Floor Statements

Mr. President, if the distinguished majority leader will allow me to direct a couple of questions to him. First, we have asked before. Do you think there is any way we can have the vote on the Sutton nomination after the caucus? We have a lot of people who want to be able to discuss it in our caucus. I don't think it would in any way hurt the schedule or hold up getting to the Owen nomination by 20 minutes or half an hour, but there would be a number of Senators-- especially Senator Harkin--who would deeply appreciate it if we could have a vote at 2:15. We would even be willing to shorten our caucus to expedite the time on this and vote at 2 rather than 2:15.

Mr. President, we have been advised by the leader's competent floor staff that this afternoon, during the debate of Priscilla Owen, it will not be necessary for somebody to be here all day. I will be happy to be here, as the distinguished leaders know, but we would hope there would not be a vote unless the majority leader gives us some notice.

One final note: We have worked during the recess. I think the

position of the minority is the same as it was prior to the break. We don't think there will be any time that would be agreeable on the Owen nomination. That being the case, is it the expectation of the majority leader that he would file cloture on the Priscilla Owen nomination sometime today or tomorrow?

Finally, Mr. President, we are willing to work with the majority on judges. We have a number of circuit judges on which we think we can move very quickly. The leadership should know that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be recognized on the Democrats' time first for 20 minutes. Our next speaker would be Senator Schumer for 15 minutes. There will be a Republican in between, I am sure, if that is the wish. But I ask unanimous consent that our first two speakers be lined up accordingly.

The Senator from New York understands----

There will be a Republican in between him and Senator Durbin.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I said yesterday evening as we closed how I appreciated the statements of the Senator from Arkansas yesterday and how the statements were based on substance. A lot of times when we come to the Senate floor we talk in the abstract. You have not. I was touched when I heard the Senator from Iowa speak of his brother who was sent to a school for the deaf and dumb--even though he was not dumb; he just couldn't hear.

I want the Senator to answer this question. The Senator from Iowa remembers Congressman Jim Bilbray, a Congressman from Nevada. When he was living back here, he had a daughter who had graduated from high school and invited one of her friends from Nevada to come back to Washington. They were trying to find accommodations for her friend, who was a paraplegic. He was confined to a wheelchair. They called over 50 hotels and motels before they could find a place to stay for this young man with his wheelchair. That was prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Is the Senator from Iowa describing what my friend Congressman Bilbray's daughter went through, trying to find State-protected rights for people with disabilities?

Mr. President, I had spoken to the majority staff. The majority leader wants the vote at noon. However, the majority, of course, has indicated if we need another 5 minutes on each side, that would be fine. So I ask unanimous consent the time for the vote be scheduled at 12:10, rather than 12, and that each side have an additional 5 minutes.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Maine (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Arizona (Mrs. Lincoln) would each vote ``no''.

Mr. President, the Democratic leader is on his way to the floor and wants to be the first speaker on this matter on our side. We wish that he be the first speaker. In light of that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Parliamentary inquiry: If Senator Daschle's request had been that we move to Prado without the conditions he set forth as to time, is that a debatable motion? We are in executive session.

I don't want to do that because the Senator from Utah has the floor, but I want everyone to understand, as soon as I get the floor, I will move to Prado. That is debatable.

Mr. President, if I may complete my statement, I think we would be in a very strange situation where we would have the Republicans filibustering our moving to Prado.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Utah, earlier today, the majority leader announced there would be no votes today. He has been always very cooperative with me. So I am not going to move to the nomination of Prado today. But I want to put my friend on notice, as well as everybody else, that tomorrow, when we are going to be in a period of time where we can vote, I will do that.

I say to my friend from Utah, who is my friend, that I have respect for him and his legislative abilities and his fine legal mind. But I believe we should not get bogged down with Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. There are many other things we can do to move forward with lots of Judiciary Committee appointments, as was seen from the vote today. We had 41 votes here. I think with Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada there have been extraordinary circumstances that have caused us to do what we have done. There is no need to go over again why we feel as strongly as we do with Miguel Estrada. The record is replete with that. With Priscilla Owen, the record hasn't been made, but it will be. Here is a person we feel should not be on the court; as simple as that.

I see my friend who was chair and is now ranking member of the important Judiciary subcommittee which deals with judges. So I believe we are fighting over issues that really are not helpful to the family. We have heard a lot of talk here saying let's get Hispanic people on the court. We have Prado; he is Hispanic. Let's move him this afternoon or tomorrow. Also, I am quite certain my friend from Utah did not mean this. I understand why the majority wants to have an orderly process to handle judicial nominations. It is understandable. But there are certain times when you have to clean your house on Friday and not Saturday. Things come up. In this instance, I suggest that there has been a tentative agreement worked out, for example, on Roberts, who has been waiting a long time to become a circuit court judge. Using the logic that I just heard from my friend from Utah, because Estrada is up ahead of him, maybe we should not move to Roberts. But maybe because Roberts has been around longer, he would supersede Estrada.

The point is I think the seniority issue means a great deal in a legislative body but very little in a judicial body. I know that one of the fine people on the Ninth Circuit--I think my friend from Utah would understand he has been an outstanding jurist--Procter Hug, of Stanford Law, served on the court a long time and became the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit. That is based on seniority. But we are not here talking about who is going to be the chief judge of the Fifth Circuit. We are talking about trying to get judicial nominations filled as quickly as we can.

The President said he wants them, and the majority leader said he wants more judges. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee said he wants more judges. We are here to please. We are willing to work. We have approved 119, and there is no reason that by the end of this week we could not get up over 120. We can do that, including Judge Prado. So I hope we can move beyond Priscilla Owen.

I say as respectfully as I can that Priscilla Owen is not going to be approved. Fact. I don't know everything, but one thing I do know is where the votes are most of the time. Priscilla Owen is not going to be approved. We should get off of her and go to something else.

If the majority wants us to go through lots of cloture votes on her, we will march down here and do the same as we have done on Miguel Estrada. I am prepared to lay out why, and I will do that if necessary, and I am sure others can do it. That is why we should move to more substantive matters.

My friend from New York is here and he knows much more than I do about this judge. I know plenty, but not as much as he does because that is one of his obligations as a Member of the Senate--to take care of judges in the country.

Mr. President, let me just say again that we are not here picking fights that we don't feel are not essential to what we stand for. Not very often do we choose to go to battle--very rarely. There are a lot of these judges I voted against because I don't think they are mainstream judges, but they are judges and they have lifetime appointments. The Democratic leader, supported by his caucus, said there are two judges we are not going to let through: Miguel Estrada-- and we know the conditions there that will not be met--and Priscilla Owen.

It is not as if we are stopping everything going on with judges. When I go home, it is amazing. It happens that people say things and people have written editorials in opposition to my view saying: Isn't it terrible that he is holding up the judges? When I have had the chance to explain that we had approved 109 and turned down 1, that didn't seem too alarming. Now it is 119 to 2. That kind of quiets whole audiences.

The President of the United States was the owner of a baseball team. Boy, I will tell you, he would like to have a batting average with his team members like that, where for every 119 times up to bat, they made outs on only 2 occasions. Not bad. Ted Williams could not match that, Mr. President.

I would hope, again, everyone understands that we are not out cruising for a bruising. We are standing for what we believe is a principle, that we want a judiciary to be as good as it can be. It cannot be our judiciary--we understand that--but there are certain times when we draw a line in the sand. We have done it on two occasions. That is a pretty deep line we have drawn and people should understand that and not waste the time of the Senate.

We have so many other things to do. We have 13 appropriations bills to move. We have one new subcommittee on homeland security. It is going to be extremely difficult. We have a new chairman, a new ranking member. The whole subcommittee is made up of new people. It is going to be difficult to get that bill done. It is going to take some time. We should be moving toward that.

I went to a press conference that was sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Native American Caucus, and Asian Pacific Caucus. They asked me to drop by, and I was happy to do that because it, again, suggested to me that we have to do something about our health care crisis. Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance, none. There are millions more who are underinsured. A significant number of those 45 million and those who are underinsured are people represented by those caucuses because of the diseases that people have in their genes as a result of being of that ethnicity. That is what we should be working on.

The State of Nevada is in desperate shape financially, as are 42 other States in this country. The Republican Governor of the State of Nevada has moved to increase taxes. He is no leftwing Socialist. He is a man who is 65 years old, who spent his entire life helping kids and being an outstanding businessman in the State of Nevada. He said: We are desperate.

One reason they are desperate is the Federal Government has failed the State of Nevada. We have required the State of Nevada to do all kinds of things in homeland security that they are paying for, and we are not helping.

In the Clark County School District there are about 260,000 kids. They are desperate for money. They are talking about creating a 4-day school week. Imagine that. They are talking about dropping band and some athletic programs. People may laugh and say, good, get rid of them, but the way I feel about it is those programs are some of the most important programs young people have. They develop character. It gives them a sense of worth. That is what education is all about.

We passed this Leave No Child Behind Act. It was something that had bipartisan support, but we have not funded it.

Those are the things we should be doing, rather than spending days-- not minutes, not hours, but days--weeks, going into months on Estrada, and I guess Owen. I think it is wrong. We have too many other important things to do.

We have an environment about which we should be concerned. We are not dealing with those issues. Do we need to improve the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act? Do we need to do something about Superfund? As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, having been chairman of it twice, there are lots of things we can do, but it cannot be done if we are spending all of our time on two judges who are not going to become the judges that they have been nominated to become. That does not mean that we have ruined the judicial system.

Mr. President, I say through you to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, I don't think we can work out any time agreement. I have said so publicly. There have been a number of statements on the floor today. As I told Senator Hatch, there simply would be no time agreement ever on Priscilla Owen.

Mr. President, there was some discussion on the floor today that the minority would move to the nomination of Prado tomorrow. That is a debatable motion when we are in executive session. We have been in contact with the majority. In fact, the distinguished majority whip and I have been talking all afternoon to try to work something out. We understand the difficulty of our doing what we have said we would likely do. We acknowledge it is better that the majority sets the schedule. But there are times when we have to try to protect our rights.

I am the one who said I would do this at the first opportunity. I am not going to do that tomorrow until the ability we have to work out a fair proposal on a number of circuit court judges is exhausted. We were very close to doing something on that tonight. I am confident the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I can work something out tomorrow, with the consent of both of our caucuses.

So I just want to put everyone on notice that I am not going to move to Prado tomorrow and that we are going to try to work things out on our own, and that would be the most expeditious and, I am sure, best way to go. I am confident and hopeful we can do that.

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

Mr. President, I had the opportunity today to listen to Senator Harkin speak on the Sutton nomination. I was terribly impressed with his ability to explain to the American public on a very personal basis, as a result of his brother's handicap, why this nomination is so important. I hope all the Senate has the opportunity to see and review Senator Harkin's comments. They were so appropriate and directly on point.

Again, the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Iowa is a person of stature who always brings substance to a debate as he did in this instance.

I say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, I am aware of the information we have all been given on the nomination, and he certainly did do this.

What we have to look at, though, is his entire background and we will all do that. My point was that I think the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, laid out a foundation for our taking a very close look at this nominee. As the Senator from Alabama knows, the nominee has stated his views over a considerable period of time, more than just the one case he argued in Ohio.

All Members have a decision to make tomorrow as to whether this man, Jeffrey Sutton, would be the kind of person we want on the circuit court. We all have that decision to make, and we can weigh what he has done with what he has not done and make that judgment.

My point I was making is that we oftentimes in the Senate debate in the abstract. Senator Harkin did not do that. He formed his debate based upon his brother, who was accepted to a school for the deaf and dumb; as Senator Harkin said, his brother may have been deaf but he wasn't dumb. I think this is the only case I am aware of where the disabled community has been so up in arms over a nominee.

First, I hope we have the opportunity tomorrow to speak to our respective caucuses--the majority leader has to make that decision as to whether we will vote at noon tomorrow or after the caucuses. Regardless, it is quite clear that we are going to vote tomorrow. All 100 Senators have to make a decision as to what they want to do.

Mr. President, if I could just ask the Senator to yield, I have learned, having served in the Senate, that the majority always gets the last word, so the last word is that of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, one of the things we kicked around late yesterday was whether or not on this side we would agree to allow Deborah Cook to be voted on prior to Jeffrey Sutton. The answer is yes. I have spoken to the necessary parties--the majority leader, Senator Leahy--and we would be agreeable to have Cook be voted on at the time previously scheduled for Sutton. We would agree to do Sutton the following week under the same terms and conditions we had for him. That will be the Monday and Tuesday we get back. I have also spoken with Senator Harkin, who has concerns about Sutton and wanted considerable time to speak on that. He also agreed. That offer is out there if the majority wants to accept it.

I also announce we have scheduled today at 10:30 the conference on the supplemental, so Members should know we are finally going to go to conference on that and hopefully complete that some time today.

Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from Texas; I did not know she was acting as the majority leader and I would not have sought recognition. I apologize to the Senator from Texas.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary status of the Senate as we speak?

We hate to admit that is the way it is. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we have had in our cloakroom numerous phone calls. I have spoken to a number of Senators. We have military funerals going on around the country people wish to attend. We have two Senators now in attendance at a military funeral. We need to move on with the business of the Senate. We are here, ready to go.

The reason I say this is that throughout the day I will get inquiries from Senators about why can't we move along more quickly. We are going to ask that our member of the Budget Committee go forward with his statement on the budget. If there is no one here from the other side, that would be unfair. But I hope we can get to this soon because if we use all 10 hours on the budget alone, we are not going to finish until approximately 10:15 tonight--I am sorry, 8:15 tonight. There will be a lot of concern about that.

We still have the supplemental. We are going to conference at 10:30. We have a lot of work to do. I am disappointed that we are not on the budget now. Senator Conrad is ready to go. As I have said two times already in my brief discussion, we are having a lot of inquiries about people wanting to go home for the work period that we have scheduled.

We hope everybody understands that 10 minutes this morning is 10 minutes lost this afternoon. Airplanes need to be made.

We will be happy to look at that. Maybe if we get on the budget--if it is cleared--we can get off the

budget for a short time and clear that. I think we need to get the time running on the budget.

Some of whom, from Nevada, have been killed in combat in the war in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask the Budget Committee chairman if he will yield for a question.

As I said a few minutes ago, on our side there is real angst as to when we might finish this budget conference report. We have 5 hours on our side. At this stage, we have the intention of using most all of that time. I am wondering, from your perspective, how much of your time are you going to use? It is important for people who are bouncing around the country.

Using the time.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, if I may direct a question to the chairman, we are willing to work in any way possible to get the budget passed and the supplemental passed.

I think the Senator should be forewarned that I doubt very seriously if there will be a debt extension passed today. We spoke at some length a week ago with the majority leader. We will be happy to work with the leader on a freestanding bill. We need a day on that, but that doesn't mean 30 minutes or an hour. We have a number of people who have indicated to us that they want to offer amendments on the budget extension.

The majority leader is quoted in the press as saying he thinks we can do the supplemental and the budget resolution, but he doesn't think we can do the debt limit. I want the chairman to know we agree with the majority leader.

Mr. President, very briefly, if I may, I think every time a debt limit extension has come before the Congress, I have voted for it. I believe we have debts and we should pay them. I will likely vote for this one. But there are some people who don't think as I do and they want some time to talk on this.

The majority leader has the commitment of Senator Daschle and myself and Senator Conrad that we will work with them to get the debt limit extension passed. We need a little bit of time to do that.

Just on a personal note, I have been checking my banking on line every morning to see if my return is back. I am expecting that money to come back soon. It has been 4 weeks now and it is not here. I am a little disappointed.

Mr. President, if I could direct a question through the Chair to my friend, who is acting majority leader.

Could I have some indication how much longer the Senator from Idaho is going to talk? We may not be able to make the 4 time.

We have four speakers, and if the time is equally divided between now and 4, I am not sure we have enough time for all of our speakers.

I am wondering if the majority is going to use all of their time, if we decide to vote at 4, which will be beyond 15 minutes. Does the Senator think he would have authority to allow us to have another hour of that time and the majority have what remains?

Yes.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I ask my friend to yield. I am rising for a unanimous consent request so Members have an idea when this will be concluded.

Mr. President, I have been in discussion with the majority, and I ask unanimous consent the vote on adoption of the pending budget conference report occur 2 hours from this time, and that Senator Levin be allowed to complete his statement on our side, and Senator Durbin would have 15 minutes, Senator Graham of Florida 15 minutes, Senator Feinstein 10 minutes, Senator Biden 10 minutes, and Senator Byrd 30 minutes.

I think it is totally appropriate.

We need to make sure we have enough time for the majority. If we do 2 hours, they would be limited, instead of 30 minutes, to 20 minutes. The only reason I say that is Senator Nickles, when he started today, said they would not need a lot of time. I know 110 minutes compared to 20 minutes is not very much.

If I could modify my request, I will try to pare down the time here. Let's make it 95 minutes here and 35 minutes on the other side.

I withdraw my request.

Madam President, I would like to recognize Maura Lasater, the Cherry Blossom Princess selected to represent the State of Nevada in this year's National Cherry Blossom Festival in Washington, DC.

Maura has long been a part of the Greater Nevada community. As a friend and admirer of her family, I have watched Maura grow up to become a truly wonderful and vibrant young lady. She takes initiative to improve her community and, with her know-how, energy and common sense, she leaves a lasting impression on those around her. Her poise is particularly notable for such a young person. She is a bright light and joy to be around. I am so proud of her many achievements and know that her future is full of promise and possibilities.

Maura comes from a family with deep Nevada roots and a strong commitment to public service. Her mother, Jan Jones, was the successful and legendary mayor of Las Vegas for 8 years. Maura worked with her mother on her campaigns for Mayor, and now she continues her service to Nevada working for Congresswoman Shelley Berkley. Like her mom, Maura is a smart, focused, and spirited woman. She is a tremendous asset to Congresswoman Berkley's office as demonstrated by the extensive work she does directly with Nevadans. We in Nevada are lucky to have such a gifted and dedicated individual working on our behalf, and I am pleased to honor her as the Cherry Blossom Princess from Nevada in 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Brownback, Senator Coleman, Senator McCain, Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator Leahy, and Senator Hagel to introduce this bill, the Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003, which will expedite the naturalization process for noncitizen soldiers serving in active duty and in the select reserves and enact safeguards to protect noncitizen immediate relatives of American soldiers who are killed in action.

More than 48,900 noncitizens are currently serving in the United States military and hundreds are serving from the State of Nevada. They place their lives on the line for our country every day. In recognition and appreciation of their service, they deserve a naturalization process that does not unnecessarily delay the grant of citizenship or impose other restraints because they are stationed in another country.

These noncitizen soldiers love America so much they are willing to make great sacrifices to protect us and promote our values and even defend the Constitution--although they do not fully enjoy its protections. They deserve better treatment than they currently receive. Like many Americans, I was moved by the story of Corporal Jose Angel Garibay, who came to the United States from Mexico at the age of two months in the arms of a stranger because the trip was too rough for his mother to carry him through the hills near Tijuana herself. At the age of 11 he announced to his brother that he planned to join the United States military. Although a noncitizen, he believed anything was possible in this land of opportunity and hoped to become a police officer. The proudest day for the Garibay family was the day Jose joined the Marines. Sadly, on March 23, at the young age of 21, he died near Nasirivah, Iraq. Who can say that Corporal Garibay, citizen or not, is any less of a hero? Our noncitizen soldiers deserve a system that does not drop current applications or disallow eligible applications for legal permanent residency by their immediate relatives.

This Act will provide necessary relief to current noncitizens serving in active

duty and the ready reserves within the United States military by setting forth an expedited process of naturalization. This Act will also provide protections for noncitizen spouses, unmarried children, and parents of citizen and noncitizen soldiers who are killed as a result of their service to file or preserve their application for lawful permanent residence.

I rise today in support of action that will recognize and honor current noncitizen soldiers in the United States armed forces and will honor the legacy of all of our soldiers who have been killed in action by providing fair and sympathetic treatment of their immediate relatives seeking legal permanent residency.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Brownback, Senator Coleman, Senator McCain, Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator Leahy, and Senator Hagel to introduce this bill, the Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003, which will expedite the naturalization process for noncitizen soldiers serving in active duty and in the select reserves and enact safeguards to protect noncitizen immediate relatives of American soldiers who are killed in action.

More than 48,900 noncitizens are currently serving in the United States military and hundreds are serving from the State of Nevada. They place their lives on the line for our country every day. In recognition and appreciation of their service, they deserve a naturalization process that does not unnecessarily delay the grant of citizenship or impose other restraints because they are stationed in another country.

These noncitizen soldiers love America so much they are willing to make great sacrifices to protect us and promote our values and even defend the Constitution--although they do not fully enjoy its protections. They deserve better treatment than they currently receive. Like many Americans, I was moved by the story of Corporal Jose Angel Garibay, who came to the United States from Mexico at the age of two months in the arms of a stranger because the trip was too rough for his mother to carry him through the hills near Tijuana herself. At the age of 11 he announced to his brother that he planned to join the United States military. Although a noncitizen, he believed anything was possible in this land of opportunity and hoped to become a police officer. The proudest day for the Garibay family was the day Jose joined the Marines. Sadly, on March 23, at the young age of 21, he died near Nasirivah, Iraq. Who can say that Corporal Garibay, citizen or not, is any less of a hero? Our noncitizen soldiers deserve a system that does not drop current applications or disallow eligible applications for legal permanent residency by their immediate relatives.

This Act will provide necessary relief to current noncitizens serving in active

duty and the ready reserves within the United States military by setting forth an expedited process of naturalization. This Act will also provide protections for noncitizen spouses, unmarried children, and parents of citizen and noncitizen soldiers who are killed as a result of their service to file or preserve their application for lawful permanent residence.

I rise today in support of action that will recognize and honor current noncitizen soldiers in the United States armed forces and will honor the legacy of all of our soldiers who have been killed in action by providing fair and sympathetic treatment of their immediate relatives seeking legal permanent residency.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding that even if this is agreed upon, even absent this consent agreement, no rollcall vote on passage of the conference report would have been requested and the report would have been agreed to by voice vote; is that true?

No objection.

Madam President, if I could, through you, ask the acting majority leader: All we know on this side is what we read in the newspapers and listen to on the news. Are we going to be able to work on the budget before we leave here, either today or tomorrow? Members are concerned some will leave. This is the most important vote we have, it and the supplemental. We have a pretty good idea what is happening in the supplemental but less of an idea of what is happening on the budget. Does the acting majority leader have any information for this side of the aisle?