Floor Statements

Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. President, if my friend would yield?

Mr. President, I want to commend the majority leader for allowing morning business. We have been so tied up with the Estrada nomination, and I understand why he has not allowed it in the past, but it is really long overdue. We have some people who have been wanting to speak in morning business for some time now. We will do our best to get them here in the morning. I do not know if we can, but we are going to do our best. Again, I appreciate the majority leader consenting to allowing us to do this.

Mr. President, the two leaders have met several times in the last 12 hours. That is fair. And there is progress being made as to what the majority leader is going to do next week. We will be happy to cooperate in any way we can. We have this little dust-up here. We have to work around that.

As I indicated--the leader was not on the floor at the time yesterday--we know we have a problem with the Estrada nomination.

But we are not trying to delay. We have allowed the committees to go forward. We have tried to cooperate with the majority leader anytime he has had other legislation to bring forward. We will continue to do that. We just need to figure out some way to get through the parliamentary problem we have now with the Estrada nomination. We will continue to be advocates for our position in that regard, but we stand ready, as the majority leader has been told by Senator Daschle, to work with him in any way we can to help move legislation.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last evening, there was a lot of talk about whether memos at the Solicitor General's Office had ever been made public. I am going to talk about that, but I think we should put this whole debate involving Miguel Estrada in a framework that people who are watching the debate who are not familiar with Senate procedure can better understand what is going on.

In effect, Miguel Estrada has asked his employer, the Federal Government, to give him a job to last for life. As with any job, one usually has to have an interview. In this instance, in addition to an interview, you bring whatever papers you have, whether it is a resume or other documents that your employer may want to find out if you should be hired. In the instance of Miguel Estrada, he simply has not filled out the requisite papers, he has not answered the questions or supplied the necessary information.

An employer in Nevada, whether a company that sold tires or a company that sold food--it would not matter what it is--if somebody applied for a job, they would have to answer the questions that employer asked and give the requisite papers. In this instance, Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee believe he has not answered the questions. By reading the transcript, it is quite clear that is true.

But yesterday, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, engaged in extensive discussion regarding the release of Solicitor General memoranda. As everyone by this time knows, we have asked that Miguel Estrada release memos he wrote while he was an attorney in the Solicitor General's Office. The administration has refused to provide these documents.

There are two basic charges raised by my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle about these memoranda: First, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, has argued that when such

memos were provided in the past, they were leaked.

My colleague argued that they have never, ever been given to anyone on Capitol Hill.

Second, he qualified his remarks by saying to the extent memos had been provided, they were provided because there was some allegation of improper behavior by the nominee in connection with the memo.

I will place in the Record a series of correspondence between the Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department from 1987 that demonstrates in fact such documents were provided. This is only one instance. These letters show that these memoranda were not leaked. They show that they were in fact provided freely by the Justice Department.

In a letter dated August 10, 1987, then Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden set forth a request for several types of documents relating to the nomination of Judge Bork to the Supreme Court. In the letter, Senator Biden requested four classes of Bork-related memos: He requested those that related to the Watergate controversy; second, all documents generated or involving Solicitor General Bork relating to the constitutionality, appropriateness, or use of the pocket veto; third, all documents generated to or involving then Solicitor General Bork regarding school desegregation; fourth, all documents generated to or involving then Solicitor General Bork in forming the U.S. position in a series of specific cases.

These requests involved memoranda provided by attorneys in the Solicitor General's Office to the Solicitor General recommending such things as whether to file amicus briefs in particular cases.

In this instance, what happened to Senator Biden's request? Well, in fact a letter came to him dated August 24 from then Republican Assistant Attorney General Bolton to Democratic Senator Joe Biden. In that letter, the Justice Department declined to provide documents relating to the Watergate controversy. This denial of documents was based on executive privilege. The documents involved did not include Bork but, rather, related to communications between and among close advisers to the President and the President.

Yesterday, Senator Crapo made reference to the fact that some documents were not turned over to the committee during this time. While it is true that the Watergate documents were not turned over, and this is based on executive privilege, that does not affect our debate. Solicitor General memoranda from Estrada to his supervisors are not covered by executive privilege. No one has ever claimed they are.

In 1987, however, the Justice Department did provide the other documents I described above which were requested in the Biden letter. In these materials, the Justice Department noted in the letter: The vast majority of the documents that have been requested reflect or disclose internal deliberations within the executive branch. We wish to cooperate to the fullest extent with the committee and to expedite Judge Bork's confirmation process. The letter concludes that the documents referred to above would be provided. The letter confirms the nature and circumstances under which the Solicitor General memoranda were provided to the Judiciary Committee during Bork's hearings.

So what about the argument that to the extent memoranda have been provided, they were only provided when the request alleged misconduct or malfeasance on the part of the nominee or other attorneys involved in the matter? This simply is not true.

I have a list of internal attorney memoranda provided during the Bork, Reynolds, and Rehnquist nominations. These documents, some of which are from the Solicitor's Office, others from other parts of the Justice Department, were made public and given to Senator Biden, and in other instances given to others. For example, all documents related to school desegregation between 1969 and 1977 relating to Bork in any way, there was no allegation of misconduct; documents related to Halpren v. Kissinger, no allegation of misconduct.

I have about 14 of these that were made a part of proceedings before the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

I say respectfully that the statements made by the distinguished Senator from Utah were without basis of fact. Here we have records that were not leaked, they are directly as we said they were last night. We were unable to get the floor, but in fact that is what the story was.

So now that we do have the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated August 10, 1987, to Attorney General Ed Meese from Joseph Biden be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this outlines seven pages of documents he wants and certain guidelines that would be followed so that the Attorney General's Office would be protected.

In addition, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated August 24 of that same year to Joseph R. Biden from Mr. Bolton, the Assistant Attorney General, be printed in the Record.

These clearly indicate that Bolton acknowledged materials would be forthcoming.

The reason these are important is that we have said this man who has no judicial record whatsoever--and I heard the distinguished Presiding Officer give a statement yesterday about the many judges who have been distinguished who have not had judicial experience. We have never debated that. We agree, one does not have to have judicial experience to be a good judge. If that were the case, there would never be any good judges, quite frankly. Somebody has to start someplace. In fact, we would never have judges. That is what is referred to as a red herring.

We have never alleged that Miguel Estrada is disqualified from being a judge because he has not been a judge. That is something that the majority has talked about a lot, but we have never raised that as an issue.

What we have said is that those instances where we can learn something about his political philosophy and his philosophy as it relates to jurisprudence, we need to know something about that. The only place we can go to look is in relation to when he worked at the Solicitor's Office because he has not answered the questions we have asked him about the cases he prepared and took to trial when he was an Assistant Attorney General or when he argued cases before appellate courts.

As I have said on a number of different occasions, I have been to court lots of times. I have represented all kinds of different people. In all the cases I took, when I argued a case before a jury and before a court, one could not find out what my political or judicial philosophy was. The reason was I was being paid to represent somebody and carrying out my responsibilities as a lawyer.

So the fact that he has been before the Supreme Court and other appellate courts and has tried cases adds to someone's capabilities, but it does not allow us to find out about a person who is going to the second highest court in the land, if he passes this test. That is not enough. We need to know something about him. That is the reason we have raised these issues.

One thing my friend from Vermont raised, and I thought it was so good last evening: One does not have to graduate first in their class at Harvard to be a judge, but we heard assertions that Miguel Estrada has graduated first in his class. He has not. But he could graduate last in his class. He went to Harvard, which is one of the top two or three law schools in the entire country. The mere fact he went to Harvard means he is really smart.

He did not graduate first in his class. He was not editor of the Law Review. He was, with 71 other men and women at Harvard, part of the Law Review. He was 1 of 71. That is a pretty large group. As I have indicated, they are all smart.

The fact that he was an editor adds to his qualifications, but do not try to puff him up to make him something that he is not. He was not editor of the Law Review.

I think we are off on a lot of tangents. As Senator Hatch laid out so clearly last night, I think it is tremendous that a man came from Central America when he was 17 years old, went to Columbia University, also a school that is hard to get in, so he must have done well on his tests. I think it is tremendous that he was able then to go to Harvard. But let's not try to make this a rags-to-riches story because it was not. He did well, and that is tremendous. He is an immigrant to this country who has done well academically, but let's not build this up to some kind of a Horatio Alger story as some have said. I think the guy has done very well, and that is commendable. But we have heard all of these assertions that he graduated first in his class and he was editor of the Law Review, which is not true. It does not take away from what a smart man he must be.

We heard a lot last night, with Senators asking questions of Senator Hatch about all the editorials from around the country. Of course, there are lots of editorials that oppose Miguel Estrada. There is no need to read all of them, but I would like to read one from the New York Times. It may only be one newspaper, but the circulation makes up for a lot of smaller newspapers.

This editorial is 411 words long and is entitled ``Full Disclosure for Judicial Candidates.''

The Constitution requires the Senate to give its advise and

consent on nominees for federal judgeships. But in the case

of Miguel Estrada, the Bush administration's choice for a

vacancy on the powerful United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit, the Senate is not being

given the records it needs to perform its constitutional

role. The Senate should not be bullied into making this

important decision in the dark.

Mr. Estrada, who has a hearing before the Senate Judiciary

Committee tomorrow, has made few public statements about

controversial legal issues. But some former colleagues report

that his views are far outside the legal mainstream.

The best evidence of Mr. Estrada's views is almost

certainly the memorandums he wrote while working for the

solicitor general's office, where he argued 15 cases before

the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government. In

these documents, he no doubt gave his views on what position

the government should take on cases before the Supreme Court

and lower federal courts. Reading them would give the Senate

insight into how Mr. Estrada interprets the Constitution, and

in what direction he believes the law should head.

There are precedents for this. When Robert Bork was

nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, the Senate was given

access to memos prepared while he was solicitor general. The

administration has no legal basis for its refusal to supply

these documents. Congress has oversight authority over the

solicitor general's office, which is part of the Justice

Department, and therefore has a right to review its records.

Attorney-client privilege and executive privilege are

inapplicable for many reasons, including their inability to

override the Senate's constitutional duty to investigate

fully this judicial nomination.

This is an administration that loves secrecy, on issues

ranging from the war in Iraq to Vice President Dick Cheney's

energy task force. And it seems to think that if Congress is

ignored, it will simply go away. Congress must insist on

getting the documents it needs to evaluate Mr. Estrada, and

it should not confirm him until it does.

There are three things that can be done and we have been saying this for the 3 weeks we have been on this matter. No. 1, pull the nomination. What does that mean? That means go to something else. No. 2, try to invoke cloture. File a motion to invoke cloture and to do that you need 60 votes. That certainly is within the framework of the Senate for these many years. I also recognize the other way to do this is for Mr. Estrada to come before the Senate and answer the questions that we ask and also supply the memoranda that the New York Times says he should supply. That would be the way to get over this.

We have had now for several days statements made that we should not be on this, that Miguel Estrada is making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year as a lawyer, fully employed at a large law firm here in Washington, DC. We believe that for the many people who are unemployed, the many people who have lost their jobs, 2.8 million during the 2 years of this administration, we should be dealing with those people who are not employed and underemployed people with no health insurance or who are underinsured, people who are trying to make it educationally and otherwise in this society. That is what we should be dealing with. Rather than spending 3 weeks on a man who is fully employed, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, we think we should get off this and go to something else.

We are, as has been indicated, here for the duration. If the majority decides they would rather spend the Senate's valuable time on Miguel Estrada, they can do that. But I say that idle time is time we cannot make up later. There is a limited amount of time and a limited amount of legislative days that we have. We could be going to something else.

These filibusters occur very infrequently. I have been here more than two decades now and filibusters are very rare. Once in a while you have to stand for what you believe is right. As the New York Times indicated, we believe we are right.

Now, there was a lot of name calling last night. Both my friend from Colorado and my friend from Tennessee have the absolute right to voice their opinion. I don't think any less of Members for voicing opinions because they disagree with me. I don't think this is the time to name call. We have an actual factual dispute in the Senate. It is now in a procedural bog. We have to figure a way out of this. It should be a debate that is worthy of the traditions of the Senate. That is what this is all about. The Senate traditionally has had debate we read about in our history books. That is what I want the people who read about this debate to see in years to come--not calling each other names, negative in nature but, rather, referring to a person's position as one of conviction.

I listened to the speech of the Presiding Officer who indicated he would wait until next Tuesday to give his maiden speech, but he felt so passionate--that is my word, not his--about this issue that he wanted to give it a few days early. More power to the Senator from Tennessee. That is certainly fine. That is tremendous that the Senator from Tennessee made his speech and he feels strongly about the issue. It does not mean I have to agree with him. But I admire and respect his position.

Everyone on the other side should understand we also have conviction and feel passionately about this issue, and sometimes there are stalemates. This may be one of those. There may be a very tough decision that the majority leader has to make to pull this nomination. If he wants to go through a cloture vote, second cloture vote, a third cloture vote, eat up more time of the Senate, we are here. We are here for the duration. I don't think because we are involved in this debate that people suddenly need to say the Senate will never be the same. Of course it will be the same. We survived the filibuster with the Abe Fortas nomination. We survived that. It was very tough at the time. I watched that from the sidelines. We survived the filibusters conducted against President Clinton's nominees. The problem the Republicans had at that time, they did not have enough votes to stop cloture from being invoked because there were Republicans of good will who decided it was the wrong thing to do. That is good.

The fact there were filibusters and some people felt so strongly is hard to comprehend, but even after the filibuster was ended with the cloture vote then people still moved to postpone that nomination. It went that far.

The Senate survived that. And the Senate will survive this little dustup that is going on here.

The point I am trying to make, let's feel good about other people's positions. You do not have to be mean spirited about someone disagreeing with you. I hope, however long this debate takes, whether it is ended today, Friday, next week, or a month from now, that people will speak well about each other in the Senate and not resort to name calling. That is not good at all.

I hope we can move on to some of the other important issues now facing this country.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator is from the State of New Jersey. Of course, the State of New Jersey is very aware of the news that is put out in the New York Times and the editorials put out in the New York Times. Is that a fair statement?

I do not know if the Senator is aware that I read into the Record this morning a New York Times editorial from last fall dealing with Estrada. I ask the Senator if he is aware of the first paragraph of an editorial written February 13, 2003, in the New York Times?

Is the Senator also aware that last night the majority read into the Record a number of editorials from around the country?

Does the Senator from New Jersey know the circulation of the New York Times?

It is in the millions.

It is over a million.

Yes, I am sure it is.

Is the Senator aware of this editorial that says, paragraph No. 1, ``The Bush administration is missing the point in the Senate battle over Miguel Estrada, its controversial nominee to the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats who have vowed to filibuster the nomination are not engaging in 'shameful politics,' as the President has put it, nor are they anti-Latino, as Republicans have cynically charged. They are insisting that the White House respect the Senate's role in confirming judicial nominees''?

If the Senator will yield for a question, is he aware that it is led by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?

If the Senator will yield for a further question, it would be difficult, would it not, to say that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was anti-Hispanic?

We are going to find out. If the Senator would yield for another question?

I ask if the Senator from New Jersey agrees with that first paragraph of the editorial that I just wrote--read. I wish I had written it, but I read it.

It is a short editorial. It is only three paragraphs. I will ask the Senator a question if he would yield.

``The Bush administration has shown no interest in working with Senate Democrats to select nominees who could be approved by consensus, and has dug in its heels on its most controversial choices. At their confirmation hearings, judicial nominees have refused to answer questions about their views on legal issues. And Senate Republicans have rushed through the procedures on controversial nominees. Mr. Estrada embodies the White House's scorn for the Senate's role. Dubbed the `stealth candidate,' he arrived with an extremely conservative reputation but almost no paper trail. He refused to answer questions, and although he had written many memorandums as a lawyer in the Justice Department, the White House refused to release them.''

Does the Senator from New Jersey agree with the statement made in this editorial, second paragraph, by the New York Times?

One thousand five hundred four days.

Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

The final paragraph of this short but powerful editorial, does the Senator from New Jersey agree with this:

The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, insists that the

Senate be given the information it needs to evaluate Mr.

Estrada. He says there cannot be a vote until senators are

given access to Mr. Estrada's memorandums and until they get

answers to their questions. The White House can call this

politics or obstruction. But in fact it is Senators doing

their jobs.

Would the Senator agree with this statement?

If the Senator will yield for another question before he leaves the floor. The Senator mentioned there were aspirants to be appellate judges, and is the Senator aware that a number of these people were from New York? Is that true?

Is the Senator aware of the names of 79 Clinton judicial nominees who were not confirmed by the Republicans?

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

Mr. President, there have been a number of statements over the past many months about the fact that we should have been spending more money on homeland security.

For example, this week, I had a woman come to me from Las Vegas, who is in charge of the 9-1-1 center at the Metropolitan Police Department, a very large police department, with hundreds and hundreds of police officers representing that urban area of some 1.5 to 1.7 million people.

She indicated to me there is a real problem. If you have a telephone call coming from a standard telephone, that person can be identified. They know the location of that telephone. Or if it is a pay phone, they know the location of that pay phone. But today a lot of people are getting rid of their standard telephones, as we know them, and are using computers, and millions and millions of people are using cell phones.

She said that for virtually every place in the United States, including the Las Vegas area, if you call 9-1-1 from a cell phone, they have no idea who is making the phone call or where it is coming from. And, of course, with the computer, that is absolutely the case also.

She was lamenting the fact that the technology is there. It is easy to do what needs to be done to make sure that 9-1-1 calls that come from cell phones can be located.

People have lost their lives and have been injured and harm caused to them as a result of 9-1-1 not being able to identify when the emergency call comes in. This is only one example of how technology could handle the problem.

Why isn't it being done in Las Vegas and other places? There isn't enough money. With what happened on September 11, there is tremendous need for more money to be spent for homeland security. This was certainly the opinion of the Governors who were in town this week. They are having all kinds of problems.

So, Mr. President, I would like to refer again to the New York Times. I have talked about an editorial, as did my friend from Idaho, in the New York Times. I want to refer to a news story from the New York Times, dated today, February 27, 2003, written by one Philip Shenon, entitled ``White House Concedes That Counterterror Budget Is Meager.'' In effect, what this news article says is the White House now recognizes that there isn't enough money to take care of the problems of homeland security.

In this article, among other things, the President blames the leadership of the House and the Senate. And, of course, that does not include the Democratic leadership, because everyone knows, including the President, that we have been crying for more money for more than a year.

There are just a couple things from this news article I would like to point out to the Senate:

. . . the long delayed Government spending plan for the

year does not provide enough money to protect against

terrorist attacks on American soil.

Mr. President, this is a statement from this administration. This is not a statement from the Senator from West Virginia, the senior member of the Appropriations Committee, who has spoken for hours and hours on the need for more money. This is not a statement from Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader. This is coming from the administration: White House concedes that counterterror budget is meager.

The article goes on to say:

. . . because it had failed to provide adequate money for

local counterterrorism programs.

Mr. President, throughout America today you can't have police agencies talking with each other. In Las Vegas, as an example, you have the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the city of Henderson, and Boulder City, and they can't talk to each other in an emergency. The technology is there. They can do that. But these governments simply don't have the money to do that. Fire departments can't talk to police departments all over America. It is not only a problem in Nevada.

We have been asking that the President help with these moneys, and he has been unwilling to do so. He, in effect, vetoed a multibillion dollar proposal we had in a bill just a short time ago. In the bill we had, the big omnibus bill, we asked for a small amount of money for all the demands in here. We asked for $3.5 billion, but it contains only, as this article indicates, about $1.3 billion in counterterrorism money for local governments.

Now, these remarks struck some of the audiences unusually sharp, given that ``both Houses of Congress are controlled by the President's party,'' as the article indicates.

Now, there is more in this article, and the day is late, and the snow is falling, but I do want to read this to make sure the picture is plain.

This is a quote from Governor Gary Locke of Washington, which is in the article:

We have a lot of police agencies in the state that were

assured by the administration, repeatedly, that this money

was on the way.

Still quoting from the article:

He said that many police and fire departments had bought

[for example] hazardous-materials protective suits and other

counterterrorism equipment in the expectation that they would

be reimbursed by the federal government.

``And now,'' Governor Locke said, ``they're going to have

to scramble to terminate other programs in order to cover

those costs.''

It is not only Democratic Governors complaining. Republican Governors are complaining. Governor Bob Taft, a Republican, said lawmakers did not appropriate the amount that was recommended and earmarked for what they appropriated. So it is very clear there are things we need to do on this Senate floor that deal with more than the employment of one man, Miguel Estrada, a man who today, I am sure, is billing big hours down at his plush office here in Washington, a man who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

There have been statements made on this floor that it is extremely important that we shift from this man's employment, one man's employment, to the millions of people who are unemployed, and millions who are underemployed, people who have no health insurance and are underinsured and the many other problems we face.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 466

Based upon the New York Times article and the fact that the President of the United States has now acknowledged that the counterterror budget is meager, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session and then proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 466, a bill to provide $5 billion for first responders, introduced today by Senator Daschle.

Mr. President, this is no surprise. I hope that people will understand the need to go to other legislation. When we have our own President who, for more than a year, has said we have enough money, there is money in the pipeline, now agreeing that we have a problem, that we don't have enough money. The State of Nevada, I spoke to the State legislature there a week ago last Tuesday, 10 days ago, 9 days ago. I told the legislature there, which is like 45 other State legislatures around America today, they have a State that is in red ink. I told them there are a number of reasons they are

in red ink. One is we have passed a bill called Leave No Child Behind, and we are leaving lots of children behind because we passed on to the State of Nevada and other States unfunded mandates that create financial problems for the States.

I also told the State legislature that what we have done in passing different measures dealing with terrorism, we have passed on to the State and local governments unfunded mandates, costing the State of Nevada and local governments millions of dollars, causing their budgets to be in the red significantly.

The President is wrong. He must help us address the problem. Senator Daschle's bill for $5 billion for first responders is not enough, but it is a step in the right direction.

We are fighting. We have now here the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, now ranking member. As we speak, American forces are in a war in Afghanistan. People every day are being wounded and killed in Afghanistan. But that has been overwhelmed by what is going on in Iraq, or what soon will go on in Iraq.

We have lots of problems. We have problems in North Korea, which is a real serious one. They have started their second reactor there in the last few days. I was present at a briefing the other day with somebody from the administration who should know about how much the war is going to cost, and they don't know. The war in Iraq, they don't know. But we know we have a war going on here at home to fight terrorism, and we are not spending enough money to protect American people.

We have interests in the Middle East. We have interests in Afghanistan. We have interests on the Korean peninsula. We have interests here, and they are being neglected. The President acknowledges that. What are we doing here, spending 3 weeks dealing with Miguel Estrada. It is wrong. I am not surprised this unanimous consent request was objected to, but even though I am not surprised, it doesn't take away from the significance and really how depressed I am as a result of not having the adequate resources we need to take care of the problems dealing with homeland security.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Even though I would disagree with what the administration would do if they had the information and wouldn't give it to us, I wouldn't like that, but I would at least feel more comfortable that they were on top of their game. But for them to come to us and say, we don't know, that says it all. If they don't know and have no estimates as to the cost of what post-Iraq is going to be, we should all be concerned. If the general is 50 percent wrong, and it is only 100,000 troops, that is a lot of troops to keep there for a period of time. They don't know whether it is 2 days, 2 years or 2 decades.

People in the administration who try to be candid with Congress get in trouble. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser to the President, told us the war would cost $100 billion. He lost his job. I don't know if that is the only reason, but the general, a couple days ago, said: We will have to have 200,000 troops. There was a mad rush to that poor man to get him to change his opinion, and he changed his opinion and said: Maybe I was wrong, maybe it will be--and he mumbled around a little bit, but he gave an honest answer.

Let's hope he doesn't lose his job. Let me also say this. We have all been impressed with this movie ``A Beautiful Mind,'' which a year ago won the Academy Award. The principle of that movie and the book that I read, written by a woman named Nasar, was that this brilliant man, Nash, figured out what was called the game theory. This doesn't necessarily mean playing checkers.

He was able to determine through this brilliant mind that he had what would happen if more than two people were engaged in an activity and, as a result of the work he did, that is what much of the cold war planning was based upon--his theory, his game theory.

Now, for me to be told that this mighty Nation, the United States of America, with 260 million people, with the finest educational institutions in the world--there are about 121 great universities in the world, and we have about 112 of them; basically they are all in America. So for someone to tell me that we don't know what it is going to cost postwar, that simply is not being candid. They know. There are different scenarios and they have them all in those computers, and they know what the different costs are going to be.

I say to my friend from Michigan that, through mathematics, through computer modeling, you can figure about anything out. As most everybody knows, my last election was real close. I won election night by 401 votes. By the time it was over, I picked up 27 more votes. But on election night, I had a computer man who worked with me for many years. He was a fine man. He had run a number of different models for the 17 counties in Nevada and he told me after the vote was out of Clark County: You cannot lose. I have run every model there is and you cannot lose. It will be close, but you cannot lose. He figured out with mathematical certainty that I could not lose. Now, I didn't believe him, but he knew because he believes math doesn't lie.

So without belaboring the point to the Senator from Michigan, somebody knows in this administration, but they are not going to tell us because they are afraid the American people are going to lose more confidence. As reported yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reports that soaring energy costs, the threat of terrorism, and a stagnant job market has sent consumer spirits plunging to levels only seen in recessions. That was from yesterday. That is why they are not telling us.

I have given the Senator a very long answer to a short question, but I believe the administration knows and

they are afraid to fess up to the Congress and to the American people what this war is going to cost.

Or middle case.

I would like to respond, not in a very direct way, but to point out problems the Senator has outlined in his statement to me. Is the Senator aware that yesterday I talked about a Pew Research Center poll? It is a nonpartisan organization. They are not for Democrats or Republicans. This was a real big poll, where 1,254 adults were contacted between February 12 and 18. For the first time in this administration, the American people do not approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy; 48 percent of the people disapprove. Is the Senator aware of that?

And the Senator talked about tax policy. This same poll says that 44 percent of the American people disagree of George W. Bush's handling of tax policy. So the Senator said it all. I appreciate his asking me a question.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator is absolutely right, Mr. Rogers is somebody we all knew, you in a little bit of a different reference than I because you really did know him. But the fact that the Senator from Pennsylvania actually knew him does not mean that the rest of us did not really know him. He was a unique individual, as you said. He walked in, put on that sweater, with that very bad voice that we all remember.

The reason I wanted to interrupt the Senator before he went to the closing script is this has been a contentious week in the Senate, and I could not think of a more peaceful man to end the week than Fred Rogers. So I appreciate very much the Senator coming to the floor as quickly as he did, upon the death of this wonderful man, and ending the Senate today with memories of a peacemaker.

Mr. President, faced with uncertainties in electricity energy markets, turmoil in the Mideast, the need to cut back on the fossil fuel emissions linked to global warming, air pollution that contributes to high rates of asthma and fills even our national parks with smog, the United States must diversify its energy supply by promoting the growth of renewable energy.

Since 1999, Las Vegas electricity rates have increased by 60 percent. In the same period, natural gas prices across Nevada have doubled. We need to change the energy equation. We need to diversify the Nation's energy supply to reduce volatility and ensure a stable supply of electricity. We must harness the brilliance of the sun, the strength of the wind, and the heat of the Earth to provide clean, renewable energy for our nation.

I rise today to introduce a bill with Senators Smith, Snowe, Cantwell, Harkin, Liberman, Feinstein, Jeffords, and Wyden expands the existing Section 45 production tax credit for renewable energy resources to cover all renewable energy resources. Our legislation accomplishes this by adding geothermal, incremental geothermal, solar, open-loop biomass, incremental hydropower, landfill gas, and animal waste to the list of renewable energy resources that would quality for a production tax credit.

Our legislation also makes the production tax credit permanent to signal America's long-term commitment to renewable energy resources. The existing production tax credit that covers wind energy, poultry waste, and closed-look biomass will expire at the end of 2003! Since it inception in 1992, the production tax credit has expired and been renewed twice; in 1999 and 2001. Development of wind energy has closely mirrored these renewal cycles. Clearly, the private investment necessary to develop renewable energy resources requires the business certainly afforded a long-term extension of the production tax credit.

Our bill allows for co-production credits to encourage blending of renewable energy with traditional fuels and provides a credit for renewable facilities on native American and native Alaskan lands. In northern Nevada, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is working with Advanced Thermal Systems to develop geothermal resources on Indian lands that will spur economic development by creating business opportunities and jobs for tribal members.

This legislation also provides production incentives to not-for- profit public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives, which serve 25 percent of the Nation's power customers, by allowing them to transfer of their credits to taxable entities.

The good news is that the production tax credit for renewable energy resources really works to promote the growth of renewable energy. In 1990, the cost of wind energy was 22.5 cents per kilowatt hour and, today, with new technology and the help of a modest

production tax credit, wind is a competitive energy source at 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. In the last 5 years, wind energy has experience a 30 percent growth rate. This year, Nevada utilities have signed contracts for more then 130 MW of wind energy.

The production tax credit provides 1.8 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Similar to wind energy, this credit will allow geothermal energy, incremental hydropower, and landfill gas to immediately compete with fossil fuels, while biomass will follow closely behind. The Department of Energy estimates that we would increase our geothermal energy production almost ten fold, supplying ten percent of the energy needs of the West. As fantastic as it sounds, enough sunlight falls on a 100 mile by 100 miles of southern Nevada that--if covered with solar panels--could power the entire Nation.

Let's never lose sight of the fact that renewable energy resources are domestic sources of energy, and using them instead of foreign sources contributes to our energy security. Renewables provide fuel diversify and price stability. After all, the fuel--the wind, the sun, heat from the core of the earth--costs nothing. And they provide jobs, especially in rural areas that have been largely left out of American recent economic growth.

The production tax credit for renewable energy resources is a powerful, fast acting stimulus to the economy. According to the Western Government Association, the Department of Energy's Initiative to deploy 1,000 MWs of concentrated solar power in the Southwestern area of the United States by the year 2006 would create approximately 10,0000 jobs and estimated expenditures of more than 3.7 billion over 14 years. Nevada has already developed 200 Megawatts of geothermal power, with a longer-term potential of more than 2,500 Megawatts. This development will provide billions of private investment and create thousands of jobs. Our production tax credit means immediate economic development and jobs!

In the U.S. today, we get less than 3 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. But the potential for much greater supply is here. For example, Nevada is considered the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. My state could use geothermal energy to meet one-third of its electricity needs, but today this source of energy only supplies 2.3 percent. I'm proud to say that Nevada has adopted one of the most aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard in the Nation, requiring that 5 percent of the State's electricity needs be met by renewable energy resources in 2003, which then grows to 15 percent by 2013.

After pouring billions of dollars into oil and gas, we need to invest in a clean energy future. Fossil fuel plants pump over 11 million tons of pollutants into our air each year. Federal energy policy must promote reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. By including landfill gas in this legislation, we systematically reduce the largest single human source of methane emissions in the United States, effectively eliminating the greenhouse gas equivalent of 223 million tons of carbon dioxide.

An article in The Journal of the American Medical Association revealed an alarming link between soot particles from power plants and motor vehicles and lung cancer and heart disease. The adverse health effects of power plant and vehicle emissions cost Americans billions of dollars in medical care, and our cost in human suffering is immeasurable. Simply put, the human cost of dirty air is staggering. If we factor in environmental and health effects, the real cost of energy becomes apparent, and renewable energy become the fuel of choice.

America's abundant and untapped renewable resources can fuel our journey into a more prosperous and safer tomorrow without compromising air and water quality.

Renewable energy is the cornerstone of a successful, forward looking, and secure energy policy for the 21st Century.

Mr. President, faced with uncertainties in electricity energy markets, turmoil in the Mideast, the need to cut back on the fossil fuel emissions linked to global warming, air pollution that contributes to high rates of asthma and fills even our national parks with smog, the United States must diversify its energy supply by promoting the growth of renewable energy.

Since 1999, Las Vegas electricity rates have increased by 60 percent. In the same period, natural gas prices across Nevada have doubled. We need to change the energy equation. We need to diversify the Nation's energy supply to reduce volatility and ensure a stable supply of electricity. We must harness the brilliance of the sun, the strength of the wind, and the heat of the Earth to provide clean, renewable energy for our nation.

I rise today to introduce a bill with Senators Smith, Snowe, Cantwell, Harkin, Liberman, Feinstein, Jeffords, and Wyden expands the existing Section 45 production tax credit for renewable energy resources to cover all renewable energy resources. Our legislation accomplishes this by adding geothermal, incremental geothermal, solar, open-loop biomass, incremental hydropower, landfill gas, and animal waste to the list of renewable energy resources that would quality for a production tax credit.

Our legislation also makes the production tax credit permanent to signal America's long-term commitment to renewable energy resources. The existing production tax credit that covers wind energy, poultry waste, and closed-look biomass will expire at the end of 2003! Since it inception in 1992, the production tax credit has expired and been renewed twice; in 1999 and 2001. Development of wind energy has closely mirrored these renewal cycles. Clearly, the private investment necessary to develop renewable energy resources requires the business certainly afforded a long-term extension of the production tax credit.

Our bill allows for co-production credits to encourage blending of renewable energy with traditional fuels and provides a credit for renewable facilities on native American and native Alaskan lands. In northern Nevada, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is working with Advanced Thermal Systems to develop geothermal resources on Indian lands that will spur economic development by creating business opportunities and jobs for tribal members.

This legislation also provides production incentives to not-for- profit public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives, which serve 25 percent of the Nation's power customers, by allowing them to transfer of their credits to taxable entities.

The good news is that the production tax credit for renewable energy resources really works to promote the growth of renewable energy. In 1990, the cost of wind energy was 22.5 cents per kilowatt hour and, today, with new technology and the help of a modest

production tax credit, wind is a competitive energy source at 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. In the last 5 years, wind energy has experience a 30 percent growth rate. This year, Nevada utilities have signed contracts for more then 130 MW of wind energy.

The production tax credit provides 1.8 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Similar to wind energy, this credit will allow geothermal energy, incremental hydropower, and landfill gas to immediately compete with fossil fuels, while biomass will follow closely behind. The Department of Energy estimates that we would increase our geothermal energy production almost ten fold, supplying ten percent of the energy needs of the West. As fantastic as it sounds, enough sunlight falls on a 100 mile by 100 miles of southern Nevada that--if covered with solar panels--could power the entire Nation.

Let's never lose sight of the fact that renewable energy resources are domestic sources of energy, and using them instead of foreign sources contributes to our energy security. Renewables provide fuel diversify and price stability. After all, the fuel--the wind, the sun, heat from the core of the earth--costs nothing. And they provide jobs, especially in rural areas that have been largely left out of American recent economic growth.

The production tax credit for renewable energy resources is a powerful, fast acting stimulus to the economy. According to the Western Government Association, the Department of Energy's Initiative to deploy 1,000 MWs of concentrated solar power in the Southwestern area of the United States by the year 2006 would create approximately 10,0000 jobs and estimated expenditures of more than 3.7 billion over 14 years. Nevada has already developed 200 Megawatts of geothermal power, with a longer-term potential of more than 2,500 Megawatts. This development will provide billions of private investment and create thousands of jobs. Our production tax credit means immediate economic development and jobs!

In the U.S. today, we get less than 3 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. But the potential for much greater supply is here. For example, Nevada is considered the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. My state could use geothermal energy to meet one-third of its electricity needs, but today this source of energy only supplies 2.3 percent. I'm proud to say that Nevada has adopted one of the most aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard in the Nation, requiring that 5 percent of the State's electricity needs be met by renewable energy resources in 2003, which then grows to 15 percent by 2013.

After pouring billions of dollars into oil and gas, we need to invest in a clean energy future. Fossil fuel plants pump over 11 million tons of pollutants into our air each year. Federal energy policy must promote reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. By including landfill gas in this legislation, we systematically reduce the largest single human source of methane emissions in the United States, effectively eliminating the greenhouse gas equivalent of 223 million tons of carbon dioxide.

An article in The Journal of the American Medical Association revealed an alarming link between soot particles from power plants and motor vehicles and lung cancer and heart disease. The adverse health effects of power plant and vehicle emissions cost Americans billions of dollars in medical care, and our cost in human suffering is immeasurable. Simply put, the human cost of dirty air is staggering. If we factor in environmental and health effects, the real cost of energy becomes apparent, and renewable energy become the fuel of choice.

America's abundant and untapped renewable resources can fuel our journey into a more prosperous and safer tomorrow without compromising air and water quality.

Renewable energy is the cornerstone of a successful, forward looking, and secure energy policy for the 21st Century.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Washoe Tribe Land Conveyance Act.

I introduced this bill in both the 106th and 107th Congress, and it passed the Senate unanimously in 2000 and 2002. The bill has also been favorably received in the House: in the 106h Congress, it passed the House with unrelated amendments. Unfortunately, due to a shortage of time, the two versions of the bill were never reconciled and neither version became law.

In 1997, I helped convene the Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum to discuss the future of the Lake Tahoe Basin. At that Forum a diverse group of federal, state, and local government leaders considered the challenges facing the extraordinary natural, recreational, and ecological resources of the Lake Tahoe region. I am pleased to note that the Forum provided the basis for the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act that Senator Feinstein and I introduced and President Clinton signed into law. This law authorizes $300 million of federal investment to protect and rehabilitate the Lake over a ten-year period. In addition, I have been able to steadily increase the federal investment in the Basin. We are well on our way to fulfilling the promises of the Forum.

During the Forum a commitment was made to support the traditional

and customary sues of the Lake Tahoe Basin by the Washoe Tribe, most importantly, to provide the Tribe access to the shore of Lake Tahoe for cultural purposes. In short, this is not a controversial bill. It is a good bill, and it is the right thing to do.

The ancestral homeland of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California included an area of over 5,000 square miles in and around the Lake Tahoe Basin. My bill ensures that members of the Tribe will have the opportunity to engage in their traditional and customary cultural practices at the Lake in the future as they have done in the past. This will help the tribe meet the needs of spiritual renewal, land stewardship and general reunification of the Tribe with its aboriginal lands--forever. The participants in the Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum endorsed the concept of this bill, and nearly five years later that concept continues to enjoy broad support. The land conveyed by this bill to the Washoe Tribe would be managed in accordance with the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan, would not be commercially developed, and would not preclude or hinder public access around the Lake.

This Act will convey 24.3 acres from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the Washoe. This is not an expansive tract of land, but it is of profound significance to the Washoe people. I would like to point out a particular provision of the bill and explain the history behind it. Subsection (e) prohibits any type of development on the land. This provision was added at the request of the Washoe Tribe to guarantee that this land remains in its present unspoiled state for traditional and customary cultural uses. Tribal elders have indicated to me that these purposes could not be accomplished if the land were commercially developed, so I am pleased to include a provision ensuring that this land will remain in its natural state. I think this provision serves as a testimonial to the tribe's integrity and to how important the return of this land is to the Washoe people.

Finally, I would like to note that Senator Ensign joins me today to introduce this important bill. I know that Senator Ensign values and works to protect the wonders of Lake Tahoe. His support for this bill will help ensure that the third time is the charm and that we make good on this important promise to the Washoe Tribe.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Mr. Cochran, and our other cosponsors to re-introduce the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Act, which will advance our knowledge of this serious health condition and our ability to treat people suffering from it.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic disorders of the gastrointestinal tract which represent the major causes of morbidity from digestive illness. Because they behave similarly, these disorders are collectively known as Inflammatory Bowel Disease. This devastating, yet seldom discussed illness can cause severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever, and bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. Moreover, complications related to the disease can include arthritis, osteoporosis, anemia, eczema, liver disease, and even colon cancer.

We do not know the cause of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. There is no medical cure. An estimated 1 million Americans, including many children and young adults, suffer from it. In 1990, the total annual medical costs for patients suffering from Crohns Disease and ulcerative colitis amounted to over 1.6 billion dollars.

Recent medical breakthroughs, however, are opening up exciting new pathways for research to understand underlying disease mechanisms and to improve therapies for those who suffer from Inflammatory Bowel Disease. The gene for Crohn's Disease was recently discovered, and other research demonstrates that strong linkages exist between Inflammatory Bowel Disease and functions of the immune system.

Our legislation enhances research on Inflammatory Bowel Disease within the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Among the promising areas to be advanced are studies that translate findings from basic genetic and animal model research. The bill will also establish an Inflammatory Bowel Disease prevention and epidemiology program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This program is needed to generate an accurate analysis of the make-

up of the IBD population in the United States, thereby obtaining invaluable clues to the potential causes and risks associated with the disease.

The bill also will inform public and private health coverage policy providers by providing for a study of the coverage standards of Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance for therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. It will be conducted by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science. In addition, the bill calls for a General Accounting Office study of the problems patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease encounter when applying for disability insurance benefits.

This bill will benefit millions of Americans who suffer from or who are at risk of developing Inflammatory Bowel Disease. It promises to alleviate much suffering, to assist patients in accessing sound and effective medical treatment, and to benefit those who are debilitated by Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

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

No objection.

No objection.

Before the majority leader leaves the floor on a matter regarding what we are going to do this afternoon, at 2:30 today it is my understanding the Secretary of Defense will be here to brief Senators. I think it would be in everyone's interest if we had at least an hour recess during the time the Secretary is here.

I ask unanimous consent that that be in order.

Mr. President, Senator Hatch is in the Chamber, as well as Senator Dorgan, who has been trying to speak for 2 days now. It is obvious there are not enough votes, as indicated by the letter sent to the President. The fact is that there are three ways to dispose of Estrada: No. 1, pull the nomination so we can go to other issues that affect this country, such as the economy, such as have a discussion relating to the global warming document that came out today indicating there certainly needs to be a lot more done regarding global warming. It certainly is time we should be talking about the education of our children. Yesterday, the Democratic leader offered an economic stimulus plan. We wanted to bring that to the floor. So the nomination should be pulled for those other reasons.

If that is not the case, then there is another way of disposing of this matter perhaps--by having the majority file a cloture motion. That failing, it seems to me they should meet our request to have him honestly--I should not say honestly--thoroughly answer questions that have been propounded to him; and, secondly, submit the memos to this body, at least to the Judiciary Committee, so they can review the memos he wrote while he was Solicitor General.

That failing, we can stay in tonight and tomorrow night, whatever the leader decides to do, but as I have indicated before, now that the majority has changed, the majority has to preside and we will have people to protect our interests on the floor, so that is certainly no punishment to us.

The Senator from New York is a member of the Judiciary Committee, true?

The Senator is familiar with the record of the Judiciary Committee during the time Democrats were in control of the Senate, true?

Is it true that a hundred judges were approved during that short period of time when we were in control of the Senate?

Breaking all records.

If I may ask another question. It is also true, is it not, that during this session of the legislature, the three judges brought before us other than Estrada have been approved unanimously?

If the Senator will yield for another question, is the Senator aware that a poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center. You are familiar with polls, as I am.

They did a poll of 1,254 people that was completed on February 18. Is the Senator aware that in that poll, the people were asked how President Bush was handling the economy? Is the Senator aware that 43 percent of the people approved of the way President Bush was handling the economy and 48 percent disapproved?

Is the Senator aware of the fact that Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, came to the floor yesterday and asked that a bill that had been moved by the majority leader the day before, a rule 14, S. 414, is the Senator aware that Senator Daschle asked unanimous consent to bring that bill to the floor so we could start talking about a way to maybe improve President Bush's numbers as it relates to the economy and talk about stimulating the economy? S. 414, is the Senator aware that it was objected to?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I appreciate very much the Senator entering that letter from Senator Byrd.

I ask the Senator from Illinois: Is he aware that the reason Senator Byrd wrote that letter is because President Bush, at the signing of the omnibus bill when we lumped 11 appropriations bills--is the Senator aware that he had the audacity to say at the signing of that bill that it was OK, but he was upset with Congress for not providing more money for homeland security? Is the Senator aware that is why Senator Byrd wrote that letter, because it is just not true?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Is the Senator aware that one of the reasons Senator Byrd was so upset--and that is probably too calm a term for how he reacted to this statement of the President. Senator Byrd, you will recall, when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, last year, held a series of hearings that went over 2 weeks, where we called in various administration officials, people from communities in States around the country, to find out what their needs were for homeland security. That is why he brought the money number before the Congress. And he was rejected by the President.

Is the Senator aware of that?

I have three questions I wish to ask the Senator. Will the Senator yield for the first question?

I had in my office yesterday--and I am wondering if the Senator had people from Illinois in his office recently--people who came from Nevada and represented 911 centers, especially the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which is a very large police department. I spoke to a woman who has worked there for 20 years. She proceeded to tell me that she is frightened for the people of Clark County. That is in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. If someone calls on a regular telephone from their home, they know where that call is coming from.

But a lot of people--because computer use has become so prevalent, and they are using computers for telephones, and because of the use of cell phones--if someone calls from a computer or cell phone to 911, they have no idea where, or who, or anything about that. It is a terrible tragedy for the American people.

Is the Senator aware that is something that money for homeland security would identify because the technology is there, they just need money to be able to do it?

I listened to the Senator outline, as he is so adept at doing, the situation we have in the American economy today, with 2 million people unemployed. The Senator has laid out a very good picture of what we have going on in America today.

Is the Senator aware of the nonpartisan organization called the Pew Research Center? Is the Senator aware of that organization?

I ask, is the Senator aware they conducted a poll, which was completed on February 18, of 1,254 adults? Is the Senator aware that when asked the question on how President Bush is handling the economy, 43 percent of the people said yes, he is doing fine, but that 48 percent of the people asked that question disapproved? Is the Senator aware of those numbers?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Is the Senator aware that this same poll asked how President Bush is handling tax policy? The Senator has made a number of statements on this floor, and he personally disagrees with the tax policy enunciated by this President. I am happy to report, from this poll, people in America agree with the Senator and not the President.

Is the Senator aware that 42 percent of the people approve of the way George W. Bush is handling tax policy, and 44 percent disapprove? Is the Senator aware of that?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

I actually have two questions. I know the Senator is anxious to leave.

I will first lay the basis for my question. The numbers the Senator has on that chart are basically inaccurate to the effect that it does not include the disguise that is taking place down at Pennsylvania Avenue, because Social Security surpluses are there to dampen the amount of the deficit. Actually, the deficit is about $485 billion, not $304 billion, because the Social Security surpluses are being used to disguise the budget.

Is the Senator aware of that?

Last question. The Senator has spoken about the need for us to be doing something other than just talking about a man who is fully employed, in contrast to the 2.8 million people who have lost jobs under this administration. The man we are debating now has a job downtown where he makes lots of money. We should be doing something else. The Senator, I am sure, is not aware of this statement because it was made during the noon hour and he has been on the floor. I would like the Senator to tell me if he is familiar with Robert Novak.

Bob Novak said today:

Well, the Republicans figured that they would be home at

their recess last week and find out what the people wanted.

Apparently, the people weren't interested in Estrada, because

the Republicans have no idea what to do in the Senate. They

had a leadership meeting yesterday afternoon [that was

Tuesday] couldn't figure anything out, had a luncheon of all

the Republican senators, didn't figure it out. All that's

decided is, they're not going to ask for a cloture vote to

force an end to the filibuster, because they'd lose that. But

they have no strategy for around-the-clock sessions. They

don't know what to do. The Democrats are winning.

So that former resident of the State of Illinois said this, and would the Senator agree with him?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the request of the distinguished junior Senator from Idaho, that his request be changed to that the vote on Estrada would occur only after the memos from the Solicitor General's Office are provided to us, and that following that, he submits himself to questioning.

I object to his request.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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