Floor Statements

Madam President, on the floor today is the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, now the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont. The Senator has heard me on a number of occasions boast about the work he has done as the leader of the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee and the leader of the Senate in the Judiciary Committee. There has been a lot of talk about the Democrats holding up judicial nominees during the time we were in power in the Senate.

It is my understanding--I ask the Senator to respond to this question--that while the distinguished Senator from Vermont was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for a very short period of time--17 months--he broke all records of the body in approving some 100 Federal judges for President Bush.

Is that a fair statement?

Will the Senator also respond to this? It is also my recollection that during that 17-month period the Senator from Vermont's office received a letter which contained anthrax, Senator Daschle's office received a letter which contained anthrax, and 9/11 occurred. In spite of all that, and the Senate being, in effect, locked down and the country being locked down, still the Judiciary Committee, led by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, approved a record number of judges, in spite of those items I mentioned--two anthrax attacks, one on the Senator who is now before me, one on the distinguished majority leader, the Democratic leader, and 9/11.

Is that true?

Will the Senator also answer this question? When the Hart Building was locked down, we were out of space around the Capitol and the Senator had every excuse as chairman of that committee not to hold hearings. I remember the Senator holding hearings down in the basement of the Capitol. There was not room for people. People were jammed into that room. But the Senator used no excuse to avoid going ahead with President Bush's nominations to the judiciary.

Is that true?

Madam President, I want to make a brief statement to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized following my very brief statement.

Madam President, I want the Record to reflect that the Senator from Vermont has been an exemplary chairman of one of the most important committees during one of the most difficult times in the history of this country. And for anyone to ever--I have been on this floor defending the Senator, as I will continue to do my entire career. If anyone ever suggests the Senator from Vermont didn't do stalwart and exemplary work, I will take them to task for it. In the most difficult of circumstances, in the most partisan times in the history of this country, the Senator from Vermont was not partisan. He moved the committee along in a nonpartisan, bipartisan basis. As I recall, 100 judges were approved and only two judges were turned down by the committee.

I think it is remarkable what has been done. I appreciate the Senator responding to those brief questions.

I want to just say briefly there has been some suggestion we have been

trying to hold up things here. The only one holding up things is the majority. They can move off this nomination five seconds from now. They could give us the information we want or try to invoke cloture. The reason we are not off this nomination is they have no plan and nothing to do.

I would like to read into the Record what Bob Novak--we all know Bob Novak. He is one of the most conservative--it is his birthday today. I heard it on Public Radio. I wish Bob Novak a happy birthday. Bob Novak hasn't been very prone to saying good things about Democrats. But here is what he said.

Novak: 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,

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 lost that. But they

have no strategy for around-the-clock sessions. They don't

know what to do. The Democrats are winning.

That is Bob Novak.

I want this Record spread with the fact that the Democrats if we wanted to hold things up, we could be objecting to committees meeting. We could be doing a lot of things just to slow things down. We want to speed things up. We want to get to the business of this country dealing with the economy.

I listened to the radio this morning that they were going to have a debate in the British Parliament about the Iraqi war. The senior Senator from Illinois told me he listened to an hour of that debate this morning. I think it is wonderful that the British people are able to listen to their leaders debate a war. It does not matter what side you are on. Wouldn't it be important to debate the pros and cons of this war?

And I say to my friend--my esteemed friend, somebody I admire greatly--the senior Senator from West Virginia, you have been able to come here and sneak a little bit of time--sneak it in--to talk about the war. It has been hard for the Senator to get floor time to talk about this issue.

I respect and admire both of these Senators on the floor for being such great examples to me. But I want everyone to know that we are not trying to take advantage of anyone. If we were doing that, there would be all kinds of things we could do in a parliamentary sense. We are not doing that. We believe the burden is on the majority to move the legislation of this country, and it is not being moved.

If the Senator will yield. Isn't that the man who was fired recently?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

As a foundation for my question, I want to say I appreciate her statement on the floor. Senator Byrd was here earlier. I told him the same thing I say to the Senator from California. This is a good debate to have. It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It is important to have a debate.

As I said earlier today on the floor, and I say to the Senator from California, are you aware that the British Parliament had a long, extended debate today on the Iraq conflict?

The senior Senator from Illinois said he watched it for an hour before work today. He said it was a great debate. They discussed the issues relating to the conflict that will probably occur in Iraq. I say to my friend from California, it is good that you are speaking to alert the American people to some of the problems that may occur with this conflict. It is too bad that the Republicans, the majority, are holding up other legislation and other debate because of one fully employed man, Miguel Estrada, who has a job, as we all know, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. It has been laid out on this floor today that the Bush administration lost 2.8 million jobs. Millions are unemployed. But we are hung up on this debate because Republicans won't move off of it.

My question to the Senator is, would it not be good if we had a full day's debate set aside so Senators can offer their views about what is going on in Iraq?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

The Senator served in Congress, as I did, when the previous war occurred in Iraq, which was more than a decade ago. Does the Senator recall--and these numbers may not be exactly accurate, but they are close--that the first President Bush reached out and, prior to the conflict beginning, there were commitments from various countries to give billions and billions of dollars to help fight the war in Iraq-- billions of dollars? And is the Senator also aware that in addition to giving billions of dollars to help with the conflict, other countries were supplying tens of thousands of troops and airplanes?

Now, I have pretty reliable sources that say the only country really supplying troops is Great Britain. All of the other countries are saying they support the war, but most of those are in the category of Turkey. They are supporting the war if, in fact, they get certain economic benefits. So, in short, is the Senator aware that in the previous conflict there were large sums of money that would be given to help the U.S. fight that war, and large numbers of troops that were being sent to the front lines to help the United States troops fight that war? Is the Senator aware that, in fact, basically other than Great Britain, this is our war and nobody is helping?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The reports I received today is the United States alone has in the gulf area 210,000 troops, plus Great Britain--I do not know how many they have there, but, in fact, if they need 240,000 troops, is what I am told, the United States is doing it all with the help of Great Britain. There are other countries saying they support us. Those countries, I repeat to the Senator, and I think she will agree, want some economic benefit to even say they support us, even though they are not sending any troops.

I appreciate that.

Mr. President, I mentioned earlier and I ask the Senator if she is aware of a new poll that came out today conducted by a nonpartisan public interest group called the Pew Research Center. The Senator has heard of that prominent group, is that right?

This poll was conducted between February 12 and February 18. As the Senator knows, 1,254 participants is a big poll. Will the Senator agree with that statement?

Is the Senator aware that when these people were asked in this nationwide poll how George W. Bush is handling the economy, only 43 percent of the people say they like the way he is handling the economy, but 48 percent disapprove of the way he is handling the economy?

If the Senator will extend her usual courteousness and allow me to ask another question.

The Senator outlined why people likely feel the way they do, but does the Senator also acknowledge the fact that we have in the last 2 years seen a $7 trillion surplus evaporate? Could that be a concern?

If the Senator will yield, is the Senator aware that this same poll, when asked how George Bush is handling tax policy, shows that 42 percent of the people approve of the way he is handling tax policy? And is the Senator aware that for the first time in this Presidency, 44 percent of the people feel he is handling it very badly; is the Senator aware of that?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Today I told the senior Senator from Illinois about the visit I had yesterday with people from Nevada. The woman I remember so clearly works for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. She has worked there for 27 years. For the last 20 years, she has been the person in charge of the 9-1-1 center. Is the Senator aware that she, like many people who work in these entities around the country--and, of course, in a State of 35 million people, I am sure California has a number of them--she told me that in Las Vegas, this big sprawling urban center we now have, that when someone calls 9-1-1 from a telephone, such as we see on the desk in the corner or such as we have in the cloakroom or the Senator has in her home, they know where that phone call comes from.

They know the address, they know the location, but now when people use computers for doing their telephoning in a way that is hard for me to understand, but I am beginning to understand it better, and cell phones, they have no idea where their emergency calls come from. People have died around the country as a result of a call coming into the 911 center, and they do not know where it is coming from.

Does the Senator realize that can all be cured with money? The technology is here to correct that, but we do not have money to give the State and local governments to correct that one thing to make homeland security and security generally more satisfactory. Is the Senator aware of that?

Will the Senator yield?

What the Senator said in her statement--and she seems to agree with me, and I ask if she does--the reason we are not debating on the Senate floor Senator Daschle's plan to improve the economy, the reason we are not debating homeland security issues, the reason we are not debating environmental issues, which I know the Senator from California is so passionate about--no one in the Senate believes more in doing things to improve the environment than the Senator from California--and there are so many things we could be talking about dealing with the environment, and the multitude of other issues the Senator has talked about today. Is the Senator aware the reason we are not doing this is that Republicans do not want us to do it, because they have no plan, that this is just an excuse for them to do nothing, being hung up on this Estrada thing? Is the Senator aware of that?

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I want the Senator to know that in addition to answering questions--because Judges Paez and Berzon had a judicial record that could be reviewed.

He has none. In addition to answering the questions, we asked that he submit the memos he wrote when he was at the Solicitor's Office. The Senator will agree with that?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Did I hear the Senator right that all these statements I have heard on the Senate floor that he was the editor--in fact, he was one of 70 editors?

That is a distinction, but it is not the editor in chief.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would ask the Chair to determine if the word ``despicable'' relating to the remarks that we have been making for 10 days----

I object. This is not proper procedure.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I would say to my friend, I would respectfully submit, you don't need to say ``without losing your right to the floor.'' You have the floor. You don't have to say that.

Anyway, I ask my distinguished friend from Utah, the neighboring State to Nevada: It is true, is it not, whether you agree or not, we have asked that the Justice Department, the administration, release the memos written by Miguel Estrada when he worked for the Solicitor's Office? You would agree with that?

The Senator, of course, is aware----

The Senator has stated in answer to the question of the distinguished Senator from Alabama that Miguel Estrada has no ability to have these released, is that true?

I further ask the Senator, it is true, however, that the administration, whether through the counsel's office of the President, the President himself, or the Attorney General, could release those materials?

Let me ask the Senator this question. Are you saying on the five occasions we know of, there could be more, when the Attorney General released memoranda from the Solicitor's Office relating to Rehnquist, Bork, Civiletti, and others, that they were violating the law when they released those documents?

Could I ask the Senator another question?

I don't mind the Senator commenting on my intelligence.

Let me just complete my question. The Senator has knowledge that on occasions there have been memos released from the Solicitor General's Office relating to matters before the Senate. I ask the question of the Senator from Utah, does that mean on those occasions when they were released, a law was violated?

We have established in the dialog between the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Nevada that there have been occasions where the Solicitor's memos have been given to the Senate. The Senator says they have been on rare occasions, two occasions, I think the Senator from Utah said. We say five. But on those occasions, does the Senator believe that the law was violated, and those people who released those memos should have been prosecuted in some way?

If my friend will yield for one final question?

Will the Senator yield for a final question?

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Utah----

Bork, Civiletti, Rehnquist, and two others, none of whom are Hispanics--and I think a person's ethnicity has nothing to do with the point we have made. The point we have made is on other occasions, memos from the Solicitor General's Office have been made public in this body.

I would respectfully submit we have in the Record, admitted yesterday, letters exchanged with Senator Biden and the Solicitor General at that time, Bolton, who was Solicitor General, that laid out in some detail the materials that were obtained, and in addition to that we have other materials obtained from the Solicitor General's Office that were memoranda. They are either legal or they are not.

I have to ask the Senator this question: If these memos were relevant--I repeat that they were. It is in the Record. We have dates on the letters of when they were exchanged between the Solicitors General and Senator Biden, who was chairman of the committee at that time. I respectfully submit to my friend they are not legal. The decision made by the administration is that they are not going to release these documents.

Was not a decision made by this administration that they are not going to release these documents even though they have in the past?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware that on August 24, 1987, John Bolton, the Republican Assistant Attorney General, wrote a letter to Chairman Biden, among other things saying:

Accordingly, we have decided to take this step of providing

the committee access to responsive materials we currently

possess except those privileged documents specifically

described. Of course, our decision to produce these documents

does not constitute a waiver of any future claims of

privilege concerning other documents the committee requests

or waiver of any claim over these documents with respect to

the entities or persons other than the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Biden.

But the Senator would agree the Attorney General released memos from the Solicitor General's Office in this letter. That is what it does. That is what the letter is about. Is the Senator aware of that point?

The Senator from Utah made a statement on this floor this evening that it is illegal to release documents relating to memos in the Solicitor General's Office, and the record is very clear it has been done before on more than one occasion.

You asked me a question, and I was answering.

That is what Senator Durbin and I have been trying to show all night. It has been done in the past.

Could I respond to the question the Senator asked me without losing his right to the floor?

The Senator asked me a question.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.

Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

I have a unanimous consent to make and ask if the majority leader would yield for that unanimous consent request.

Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Of course he does.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from West Viginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from California (Mr. Feinstein), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, the Cold War was the longest war in United States history. Lasting 50 years, the Cold War cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, changed the course of history, and left America the only superpower in the world. Because of the nuclear capabilities of our enemy it was the most dangerous conflict our country ever faced. The threat of mass destruction left a permanent mark on American life and politics. Those that won this war did so in obscurity. Those that gave their lives in the Cold War have never been properly honored.

Today I introduce with Senator Ensign a bill that requires the Department of the Interior to conduct a study to identify sites and resources to commemorate heroes of the Cold War and to interpret the Cold War for future generations.

Our legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a ``Cold War Advisory Committee'' to oversee the inventory of Cold War sites and resources for potential inclusion in the National Park System, as national historic landmarks, or other appropriate designations.

The Advisory Committee will work closely with State and local governments and local historical organizations. The committee's starting point will be a Cold War study completed by the Secretary of Defense under the 1991 Defense Appropriations Act Obvious Cold War sites of significance include: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, flight training centers, communications and command centers, such as Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, nuclear weapons test sites, such as the Nevada test site, and strategic and tactical resources.

Perhaps no other state in the Union has played a more significant role than Nevada in winning the Cold War. The Nevada Test Site is a high-technology engineering marvel where the United States developed, tested, and perfected a nuclear deterrent which is the cornerstone of America's security and leadership among nations. The Naval Air Station at Fallon is the Navy's premiere tactical air warfare training facility. The Air Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base has the largest training range in the United States to ensure that America's pilots will prevail in any armed conflict.

The Advisory Committee established under this legislation will develop an interpretive handbook on the Cold War to tell the story of the Cold War and its heroes.

I would like to take a moment to relate a story of one group of Cold War heroes. On a snowy evening in November 17, 1955, a United States Air Force C-54 crashed near the summit of Mount Charleston in central Nevada. The doomed flight was carrying 15 scientific and technical personnel to secret Area 51 where the U-2 reconnaissance plane, of Francis Powers fame, was being developed under tight security. The men aboard the ill-fated C-54 helped build the plane which critics said could never be built. The critics were wrong--the U-2 is a vital part of our reconnaissance force to this day.

The secrecy of the mission was so great that the families of the men who perished on Mount Charleston only recently learned about the true circumstances of the crash that took the lives of their loved ones. My legislation will provide $300,000 to identify historic landmarks like the crash at Mount Charleston.

I'd like to thank Mr. Steve Ririe of Las Vegas who brought to light the events surrounding the death of the fourteen men who perished on Mount Charleston nearly a half century ago, and for the efforts of State Senator Rawson who shepherded a resolution through the Nevada legislature to commemorate these heroes.

A grateful Nation owes its gratitude to the ``Silent Heroes of the Cold War.'' We urge our colleagues to support this long overdue tribute to the contribution and sacrifice of those Cold War heroes for the cause of freedom.

Mr. President, the Cold War was the longest war in United States history. Lasting 50 years, the Cold War cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, changed the course of history, and left America the only superpower in the world. Because of the nuclear capabilities of our enemy it was the most dangerous conflict our country ever faced. The threat of mass destruction left a permanent mark on American life and politics. Those that won this war did so in obscurity. Those that gave their lives in the Cold War have never been properly honored.

Today I introduce with Senator Ensign a bill that requires the Department of the Interior to conduct a study to identify sites and resources to commemorate heroes of the Cold War and to interpret the Cold War for future generations.

Our legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a ``Cold War Advisory Committee'' to oversee the inventory of Cold War sites and resources for potential inclusion in the National Park System, as national historic landmarks, or other appropriate designations.

The Advisory Committee will work closely with State and local governments and local historical organizations. The committee's starting point will be a Cold War study completed by the Secretary of Defense under the 1991 Defense Appropriations Act Obvious Cold War sites of significance include: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, flight training centers, communications and command centers, such as Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, nuclear weapons test sites, such as the Nevada test site, and strategic and tactical resources.

Perhaps no other state in the Union has played a more significant role than Nevada in winning the Cold War. The Nevada Test Site is a high-technology engineering marvel where the United States developed, tested, and perfected a nuclear deterrent which is the cornerstone of America's security and leadership among nations. The Naval Air Station at Fallon is the Navy's premiere tactical air warfare training facility. The Air Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base has the largest training range in the United States to ensure that America's pilots will prevail in any armed conflict.

The Advisory Committee established under this legislation will develop an interpretive handbook on the Cold War to tell the story of the Cold War and its heroes.

I would like to take a moment to relate a story of one group of Cold War heroes. On a snowy evening in November 17, 1955, a United States Air Force C-54 crashed near the summit of Mount Charleston in central Nevada. The doomed flight was carrying 15 scientific and technical personnel to secret Area 51 where the U-2 reconnaissance plane, of Francis Powers fame, was being developed under tight security. The men aboard the ill-fated C-54 helped build the plane which critics said could never be built. The critics were wrong--the U-2 is a vital part of our reconnaissance force to this day.

The secrecy of the mission was so great that the families of the men who perished on Mount Charleston only recently learned about the true circumstances of the crash that took the lives of their loved ones. My legislation will provide $300,000 to identify historic landmarks like the crash at Mount Charleston.

I'd like to thank Mr. Steve Ririe of Las Vegas who brought to light the events surrounding the death of the fourteen men who perished on Mount Charleston nearly a half century ago, and for the efforts of State Senator Rawson who shepherded a resolution through the Nevada legislature to commemorate these heroes.

A grateful Nation owes its gratitude to the ``Silent Heroes of the Cold War.'' We urge our colleagues to support this long overdue tribute to the contribution and sacrifice of those Cold War heroes for the cause of freedom.

Mr. President, I say to my friend--in fact, the two Senators from Utah--that, as I indicated to the majority leader last night, there are three ways we can move off Estrada. The nomination can be pulled. The decision can be made by this administration that he will supply the memos from the Solicitor's Office while he worked there that he wrote and allow more questioning of Estrada. Thirdly, the majority leader can file a motion to invoke cloture to see if there are the 60 votes to move ahead.

If that does not happen, we can stay on Estrada for a long time. If there are other things to do--and I mentioned yesterday I doubt that there are--if there are other things to do, then let's move to those. If not, then we can stay in this procedural quagmire, which is something that has been done in the past.

As I indicated yesterday, there have been, of course, filibusters of Presidential nominations in the past and Presidential nominations of judges. They usually are not as open and notorious as this, the reason being they come at a later time in the session where time is of the essence. Now time is not of the essence. There are other things that the leader has decided are not important enough to be on the floor at this stage.

So I would hope that everyone would understand that we are anxious to move on to other judicial nominations. We are anxious to move on to other legislative matters. But as long as Miguel Estrada refuses to answer the questions or to submit the memos that we have requested, this is going to be the procedural posture of the Senate.

I ask to amend the unanimous consent request, that after the Justice Department provides the requested documents relevant to Mr. Estrada's Government service, which were first requested in May 2001, the nominee then appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer the questions which he failed to answer in his confirmation hearing and any additional questions that may arise from reviewing such documents.

Of course you can. Absolutely. We do it all the time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

I object.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I have listened on the floor and off the floor to the Senator's statement, and especially about Medicare and Medicaid.

I ask the Senator, we have heard now for 2 years from this administration that the answer to the problems of the country are tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. I ask the Senator--and I am confident of the answer--if he is aware that the deficit this year will be the largest in the history of the world, about $500 billion if you do not mask it with the Social Security surpluses?

Now, I am asking the Senator from Massachusetts, will the proposals by this administration in their tax cut proposal do anything to help the people in Nevada and Massachusetts and the rest of the country who are desperate for help in regard to Medicare and Medicaid?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to answer the question of the Senator from Massachusetts without the Senator from Massachusetts losing the floor.

I say to my friend from Massachusetts, while the Senator was serving in the Senate in those years, in the early 1960s and mid 1960s, I was serving on the hospital board of Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital, the largest hospital district in Nevada at that time. I was there when Medicaid came into being.

Now, does the Senator realize--and I think he has heard me say this before; and I ask this in the form of a question, although I don't need to; I have the floor to answer the Senator's question--prior to Medicaid coming into being, that for that hospital of ours, that public hospital, 40 percent of the senior citizens who came into that hospital had no health insurance?

And when we had people come into that hospital with, as I referred to them then, an old person--I don't quite look at it the same now--they would have to sign to be responsible for their mother, their father, their brother, their sister, whatever the case might be, that they would pay that hospital bill. And if they did not pay, do you know what we would do? We had a collection department. We would go out and sue them for the money.

Now, I say to my friend from Massachusetts, the distinguished Senator, for virtually every senior who comes to the hospital--it does not matter where they are in America--they have health insurance with Medicare.

Medicare is an imperfect program, but it is a good program.

And I answer the question about pharmaceuticals, prescription drugs. When Medicare came into being, seniors did not need prescription drugs because we did not have the lifesaving drugs we have now. We did not have the drugs that made people feel better. We did not have the drugs that prevent disease. Now we have those.

I say to my friend from Massachusetts, rather than spending the time here, as we are dealing with a man who has a job, Miguel Estrada, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year--rather than dealing with him, I would rather be dealing with people in Nevada who have no prescription drugs.

In America, the greatest power in the world, we have a medical program for senior citizens that does not have a prescription drug benefit. That is embarrassing to us as a country. And

what are we doing here? We are debating whether a man should have a job.

We understand the rules. If they want to get off this, then let them file cloture. If they want to get out of this, let them give us the memos from the Solicitor's Office. Let him come and answer questions or let them pull the nomination.

The reason they are not doing that is, they don't want to debate this stuff. Look at the chart the Senator has. Tax cuts of $1.8 trillion, what does that do to Medicare and Medicaid? I hope I have answered the Senator's question. A prescription drug benefit is a priority, and it has to be a program more than just in name only.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senator's request be modified in the following fashion: I ask unanimous consent that after the Justice Department finds the requested documents relevant to Mr. Estrada's government service, which were first requested in May of 2001, the nominee then appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer the questions which he failed to answer in his confirmation hearing and any additional questions that may arise from reviewing such documents.

To which I object. I object.

Mr. President, the Democratic leader was on the floor this morning and spoke at some length about the problems facing this country. The problems facing this country are significant. It is untoward, as the Democratic leader stated, that we are not dealing with issues the people we represent, who are in our home States, want to talk about. They want us to do something about the health care delivery system in this country. That includes prescription drugs. It includes the Patients' Bill of Rights. It includes Medicare. It includes Medicaid.

The people at home want us to at least remember that we have environmental problems facing this country that we need to deal with. The people at home understand education is a significant issue. The people at home understand their State--there are only four States that do not have a budget deficit. All other States are spending in the red. They want some help. We, as a

Senate, deserve to deal with those and other issues that the people of our States believe we should be talking about.

There have been a number of requests made: Why do we not vote on this in 6 hours, 4 hours, 2 hours, 10 hours, 2 days, Friday by 9:30? And we have said very simply--this is the ninth day of this debate covering a period of approximately 3 weeks--Miguel Estrada needs to be candid and forthright. And how is that going to be accomplished? It is going to be accomplished by his giving us information, answering questions, and giving us the memos he wrote when he was at the Solicitor General's Office.

We should be dealing with the issues I have outlined, and others, issues that people really care about at home. But, no, we are not going to take up S. 414 that Senator Daschle asked unanimous consent that we move to, the economic stimulus package the Democrats prefer. What it does is give immediate tax relief to the middle class and has no long- term impact on the deficit of this country.

If we brought that up and the majority did not like our bill, we could have a debate on what is the best thing to do to deal with the financial woes of this country. That is what we should be dealing with.

As I have said earlier today, and I repeat, the reason we are not dealing with those issues of immense importance to this country is the majority does not have a plan or a program.

The President's tax cut proposal, his own Republicans do not like it. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House does not like it. Individual Members of the Senate, who are Republicans, who do not like his program, have written to him and talked to him. So that is why they are not bringing that up.

Why are we not going to do something dealing with health care? Because they do not have their act together. They do not know what they want.

So without running through each issue we should be talking about, let me simply say Miguel Estrada needs to be resolved and can be resolved in three ways: The nomination be pulled and we can go to more important issues; No. 2, he can answer the questions people want to propound to him and have propounded to him; and thirdly, he submit the memos he wrote when he was in the Solicitor General's Office and answer questions.

There has been a lot said in righteous indignation: We cannot give these memos because it would set a precedent that has never been set in the history of this country. Senators Daschle and Leahy, the Democratic leader and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to the White House and said: Give us the memos. Let him answer the questions.

We get a 15-page letter back from Gonzales, the counsel to the President, saying: We are not going to do that.

My staff just showed me a letter--I guess he did not have time, as counsel to the President did, to write a 15-page letter--in two or three sentences saying that Gonzales, if he wanted to talk to Senator Daschle and I, they would have him come forward and he could sit down and talk to us.

We are not going to do that. The Democrats in the Judiciary Committee unanimously voted against Miguel Estrada because he did not answer the questions and he did not submit the memos.

My case to the Senate, my case to the American people, is there is no precedent set by his giving this information, and I say that for a number of reasons.

I have a detailed letter from the Department of Justice describing their efforts to respond to the Senate's request for Chief Justice Rehnquist's Office of Legal Counsel memos during his nomination--he was a Supreme Court Justice at the time, but now he is the Chief Justice-- and a legal letter from the Department of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, John Bolton, on August 7, 1986, which states and I quote:

We attach an index of those documents--

Rehnquist legal memorandum from when he was the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Solicitor's Office--

and will provide the Committee with access in accordance with

our existing agreement.

The letter also indicates that numerous other legal memoranda were provided to the committee prior to that date. The letter also contains an attachment, ``Index to Supplemental Release to Senate Judiciary Committee,'' which lists three additional memos relating to legal constraints on possible use of troops to prevent movement of May Day demonstrators, possible limitations posed by the Posse Comitatus Act on the use of troops, authority of members of the Armed Forces on duty in civil disturbances to make arrests.

These are internal memos, obviously, written by attorneys containing legal analyses and deliberations about very sensitive issues. Again, it is obvious that legal memos similar to Mr. Estrada's were provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, reviewed and returned to the Department. In fact, Senator Biden, still a member of this body, wrote to Attorney General Meese to thank him for his cooperation and then asked for additional memos that I assume were provided.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated July 23, 1986, written to the Honorable Strom Thurmond, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, from Joe Biden asking that the Department of Justice supply certain information regarding the nomination of William B. Rehnquist to be Chief Justice, I ask simply that that matter be forwarded to the Senate and be printed in the Record.

As well, we have a request back--I am sorry. We have a letter written to Joe Biden from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Howard Metzenbaum, and Paul Simon, members of that Judiciary Committee, who asked for certain information dealing with memoranda that Rehnquist prepared. We have a letter written to Attorney General Meese from Joe Biden setting forth the materials that were requested, together with Rehnquist documents that are wanted. We have a letter dated August 7 to Chairman Thurmond from John Bolton that I referred to in more general terms. That lists in detail the material that was supplied.

Madam President, my friend from Idaho, the distinguished senior Senator--and he is my friend; I have the greatest respect for him; he is a fine man; he represents his State very well--I respectfully submit to this body my friend's statements regarding what the Senate did not do last year is a statement made through a pair of glasses that obviously are very foggy.

I say that because there is a lot of talk here about things that were not done. But the fact is the work that was left undone last year was left undone as a result of the President of the United States and the Republican-led House of Representatives not allowing us to move the appropriations bills. We

passed 2 bills, leaving 11 undone. The House of Representatives simply refused to take votes on those very difficult bills. They knew if they took votes on those bills as they wanted them in the House of Representatives, it would create chaos among the people in the country because the people would know then that the Republicans simply were not meeting the demands of the American people.

As a result of that, even though we passed every bill out of the Senate Appropriations Committee--all 13--we were not allowed to take them up. So we have to understand that is basically the way it is.

The senior Senator from Idaho has talked about the need to have a vote on Estrada. It is within the total power of the majority to have a vote. How do they have a vote? The rules in this body have been the same for a long time: File a motion to invoke cloture. Why does the Senate have a rule such as this? The Senate of the United States, as our Founding Fathers said, is the saucer that cools the coffee. The Constitution of the United States is a document that is not to protect the majority; this Constitution protects minorities. The majority can always protect itself. The Constitution protects the minority. If the majority wants to vote, it can invoke cloture--try to. It takes 60 votes. No question about that. Then they can have the up-or-down vote that they want.

All the crocodile tears are being shed for this man who is fully employed downtown here with a big law firm, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. We are holding up the work of this country that deals with problems that people who do not make that kind of money have, people who are struggling to make sure they can pay their rent, make their house payment, pay their car payment, that they can find enough money to get to work on public transportation, people who need a minimum wage increase, people who have no health care; they cannot take their children to the hospital when they are sick, and if they do, they know they are going to be billed large sums. Some places do not have indigent hospital care. We know there are many people who are underinsured, as Senator Kennedy and I talked about. There are 44 million who do not have health insurance. Those are the problems with which we should be dealing.

The Clark County School District in Las Vegas is the fifth or sixth largest school district in America. A quarter of a million children need help. The school district is in dire need of help. The Leave No Child Behind is leaving a lot of kids behind because there is no money to take care of the problems. We met with Governors today for lunch, and they were told when they met with the President yesterday for Leave No Child Behind they are supposed to do the testing, and if that does not work out, they are supposed to take care of the other problems. That is not the deal we made. The States were desperate before that was passed. We do not fund the IDEA act, children with disabilities. These are the issues we should be dealing with--not spending 3 weeks of our time on a man who is fully employed. Let's talk about some of the people who have no jobs or are underemployed.

Having said that, my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, cannot understand why there is not a vote on Estrada the way he believes a vote should occur. My friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, voted against 13 Clinton nominees on the floor, including Rosemary Barkett, born in Mexico, who emigrated to the United States. She had a great rating from the ABA, before Fred Fielding was on the committee, and he does not write her evaluation report.

By the way, the one thing on which I agree with the Republicans: They were right in saying the ABA should be out of the process. I will join with anyone in the future to get the ABA out of the process. It is corrupt, unethical; there are absolute conflicts of interest. The Republicans were right; it has been unfair.

I cannot imagine that body having thousands of----

In one second, I will yield--thousands of lawyers, and they cannot get people who would be fair and reasonable and do not appear to have conflicts of interest? It is ripe to get rid of it.

I respond to my friend, I said on the Senate floor today in the presence of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, they were right. I acknowledge that.

Knowledge makes a difference. I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I think the ABA should be ashamed of themselves.

I said this morning, I practiced law quite a few years before coming here. I was not a member of the ABA for a number of reasons. Had I known this, I would really not have been a member. Lawyers all over America--we have, going back to biblical times, had problems with lawyers.

The ABA, I cannot think of a better phrase than that they should be ashamed of themselves for what they have done.

This is off the subject, but I will get back on the subject. I believe all Presidents, Democrat and Republican, have had trouble getting nominees--whether it is Cabinet officers, sub-Cabinet officers, members of the military, whether it is judges--trying to get them before the Senate because of the length of time the FBI investigations take and all the hoops people have to jump through now.

I say let's eliminate the ABA from the judges. I don't know how many of my colleagues here agree, but I agree, and I will join with the Republicans anytime to get the ABA out of the process.

My friend, the distinguished Senator from Idaho, voted against Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic female appointed to the circuit, and Judge Richard Paez confirmed to the Ninth Circuit after 1,520 days following his nomination. In fact, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho not only voted against Judge Paez's confirmation, before that vote on March 9, 2000, but also voted on that day to indefinitely postpone the nomination of Richard Paez.

I find it fascinating that someone who voted to indefinitely postpone a vote on Paez would now say that Estrada is entitled to an immediate vote on his nomination.

I am happy to yield, although I do not lose my right to the floor.

I say to my friend that we had to vote cloture on Paez. That is how we got a vote on Paez. That is how that came about. We had to invoke cloture, and we had enough people of goodwill on the other side of the aisle who joined with us to invoke cloture. So the debate stopped.

Madam President, as I was saying before, the question was asked. Senator Craig voted against the motion to invoke cloture on the debate on Paez who was pending for more than 1,500 days.

I want everyone within the sound of my voice to hear this. As Senator Daschle and I said, when the Democrats took over control of the Senate, we said it is not payback time no matter how bad President Clinton was treated. And we could go into a long harangue about how unfair it was. I will not even mention a few of the judges. The record is replete with examples of how poorly they were treated and how unfairly they were treated. We did not have payback time when we were in the majority, and it is not payback time when we are in the minority.

We approved, during the short time that we had control of the Senate, 100

judges--exactly. Three judges have come before this body for a vote. They were approved unanimously.

The situation with Miguel Estrada is a little bit different. It is a little bit different. It is a lot different. It is tremendously different because this is a man about whom speeches have been given all over town. He is so good that he is going to go to the Supreme Court.

It triggered something in the mind of the members of the Judiciary Committee. If that is the case, maybe we should ask him some questions. My dear friend from Utah, from our sister State and neighboring State, had on his desk books--look at all the answers he has given. There are answers, and then there are answers. He didn't answer the questions. That was our concern. He responded to questions, but he didn't answer them.

We believe that what has gone on in the past is not something we want, so in this situation I am able to say here that 2 days ago everything has been said but not everyone has said it. We are in a new phase of this debate. Everything has been said and everybody has said it. So now it is just repeat time. I am going to do a little repeat time.

I know my friend from New York wishes to speak. I will be as quick as I can, but I do want to respond to some of the questions that have been raised in the last bit by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

In 1996, Republicans allowed no--zero percent, absolute number zero-- circuit court nominees to be confirmed. In 1997, they allowed 7 of just 21 of President Clinton's 21 circuit court nominees, one-third. Only 5 of President Clinton's first 11 circuit nominees that same year were confirmed. In 1998, Republicans allowed 13 of the 23 pending circuit court nominees to be confirmed. That percentage was pretty good--the best year for circuit court nominations and 6.5 years in control of the Senate. In 1999, Republicans backed down to 28 percent and allowed 7 of the 25 circuit court nominees to be confirmed--about 1 of over 4.

Four of President Clinton's first 11 circuit court nominations that year were not confirmed. In 2000, Republicans allowed only 8 of 26, 31 percent. All but one of the circuit court candidates were initially nominated that year without confirmation.

Republicans simply have no standing to complain that 100 percent of President George W. Bush's circuit court nominees have not be confirmed. The recent issue makes it plain. Democrats have been far better to this President than they were to President Clinton.

Under Republicans, as a consequence, the number of vacancies on the circuit courts more than doubled--from 16 in January 1995 to 33 by the time the Senate was reorganized in the summer of 2001. Republicans allowed only 7 circuit court judges to be confirmed per year; on average, we confirmed 17 in just 17 months.

The other thing that I find so interesting is the majority is complaining about the District of Columbia Circuit Court being so understaffed. What they are saying now is that this DC Circuit is so understaffed that we have to do something about this.

As my friend from Utah said to me, make a difference. As I indicated to him about the ABA, I didn't know as much then as I know now about the ABA.

But what I wanted to talk about here is the DC Circuit Court problems. They talked about double standards on that side of the aisle today. Let me give you a couple of examples.

DC Circuit Court nominees Elena Kagan, Allan Snyder, and Merrick Garland. Senator Cornyn remarked that Judge Garland was confirmed in only a few months. Today the Senator repeated that claim using the chart that said Garland waited only 71 days from his nomination to confirmation.

If only that were the case, but all you have to do is talk to Judge Garland and look at the real record. Judge Garland was first nominated in 1995--the year the Republicans took over the Senate--and not allowed to be confirmed until 1997, hardly a few months.

The prior two Republican administrations under President Reagan and George W. Bush appointed 11 judges to the 12-member court. When President Reagan came to Washington, there was a concerted effort to pack this court in particular with activist judges in the hopes of limiting opportunity for citizens to challenge regulations and limiting constitutional power to enforce hard-fought constitutional and statutory rights to protect workers and to protect the environment.

President Reagan, with the help of the Senate, put activist Robert Bork on the DC Circuit. Like Miguel Estrada, Bork was one of the first judges nominated by that President. Shortly after winning Bork's confirmation to the circuit in 1982, President Reagan pushed through the Scalia nomination to the DC Circuit, and Ken Starr the following year.

That is a real lineup. Bork, Starr, Scalia--quite amazing. He named another five conservatives after that for a total of eight appointments to the court alone in his 8 years as President.

The first President Bush took a similarly special interest in the DC Circuit and chose Clarence Thomas to be one of his first dozen nominees. Thomas, who I had the pleasure of voting against when he came before the Senate, was one of two other nominees of the first President Bush. Four of the 11 judges put on the District of Columbia Circuit were later nominated by the Republican Presidents to the Supreme Court.

During the period when Republicans had nominations to that court-- when Scalia and Thomas served there--the court, clearly any legal scholar can tell you, began to limit opportunities for individual citizens and judges to represent them. To have standing to challenge Government action.

At the same time, the DC Circuit became less deferential to agency regulations intended to protect consumers and workers. These decisions were praised by Republican activists.

With a Democratic Senate, President Clinton was able to name two moderate judges to this court in order to moderate this bench. However, once Republicans took over, they tried to prevent any more Democratic appointees from getting on this court.

So it is simply incorrect--and I hope not intentionally--to claim that Garland waited only 71 days between his nomination and his confirmation. It was a matter of years, not days--almost 2 years.

Why did he have to wait so long? Once Republicans took over the Senate, they decided to try to prevent President Clinton from filling circuit court vacancies, especially in the DC Circuit. In fact, during their time in the majority, vacancies on the appellate courts more than doubled, to 33, during their 6\1/2\ years in control of the Senate.

I believe Republicans decided to prevent President Clinton from bringing any balance to the DC Circuit. As you know, the Republicans had named 11 judges to this powerful 12-member court.

First, when Garland was nominated to the 12th seat, Republicans said the DC Circuit did not need a 12th judge. For example, the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, said that this judgeship cost $1 million a year and did not need to be filled due to those costs.

Then Senator Grassley said he was relying on the view of a Republican appointee to this court, Judge Silberman. Judge Silberman--you can read about him in a number of different places, including the book ``Blinded by the Right,'' written by Mr. David Brock, where this man, who was an activist for the far right, would meet with this judge, while he was sitting on the bench, walking to his anteroom, and talk about political strategy on how to embarrass Democrats, talk about political strategy, what to do to embarrass the President of the United States and the First Lady of the United States. That is Judge Silberman.

Judge Silberman recently told the Federalist Society that judicial nominees should say nothing in their confirmation hearings--the same advice he gave Scalia when Silberman was in the Reagan White House. And, as you know with Scalia, a nominee's silence on an issue certainly does not guarantee that a nominee does not have deeply held views on an issue.

Yesterday, I went into some detail about my respect for the ability of Judge Scalia to reason. This is a logical man, a brilliant man. But we, for various reasons, knew quite a lot about Scalia. He had written opinions before he went to the Supreme Court. And

even though some of us may not have agreed with his judicial philosophy, no one--no one--can dispute his legal attributes, his legal abilities, his ability to reason and think.

Scalia recently authored a majority opinion for the Supreme Court in favor of the Republican Party of Minnesota that ABA-modeled ethics rules could not prevent a judicial candidate from sharing his views on legal issues. That was Scalia, the person I just bragged about.

While there might have been some ambiguity about how much a judicial candidate could say before that Supreme Court decision last summer, after that decision there is none now, and Mr. Estrada has no ethical basis for refusing to answer the questions that we say he has not answered.

Let's talk about Silberman a little more.

He told Senator Grassley that the addition of another judge on that court would make it ``more difficult'' ``to maintain a coherent stream of decisions.'' Surely he did not mean that the addition of a Democrat appointee to that court filled with Republican appointees would make it more difficult to have unanimous decisions by mostly Republican panels.

My friend Senator Grassley and other Republicans also relied on the views of another Republican appointee, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit. I don't know much about Harvie Wilkinson. I don't know if he is giving advice about how to embarrass Democrats in his judicial capacity, which is unethical and against the canons of judicial ethics. But I don't know anything about Harvie Wilkinson, other than what I am going to tell you right now. He said:

[W]hen there are too many judges . . . there are too many

opportunities for Federal intervention.

So this makes me think that the opposition to Garland getting a vote was pretty political.

Well, then look at what happened. Another Republican appointee to the DC Circuit retired, and then the Republicans said the DC Circuit did not need an 11th judge on that court. Garland would have then been the 11th judge instead of the 12th.

So the Republicans came to the floor stating that the declining caseload of the DC Circuit did not warrant the appointment of a Clinton appointee. They argued that 10 judges could handle the 1,625 appeals filed in the then-most-recent year for which statistics were available.

I can only imagine what the Republicans would be saying now if Gore-- who got more votes in the last election than did the President--if he had won the Supreme Court case in that election recount. Now, the number of cases filed in the DC Circuit has fallen by another 200 per year, down to 1,400 in 2001, the most recent year for which statistics are available. So under their analysis--that is, the analysis of Silberman and Wilkinson--the DC Circuit would need only 9 judges to handle these cases, not 10 or 11 or 12.

In fact, under their analysis, 8 DC Circuit judges could probably handle the 1,400 appeals if each judge took a few more cases on average--175 rather than 162. In fact, the First Circuit had 1,463 appeals that year, more than the DC Circuit, but they only have 6 judges.

So let me be as clear as I can. I am not saying that the DC Circuit needs only eight judges and that Estrada and Roberts are people for whom they should not have submitted their names. I am simply saying that these were the Republican arguments against confirming Merrick Garland and any other Clinton appointees to that court. Now they are strangely silent on the plummeting caseload of the DC Circuit and whether it is important we spend $1 million per year for each job.

These saviors of the budget--the majority--and they are responsible, along with the President, for the largest deficit in the history of the world, almost $500 billion this year--are not concerned, I guess, about $1 million per year. Because you are talking about four judges or so, and that is only $4 million. And when we have a deficit approaching $500 billion, I guess that is chump change.

After delaying Garland from 1995 to 1997, 23 Republicans still voted against the confirmation of this uncontroversial and well-liked nominee. I think it is important note that, despite Garland's unassailed reputation for fairness, Republicans forced him to wait on the floor all this time--even after he was voted out of committee--11 months on the floor.

Clinton's two other nominees to the DC Circuit were not nearly as fortunate. Elana Kagan and Allen Snyder were never allowed a committee vote or a floor vote. They were held up by anonymous Republicans.

That is worse than what we are doing--absolutely, totally worse. What we are doing is within the rules because you have rules that you can follow. If it is not put out of committee, you have no recourse. If they had brought it to the floor, we could have at least tried to invoke cloture. And that is what the majority can do now.

They did not even give these two qualified people--both of whom graduated first in their class, Harvard--they were never even allowed a committee vote, or certainly not a floor vote. They were held up by anonymous Republicans.

Now, we are not doing anything in the dark of the night. We do not have anonymous holds on Miguel Estrada. We are out here on the floor saying, we want information on him. Until we get it, we are going to vote against this man. And I assume these anonymous holds--I don't know how many it was--one, or two, or three, or four, or five Republicans in the dark of the night preventing a vote.

Now the Republicans want to say it is wrong and unconstitutional to need 60 votes. It is not quite worth a hearty laugh, but it is sure kind of funny for them to say it is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional that we are following the Constitution--article II, section 2, of the Constitution?

Now Republicans want to say it is wrong and unconstitutional to need 60 votes--more than a majority--to end a debate under longstanding Senate rules, but it is not antidemocratic and unfair for Republicans to allow just one member of their own party--maybe two or three--to prevent a vote up or down on a judicial nominee, or at least allow us to file a motion to invoke cloture; that is, when a Democrat was President.

Madam President, I know the Senator from New York is here to speak. Is that true? I will have plenty of opportunity at a subsequent time to speak. But there will be a time when I respond to the statement the junior Senator from Texas made yesterday regarding the Senate's role on confirmations. I look forward to doing that.

I apologize to my friend from New York. She had duty here at 5 o'clock, and I have taken far too much time.

I did want to respond to some statements made when the Senator from New York was not on the floor. I felt it was important that the record be made clear.

Madam President, because of the graciousness of the Senator from Utah, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator from New York, the Senator from Utah be recognized.

I am sorry. I thought you were going to let her speak.

I didn't understand that. Then I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be recognized following the Senator from Utah. I would say to the Senator from Utah, the Senator from New York has been waiting a long time, so in the matter of who has been here the longest, it has been her.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

As the Senator knows, the Senate has been tied up in the matter of Miguel Estrada for 9 or 10 days. From what the Senator said, I don't know much about the product, but he has made a very persuasive argument. It seems to me if the administration and the Secretary, as part of the administration, refuses to do anything administratively, maybe we could well use some Senate time debating this issue. Maybe there should be a moratorium put on the sale of this until further information is obtained on it. I make that suggestion.

My direct question, if the Secretary refuses to do something forthwith, wouldn't we well use the time that is now being spent on this nomination talking about this product that has killed people as the Senator has related?

Mr. President, prior to the distinguished Senator from Georgia beginning the reading of the statement, Dr. Ogilvie is not in the Chamber often. He is in the process of moving to California. We have had a number of guest Chaplains in the last several weeks, and while he is here, I wanted to say from a personal perspective how much I enjoyed meeting him and getting to know him. I think the time I got to know him the best was the first time I saw him perform at a funeral. That was in Georgia for Paul Coverdell. He did such an outstanding job. He made everyone there feel Senator Coverdell's life was so meaningful.

I have also worked with him on a number of matters dealing with Senate personnel. He has always been open and easy to contact. The people with whom he counsels have been better for having had Dr. Ogilvie work with them. The Senate will miss him. I wish him well, and especially for the recovery of his wife. I certainly hope that works out well.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) would each vote ``aye''.

Objection.

I object.

No objection.

Reserving the right to object, I ask my friend from Minnesota through the Chair how much longer he is going to speak because we do have a Member in the Chamber who wishes to speak.

We have two over here. That leaves only 5 minutes for each of them. They have been here waiting for some time.

If my friend would be kind enough to divide the remaining 20 minutes between Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Stabenow of Michigan?

It is.

On behalf of Senator Kennedy, I object.

Mr. President, Senator Byrd wished to come to the floor and speak for about 45 minutes. I spoke to him a few minutes ago. He indicated he would be ready to go at quarter after 5. The Senator from Washington wishes to speak for 10 or 12 minutes. So I do not think it would greatly inconvenience anyone if I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be recognized for up to 12 minutes, and following her statement that Senator Byrd be recognized for up to 45 minutes.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who is to be recognized following the statement of the Senator from Washington, has agreed the Senator from Arkansas could speak for up to 6 minutes prior to his speech. There is no one here on that side, so I don't think it inconveniences anyone.

I ask unanimous consent that the order now in effect be changed to allow her to speak for up to 6 minutes before Senator Byrd speaks.

Mr. President, if my friend will yield.

I thank the Chair. The two managers of the bill--which we hope will be on the Senate floor before long--will return before long, just so the distinguished Senator from Utah is aware of that.

Yes.

Mr. President, Senator Stevens had asked some time ago if we could move things along. The Senator from Iowa has agreed to allow the Senator from Minnesota, who has been waiting here a long time, to give a speech on a subject, I believe it is Iraq. And he originally wanted to speak for 20 minutes. I asked him if he would speak for 10, and he has graciously consented to do that. It is my understanding the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Minnesota speaking for 10 minutes, the Senator from Arizona be recognized for a period not to exceed--how much time?

One hour. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

I say, before the Chair enters that, if the Senator from Arizona needs more time, we will certainly arrange that.