think they are, having been a Capitol Policeman.