Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, on the circuit court judges, we have a couple circuit court judges on which we believe we can work out an agreement. Jeffrey Sutton is not one of them. So I object.

Reserving the right to object, this woman, along with Mr. Roberts, is part of those nominations we believe were improperly reported out of the committee. So I object to her and to Mr. Roberts at this time until there is another hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

Objection.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, Senator Biden had an objection to this proposed judge. We heard from his staff earlier today that probably has been resolved, but we will not know that until they check with Senator Biden who, as my colleague knows, is indisposed having had surgery. We will get back later, hopefully today. Therefore, I object.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have spoken to the leader and to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on the other judges. I have not spoken to either of them about this man. For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, through the Chair, I ask the leader this question: In regard to two of the names put forward, the woman from Ohio and Roberts, the best way to alleviate a very serious problem that has developed--and, you know, I think Senator Leahy is right on his interpretation of the rules, but it really does not matter at this stage--why do we not have the Judiciary Committee reconvene regarding those two judges? If there are some more questions the Judiciary Committee members have, ask the questions and then those two matters, I am sure, will receive a number of Democratic votes, and we could have these two people on the floor. That could be scheduled under whatever the rules are in the Judiciary Committee.

I think we are creating problems for ourselves. I know Senator Hatch feels right the way he interprets the rules. We have people on this side who feel that he is wrong, and it would seem that an easy way to avoid that problem would be to reconvene the Judiciary Committee, see if Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee want to ask any more questions of those nominees, and we could move along. Otherwise, I am afraid that because of how we interpret the rules of the committee having been violated, it is going to unnecessarily throw another cloud over an already cloudy situation. I do not suggest the leader has to answer that publicly, but I would hope that he would follow through on that and see if that would be a way to avoid these problems.

If I could ask a question of the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, has the Senator had an opportunity to look over the unanimous consent request that we submitted to staff earlier today regarding the late-term abortion matter that is now before the Senate?

I apologize for that. I thought staff had all the amendments, but the Senator does have our amendment, of course. It has been filed.

We will make sure the Senator gets all the amendments. Can we agree on a time on this amendment before us without any second- degree amendments?

I am sorry.

That would be fine. We would be happy to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have no problem with the Senator from Utah getting the floor. We have a unanimous consent request we wish to propound if the Senator will withhold.

Mr. President, could we do our UC? I am sorry to interrupt.

We have another unanimous consent.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we made progress on this most difficult issue today. If this unanimous consent agreement is entered, we will have gone at least halfway.

There are a couple of other amendments that have been submitted to the majority. We hope they would review those and maybe before the night is out enter into an agreement to have some end game for this legislation.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, in the debate which took place from 11 until about quarter to 1 today, there was a lot of talk about 60 votes. I am wondering if this is a constitutional vote. They are asking for 60 votes. Does the Senator have anything to say about that?

Madam President, was the time evenly divided?

How much time remains on each side?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, this amendment is to end insurance discrimination against women and improve awareness and understanding of emergency contraception, ensure that rape victims have information about and access to emergency contraception, and promote healthy pregnancies of babies by allowing States to expand coverage for prenatal and postpartum care. That is what this amendment is.

The debate that has been going on in the last few minutes has nothing to do with the amendment offered by the Senators from Washington and Nevada.

As I mentioned earlier today, the abortion debate has been a divisive one for our Nation for many years. We recognize the issue is not going to go away soon, but there is a need--and I thought we had an opportunity, and I hope we still do--to find common ground and to take steps toward a goal I hope we all share: Reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in America and reducing the number of abortions.

We put forth a good-faith effort to find common ground by offering commonsense solutions in our amendment. Instead of giving serious consideration to our amendment that would improve access to contraception and improve access to care for pregnant women, the other side has instead chosen to hide behind a technicality. That is what it is. If my friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about improving women's health, serious about improving access to contraception, and serious about reducing unintended pregnancies, they would not dismiss this amendment on a technicality.

When the Bush administration decided it would allow a fetus to be covered through the SCHIP program but it was all right to exclude the mother from coverage, we did not have the opportunity to dismiss this shameful and absurd regulation on a technicality. As a result, we are missing the opportunity to provide critical health care coverage for low-income women and their babies.

The sad irony of tonight's vote is that the measures contained in our amendment would actually save the country money. In fact, as the Washington Business Group on Health has found in its report ``Business, Babies and the Bottom Line,'' more than $6 of neonatal intensive care costs could be saved for every $1 spent on prenatal care, and low- birth-weight babies are 64 percent more likely to attend special education classes than normal-birth-weight babies. That is why the neonatologists came to see me, as I reported earlier today. They want women who have not had the opportunity to have prenatal care to have prenatal care. It saves the Government money.

Furthermore, an Agency for Health Care Research and Quality report has found 4 of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications, respiratory diseases, prematurity, health defects, and lack of oxygen. All of these conditions can be improved and, in most cases, eliminated through quality prenatal care.

The same holds true for EPICC legislation that would improve access to contraception by requiring insurance plans which provide coverage for prescription drugs to provide the same coverage for prescription contraceptives.

The Washington Business Group on Health estimates that not covering contraceptives in employee health plans would cost 17 percent more than providing the coverage. It is a loser to vote against this amendment. If my colleagues are concerned about money--and that is what this technicality is all about--then vote with us because we are going to save the State, local, and Federal Governments money.

The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which has provided contraceptive coverage for several years now as the result of an amendment made on this floor, shows that adding such coverage does not make the plan more expensive.

This vote is not about money. If the other side were serious about improving women's health, serious about improving access to contraception, and serious about reducing unintended pregnancies, they would not dismiss this amendment on a technicality.

I hope people will vote their conscience, the conscience to help women have healthy babies.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye''.

Mr. President, our attention if focused right now on Iraq and on our troops--the men and women on the front lines who are protecting us.

But we have always had men and women on the front lines protecting us--right here at home. They are our police officers, and they fight a war against crime every day.

I'd like to talk about one of those officers today--Raul Elizondo, of the North Las Vegas Police Department.

Raul Elizondo went to the same high school I did--Basic High School in Henderson, NV. He was a member of the championship wresting team there.

He went to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and then joined the North Las Vegas Police Department.

We have some outstanding officers in North Las Vegas, but Raul Elizondo quickly distinguished himself as one of the best.

He was known for going above and beyond the call of duty, and for getting personally involved in his community. He even helped get Christmas and birthday presents for children on his patrol beat.

In 1994, Raul Elizondo was named ``Police Officer of the Year'' by his colleagues in the North Las Vegas Police Officer Association.

That same year, he got a special commendation from the Chief of Police at the Annual Policeman's Ball.

Two months later he was killed in the line of duty.

This Thursday, March 13, will be Raul Elizondo Day in North Las Vegas.

Officers from the North Las Vegas Police Department will go to the elementary school that's now named after Raul Elizondo. They will read to students there, and help with classes, and eat lunch with kids.

Then in the afternoon they will have an assembly and a parade.

I wish I could be there with them. But on Thursday, while I'm here on the Senate floor, I'll be thinking about everyone involved.

I will be thinking about the police officers, who will be carrying on Raul Elizondo's tradition of being a role model for the community--as well as a law officer.

I will be thinking about Raul Elizondo's family--his mother Ann, his sister and his two brothers.

I will be thinking about the officers of the North Las Vegas Police Department, who still live with the pain of losing a colleagues and a friend.

And I will be thinking of the police officers all over the country, and the sherrif's deputies, and the FBI agents, and my old department-- the Capitol Police. I'll remember how they put themselves on the front lines every day to keep me and my family safe. I'll offer my thanks for their sacrifice and my prayers for their safety. I hope you will join me.

Mr. President, I want to direct a question through you to the majority leader. Tomorrow from 11 to 12:30, is that going to be equally divided?

No objection.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye''.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Ohio is here to make a statement. The Senator from Illinois wishes to make a unanimous consent request prior to the Senator from Ohio speaking.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary status of the Senate at this time?

I am wondering if the Chair is about to announce that we are going to go back to the legislative matter that was before the Senate before the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. Leader, Monday afternoon from 2 until 5 we will be on the Estrada nomination again. We have had a long, thorough debate on this matter. There has been some difficult dialog, but it has all been for the advocacy that should be present in the Senate. What this is leading up to is everything has gone so well at this point, we would hope--and I will be here virtually all the time that afternoon--that there would be no effort to try to sneak in a vote when somebody is not on the floor or anything like that. I think it would really take away from what has happened here. I continue to ask that question.

I am not sure that there will be people from the Judiciary Committee available all that afternoon. That means I will have to cover that. There are times when I am indisposed for various reasons.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the other question I have is, I learned yesterday that there may be an effort on Tuesday morning from 11 to 12:30 to get back on Estrada, talking about some constitutional issues people think are there. That is fine. I was just wondering if that, in fact, is the case because the Judiciary Committee members want to plan their schedules if in fact that were the case.

Mr. President, through you to the leader, I extend my appreciation for his courtesy, as usual.

Reserving the right to object.

We had a majority and minority member coming over this morning. They are not coming now, so for anyone who has had a desire to come speak and has not had the opportunity, this would be the opportunity to do that until 10 today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent before we go into executive session to have printed in the Record two documents. One is an editorial that appeared in the Chicago Tribune, written by Eduardo M. Penalver, who was a Supreme Court clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens.

I further ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter written to Majority Leader Frist, dated today, from a number of Hispanic leaders from around the Nation, with the final paragraph:

We want more representation for our community in the

courts, but not at such a high price. We accept liberal and

conservative thinkers among us, but Mr. Estrada is much more

than a conservative, he is an ideologue. We cannot support

the confirmation of an ideologue to such an important

position in our society. The cost is too high. We urge you

and the members of the Senate to oppose Mr. Estrada's

confirmation.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) is necessarily absent.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) would vote ``aye''.

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

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me just say I appreciate the leader working with us on the time on this bill. I know it has been inconvenient but we appreciate it very much.

Mr. President, the purpose of the morning business is to have Senators speak if they so desire. There have been some Senators wishing to speak on the situation in Iraq. The President is having a press conference tonight. It would be timely to do that. I say to those people who have indicated a desire to speak, this is their opportunity tomorrow. Is that the intent of the leader?

Mr. President, I haven't had an opportunity to check with floor staff, but I want to alert Members. At 11 o'clock, Senator Roberts and I, who were chairman and ranking member of the committee for many years, are going to make a statement on a long-time person who is leaving. We will work this out. I want to alert Members that we would like to have about 10 or 15 minutes between us at that time to speak about someone who is leaving and who has been involved in the committee work for many years.