Floor Statements

I know the time is running, but I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah if he would ask the majority leader if we could have 10-minute votes after this first vote which is 15 minutes.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``aye''.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``aye''.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Delaware

(Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote aye.

I object.

Will the Senator from Utah yield?

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. I think the debate has been very constructive today. The chairman of the committee and this Senator spoke with the majority leader today, and we expect some more debate tomorrow. The two leaders will speak tomorrow after the caucuses.

Mr. President, while the Senator is in the Chamber, it is my understanding that Senator Enzi is going to speak for a period of 10 minutes and the Senator from Wisconsin will speak for up to 12 minutes. I am wondering if there are any other speeches. We have an important conference committee that starts at 6:30 tonight.

I do not think we have anyone on our side.

Mr. President, because of the statements made by my friends on the other side of the aisle relative to Mr. Estrada, I would like to take a few minutes and rebut some of what they have stated during today's session of the Senate.

It is true there is a conflict in our country as to whether or not he should be approved by the Senate. We have newspapers saying yes, newspapers saying no. My friend from Pennsylvania, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, who stated he could not understand why there was a filibuster, first has to understand there has never been a statement on the floor to the effect there is a filibuster. A decision has not been made by the leadership on this side as to whether or not there will be a filibuster. But let me just say I think something as controversial as this nomination should have some consideration.

We just started this process at 2:45 p.m. yesterday. There was good debate on Wednesday. We had a memorial service for the Columbia this week in Houston. We had another one this morning. Many Senators attended the two services. There is no session this afternoon or Friday because of the majority being engaged in a retreat. There is nothing wrong with having a retreat. We are going to have one in May. We will have to take some time off.

But we should not rush to judgment. There will be a decision made as to whether or not there will be a filibuster, but that decision has not been made, to my knowledge.

Let me say there are people who care a great deal about our country who oppose this nomination. There are people who care a great deal about our country who favor this nomination. That is the reason our Founding Fathers established the Senate of the United States.

We do not live in a dictatorship. President Bush is President Bush, not King George. He knows that, I hope, and I am confident he does.

Take, for example, the New York Times which said, among other things:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote

tomorrow on Miguel Estrada, a nominee to the D.C. Circuit

Court of Appeals. Mr. Estrada comes with a scant paper trail

but a reputation for taking extreme positions on important

legal questions. He stonewalled when he was asked at his

confirmation hearings last fall to address concerns about his

views. Given these concerns, and given the thinness of the

record he and his sponsors in the administration have chosen

to make available, the Senate should vote to reject his

nomination.

Mr. President, this is the New York Times. It is a newspaper that has circulation not in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands but in the millions.

Among other things, this editorial states:

Mr. Estrada has put few of his views in the public record.

One way to begin to fill this gap, and give the Senate

something to work with, would be to make available the

numerous memorandums of law that Mr. Estrada wrote when he

worked for the solicitor general's office, as other nominees

have done. But the White House has refused senators'

reasonable requests to review these documents.

Mr. Estrada, now a lawyer in Washington, also had an

opportunity to elaborate on his views, and assuage senators'

concerns, at his confirmation hearing, but he failed to do

so. When asked his opinion about important legal questions,

he dodged. Asked his views of Roe v. Wade, the landmark

abortion case, Mr. Estrada responded implausibly that he had

not given enough thought to the question. Mr. Estrada's case

is particularly troubling because the administration has more

information about his views, in the form of his solicitor

general memos, but is refusing to share it with the Senate.

Finally, the article says:

The very absence of a paper trail on matters like abortion

and civil liberties may be one reason the administration

chose him. It is also a compelling--indeed necessary--reason

to reject him.

It is not as if the objection to this man is out of nowhere. We have editorials and newspapers that are transmitted to millions of people every day that take the position this man shouldn't be confirmed as a circuit court judge. We can't discount those opinions, or think there are some left-wing kooks who have decided for reasons which are not substantive not to go with this man.

I would also say that there have been a number of Senators talking about how unusual it is--how unusual it is--that we are talking about a judge's qualifications. I think if there is anything in the extreme, all we need to do

is look at the newspaper of today--the Roll Call: ``GOP Calls on K Street to Boost Estrada.''

What this is all about is getting the lobbyists involved--to put pressure on Senators to move forward on this nomination and approve him. This Roll Call story documents special interests being told by members of the Republican leadership that they have a stake in this nomination process.

I think if there is anything untoward, it is the pressure being put on these people.

I also note that one of the Senators in the majority complained today about vacancies in the Federal court system. We are talking about the D.C. Court of Appeals. We Democrats tried to fill those. We were not allowed to do so. Why? Among other reasons, we were told by the majority that the D.C. Court of Appeals was too big and the people we wanted to put on would be just unnecessary baggage; that it wasn't necessary to fill those vacancies.

What our friend on the other side of the aisle complained about was OK, but he failed to explain that the vacancies on the two courts he mentioned--the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Sixth Circuit--were caused by the Republicans' failure to act, or their success in blocking nominees to the DC court.

Allen Snyder, who was a nominee voted qualified by the ABA, was never given a hearing, and never had a committee vote for a seat on the District of Columbia Circuit.

Elena Kagan, a well-respected law professor, was never given a hearing and was never given a committee vote for her nomination to the District of Columbia Circuit Court.

On the Sixth Circuit, Kathleen McCree Lewis--I am only giving you examples--waited for more than a year, was never given a hearing, and was never given a committee vote on the Sixth Circuit.

Kent Markus--no hearing and no vote; Helene White waited 4 years--no hearing and no vote.

We have said here--Senator Daschle when he was majority leader and I have said--that this isn't get even time for when we were in the majority. We tried to treat the minority then as we wanted to be treated when we were in the minority. We expect to be treated as we treated the minority when we were in the majority for approximately 18 months. That is what we are asking.

Mr. President, the majority leader is on the floor. I would be happy to yield to the majority leader and then would retain the floor when the majority leader completes his statement.

Will the majority leader yield so I can ask a question of the Democratic leader?

I say to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, there has been talk here by the majority that there is a filibuster taking place. I said, just a few minutes ago, unless I missed something you said, there has been no decision made from you as to whether or not there is going to be a filibuster. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. President, can I ask the distinguished majority leader a couple questions?

First question. I believe you will announce it later. Do you expect any votes on Monday?

Second question: Let's say there is something worked out and we have a vote on this on Tuesday. What are we going to take up after that?

Those bills have been reported out of committee?

One final question, Mr. President: What time do you expect the vote to be on Monday? We have people on our side, and I am sure on your side, who are interested in that.

I would just say, if we could make that 5:15, it helps one of our Senators.

If I could interrupt the majority leader, I wish to speak for up to 15 minutes, and then Senator Biden wishes to speak for up to 15 minutes.

I apologize to the Chair. I know the Chair has things to do. We have been in the same position. We know that it is not convenient sometimes to preside, but we were kind of dared to come out here today, even though there are a lot of things going on. We had a number of people who went to the memorial. Senators from the other side said: I am amazed there are no Democrats here to debate Estrada. We recognize there is going to be other time to debate, but we do not want the record to appear that we are not interested. That is the reason I came down here, to offer my opinion.

Migrada Estrada has literally had no paper trail. Despite what some of my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle, it is indisputable that Solicitor General memoranda have been turned over in the past. For example, the Department of Justice turned over Solicitor General memoranda for Bork, Rehnquist, and Easterbrook. On executive branch appointments, the Department of Justice turned over memoranda for Benjamin Civiletti.

While my colleagues may note that former Solicitors General have written a letter opposing the release of these memos, they cite no legal authority for keeping these memos secret. Basically what they say is it would impede these people from writing their opinions. It doesn't happen very often that these people are asked to serve on the second highest court of the land. It is not often they are asked to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. But in cases in the past when that has occurred, with Rehnquist, Bork and, of course, another important appointment, Easterbrook, they were made available. And they should be made available here.

There is no attorney-client privilege at work here. The courts have determined that applying that privilege to Congress would impede our work. Both the House and the Senate have refused to recognize the privilege in their rules. Former Solicitors argue that the policy considerations of ensuring candid advice outweighs the Senate's interest in examining this nominee. I don't think that is valid.

As I mentioned, the precedent supports release of these memos to the Senate. Further, the United States' own Department of Justice guidelines from 2000 state:

Our experience indicates that the Justice Department can

develop accommodations with congressional committees that

satisfy their needs for the information that may be obtained

in deliberative material while at the same time protecting

the Department's interest in avoiding a chill in the candor

of future deliberations.

It is my understanding the Department of Justice has made no attempt to reach such an accommodation with the Judiciary Committee. The stonewalling on the Estrada nomination is part of a larger systematic effort by this administration to disable the Senate, to govern in secret, to advance the interests of big business over the public interests.

I joined an amicus curiae brief in a matter where Vice President Cheney had all these meetings with big oil companies. It was determined that there should be some divulging of whom he met with, when he met with them, and what they talked about. Litigation had to be filed on that, and I joined in that litigation, filing a friend of the court brief. It is not right that there be stonewalling. Here is another example of what has happened in this administration.

My colleague and a dear friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, has called the Democratic calls for more information about Estrada ``silly.'' Well, we have a role as Members of the Senate to advise and give consent to nominations forwarded to us by the White House. I don't think what we are asking is silly.

My friend may not agree with our position, but it is not a silly position. Here is a person about whom the Hispanic caucus of the Congress unanimously said: We don't want him.

Here is a person about whom I put in the Record over 50 organizations yesterday saying: We don't want him.

There are lots of different reasons organizations give based on his qualifications, his temperament. We have one of his former employers who said his temperament, demeanor is not appropriate to serve on a circuit court. In fact, he said he was an ideologue.

That is not silly. People may disagree with our position, but it is not a silly position. The Constitution's consent requirement is not just a rubberstamp requirement, as my colleague himself once observed. When a Democratic President sat in the White House, my Republican colleagues called for voluminous document presentations from his judicial nominees, and they got them.

Judge Paez, I talked to his mother, trying to get him confirmed, and we finally did. Senator Hatch knows this. I had his mother talk to Senator Hatch. He was held up for 4 years. He was asked to provide documentation of every instance during his tenure as a lower court judge where he reduced a sentence downward from Federal sentencing guidelines. I had no problem with their asking for them. Why did he do it? Was his judicial temperament, his activism, as it is called by my friend from Utah, so much that he couldn't vote to confirm? That is a right that he has.

Judge Marcia Berzon was required to provide the minutes from every single California ACLU meeting that occurred while she was a member, regardless of whether she had even attended the meeting.

At that time, Chairman Hatch stated:

[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the

jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in

order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to

be judicial activists.

That is not a ``silly'' thing he is doing. He has a right to do that. Senator Hatch continued:

Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will

become activists is complicated and it will require the

Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning

of nominees' jurisprudential views.

He had a right to do that. I think the Senate should be similarly diligent and probing in its review of Mr. Estrada's record. Basically, the Judiciary Committee asked him roughly 80 questions and he didn't give any answers. He gave answers such as ``I have not read the briefs;'' ``I wasn't present during arguments;'' ``I have to independently research the issue.'' He was asked to name three cases from the last 40 years--Supreme Court cases--of which he was critical. He didn't have any.

Even Chief Justice Rehnquist, who presided in the Senate during the impeachment trial--and the Presiding Officer was one of the prosecutors--and, I thought, handled that impeachment proceeding with great solemnity--he was diligent and fair. I may not agree with all of his legal opinions, but what a nice man. I was chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, and I called the Chief Justice and said: Come visit with us at election time; would you do that? He did that. He answered questions, was real funny, and he had a great sense of humor. So Chief Justice Rehnquist, a person I have great respect for, said:

Since most justices come to this bench no earlier than

their middle years, it would be unusual if they had not by

that time formulated at least some tentative notions that

would influence them in their interpretation of the sweeping

clauses of the Constitution and their interaction with one

another.

This nominee doesn't fall under that. He also commented:

It would not merely be unusual, but extraordinary if they

had not at least given opinions as to Constitutional issues

in their previous legal careers.

They are asking that the man be on the second highest court in this land and he doesn't have any opinion about other opinions written by judges. I think that really says it all--why there are questions being raised.

I am going to bring in here--I was hoping to do it today. Everybody brings in visual aids to the Senate, and there have been efforts to cut the size of them, or to cut them out. Anyway, that has not been done. Let's assume we had a chart back here, a big white piece of cardboard, or posterboard, and we had here the judicial experience of Mr. Estrada. It would be blank. There would not be anything on it. We would bring out another chart and on that it would have Miguel Estrada and it would have there the questions he answered for the Judiciary Committee. It would be blank. There would be nothing on it.

Does it seem ``silly'' that we are asking questions about this man? I don't think so. So I would say that we have a right and an obligation to move forward the way we are.

The administration's secrecy is deeply disturbing in all these areas. It is more so in the case of Miguel Estrada. I have talked about Vice President Cheney not giving us information about the oil companies, and this nomination is also very troubling to me. If I could file another court brief in this instance, I would. It is not available. This is a different type of proceeding.

Senators have a constitutional duty to evaluate this nominee. This nominee has stayed silent, refusing the American people a window into his views, judicial philosophy, and his manner of thinking. The administration has similarly refused to turn over documents that would illustrate those things to the Senate.

Should we approve this nomination, the Senate would be setting a dangerous precedent that would greatly narrow the scope of the important power vested in us by our Founding Fathers.

It would serve neither the Senate, the people of Nevada, nor the rest of the American people to confer such a rubber stamp on this or any administration, Republican or Democrat.

The Founders carefully balanced the powers of each branch of government, and the Senate's role in approving a President's nominee is a critical part of that balance, this separation of powers.

I submit that the examples I have provided show that this administration has forgotten, or ignored, the importance of that balance.

There is no more important a time to remind this administration of the importance of that balance than in the case of a person who is nominated for a lifetime judicial appointment to the second highest court in our land.

Mr. President, I have a couple of questions for the majority leader. Does the leader expect a vote on the resolution that is before the Senate today?

The other question I have for Members is this. I spoke to the leader earlier this morning. There are a number of people who did not go to the memorial service yesterday and are going to go to one at the National Cathedral tomorrow. Does the leader expect any votes in the morning?

Mr. President, I have one additional question. We are in morning business now until 12:30, or whenever the leader calls for the vote. I am wondering--because yesterday it got a little awkward--if we can have an agreement that the time would alternate--one Republican, one Democrat, back and forth. That way people have an idea of what to do when they come here. If there are two Republicans here

and no Democrats, OK. I don't think we need to do that in the form of an agreement, but at least the Chair would recognize we are going to do that.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) would each vote Aye.

Mr. President, I didn't want the night to go by without commenting on some remarks made by two Senators on the other side, the majority, who have suggested that those who oppose Miguel Estrada are doing it on the basis of his ethnicity. In fact, one Senator said it was anti-Hispanic. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is in existence here in Congress and consists of Hispanic members of Congress who have been elected by people from congressional districts all around the country, was formed many years ago. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has taken a position against the nomination of Miguel Estrada. I hope nobody would suggest that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is not Hispanic.

In fact, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was so concerned about the fact there are not enough Hispanics in the judiciary that they formed in the last Congress the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Hispanic Judiciary Initiative to assure fair treatment of judicial nominees and to promote diversity.

While the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has endorsed other Bush judicial nominees who are Hispanic, such as Jose Linares, Mr. Estrada failed most of the factors in their evaluation. Therefore, they oppose his nomination.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee late last year. It was signed by Congressmen Silvestre Reyes and Charles Gonzalez on behalf of the entire Hispanic caucus. The letter was based on the review of his qualifications and their interview with him.

I am certainly not a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I am not here to debate the issue with the learned chairman of the committee, but I want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand that someone can opposes this nomination and not do it based on anti- Hispanic grounds. There is no better logic than to look at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus which opposes this nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there have been too many protests on the other side. The majority has said time and time again that they, the Republicans, treat the Hispanics well. I do not know why they have to keep saying that. The record speaks for itself. This side need not do so because our record does speak for itself. And that is the reason, as I said earlier, when people come--one Senator did come and talk about words to the effect I am not anti-Hispanic and then proceeded to lay out everything that was. That is why I thought I would come forward and talk about the fact that the Hispanic Caucus, which certainly could never be judged to be anti-Hispanic, has come out against this nomination, as have numerous other organizations: the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic organizations such as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Juan Figuera, President and General Counsel, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, National Council of La Raza, NCLR, National Puerto Rican Coalition, California La Raza Lawyers, Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Linda Chavez Thompson, AFL-CIO, 52 different Latino labor leaders, including people from all over the country from California to New York and places in between.

There are civil rights and other organizations that oppose this nomination: the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Alliance for Justice, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Organization for Women, National Black Women's Health Project, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, National Council of Jewish Women, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Feminist Majority, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-Choice, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and scores of other organizations.

I think the debate at this stage is being framed improperly. There are people on this side who have not made up their mind what they are going to do, but the way the debate is going forward, it does give me some concern. I hope the debate in during the next whatever period of time it goes forward, we can talk about the man's judicial qualifications and not berate people who say for one reason or another he is not qualified, such as Mr. Bender. I have never met Mr. Bender, but I think he has taken enough lashes today that we should drop the subject. He has a right, in my opinion, to oppose someone. These organizations have a right to oppose him. The organizations who support him have every right to come forward and support him. It should be on the basis of this man's qualifications, whatever they might be, and not on ethnicity and on whether or not groups support people because they are for the poor.

I made some notes here that someone suggested Latinos only support those lawyers who work for the poor or for the public defender's office. I really do believe this debate would be much more structured, civil, and productive if we dealt with Miguel Estrada's qualifications and not berate people who are for or against him.

Mr. President, I object at this time.

Mr. President, I will respond very briefly.

I was involved in a long conference with the Hispanic caucus yesterday. This organization met long and hard with Miguel Estrada. They met for 3 hours on one occasion, and based upon that and other issues they raised in their letter, they thought they could not support him.

As I stated earlier today, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has supported, and will continue to support, other Bush judicial nominees who are Hispanic, and they have already done so.

I mentioned a number of names earlier. They can speak for themselves.

They are Members of the other body and do not have authority to speak here, but if they could speak, they would speak loudly, with a lot of articulation, about the fact that this man is not qualified, in their opinion. They are entitled to that opinion.

This is a body that is not known for its radicalism; it is a body known for its stability, having a long line of very prominent chairmen.

Maybe with Mr. Bender I should have said he needs to be beaten up some more and he would not have been, but I think the record is replete that those on the other side think Mr. Bender's evaluation of Miguel Estrada is wrong. He has a right to do that. He was his supervisor. He has made and continues to make known his opinion that he is not temperamentally qualified for this job as a circuit court judge. That is what he said.

This debate should focus on the qualifications of this man. That is what this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee consists of, from the Hispanic caucus, to Senator Leahy. They say that the man is not qualified. He is not qualified based upon his past experience. They are entitled to that opinion.

As the debate proceeds, a decision will have to be made in this body as to whether people agree with the Hispanic caucus about the qualifications of persons before this body. Debate that has taken place and will take place in the future will be productive in that regard. That is why we have a Senate. That is why we are not limited, as in the House of Representatives, with, on many occasions, 1 minute and sometimes no minutes. We can talk here as long as we want about the qualifications of this man. I hope we do not have to talk a long time about this man's qualifications. We should talk long enough that full debate on his qualifications takes place.

I am happy now to have my friend reoffer his unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Pat Leahy from the Hispanic caucus signed by Silvestre Reyes and Charles Gonzalez be printed in the Record.

And I say that the final two sentences of this letter be read:

In our opinion, his lack of judicial experience coupled

with a failure to recognize or display an interest in the

needs of the Hispanic community do not support an appointment

to the federal judiciary.

The Hispanic caucus unanimously opposed the nomination.

Reserving the right to object, I say for the information of all Members, the unanimous consent request that was granted a brief minute ago was the continuing resolution for another week, a week and a half.

I spoke to Senator Stevens today and my clerk on the Energy and Water Subcommittee. We are really moving along well in the conference. I hope that matter can be completed. Senator Stevens hoped we could get together on Monday for that.

Finally, I know I cannot get the last word, but I will try anyway; that is, the letter I submitted on behalf of the Hispanic caucus just a couple of minutes ago contains more than his lack of judicial experience.

If I could ask the acting majority leader, are we going to have votes in the morning? I don't think that is clear. The question is directed to the Chair. We have had a number of calls this afternoon. It is pretty clear from what I see here that there will be no votes tomorrow, but I want to be sure that is valid.

Pardon me?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California be recognized for up to 15 minutes after I complete my remarks.

Mr. President, before my friend from Missouri leaves the Chamber, I say to him that the work he and Senator Mikulski have done on the appropriations subcommittee that deals with the funding for the space program

is exemplary. We have gone through some very tough times. There are many Senators who have offered amendments to do away with the space station and defund the space program. I have always been proud of the bipartisan relationship that Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski have had in fighting for the space program. It is a program we have to protect. I know there have been editorials saying do away with it; it is not worthwhile, but I really think it is important for so many reasons, not the least of which is to explore space.

The second is, I went running this morning. It was raining. It was windy and cold. I had on a very brief wrap, thin as this piece of paper, but I was warm. Why? Because it was Goretex. It was invented to take people into space.

We have accomplished so much in space that is scientific I think it would be a terrible shame to stop the space programs, and it would not be a legacy of which this country would be proud.

I publicly acknowledge and congratulate the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland for their exemplary work on the subcommittee.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in remembering the seven astronauts who perished on the Columbia Space Shuttle. Nevadans and all Americans, along with the people of India, Israel, and all over the world, mourn their loss, marvel at their courage, and take pride in their accomplishments. Our country's space program has made remarkable success, but many people often overlook the ingenuity, intelligence, and inspiration that made this success possible. They take for granted the enormous difficulty involved in the extraordinary achievement, asking: If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we solve other problems to overcome other challenges?

The moon landing was a great technological and engineering achievement. That event and subsequent space travel testify to American determination, know-how, and our can-do spirit. But sadly, as the Columbia shuttle tragedy reminds us, space travel remains difficult and extremely dangerous. The brave men and women who embark on journeys into the skies are pioneers.

One of the original explorers of outer space is our former colleague in the Senate, John Glenn. He is a true patriot who served our great Nation so well in so many capacities. He was a fighter pilot in World War II, a fighter pilot in Korea, who distinguished himself in many different ways in the skies defending our country's interests. He was later, of course, a test pilot who set a transcontinental speed record, and in 1962 he piloted Friendship 7 spacecraft in the first manned orbital mission of the United States. He represented Ohio in the U.S. Senate for 25 years, and nearing the end of his final term, he volunteered to return to space at age 77 as part of the shuttle crew that deployed the Spartan solar-observing spacecraft. His encore flight allowed us to learn about the aging process.

John Glenn was part of that select group depicted by writer Tom Wolfe in his fascinating book about the early efforts to explore space. John Glenn indeed proved he has the right stuff.

Another of our Senate colleagues, Bill Nelson, is a veteran of space travel. He and I served together in the House of Representatives when he was chosen to be a crew member on the Columbia space shuttle. In 1986, he participated in a 6-day flight that traveled over 2 million miles and orbited the earth 96 times. He returned safely just 10 days before the Challenger space shuttle crew was killed.

Senator Nelson has applied his own experience in space to speak passionately about the value of such missions.

In the wake of the Columbia shuttle tragedy, it is important that we understand the significance of the shuttle voyages and America's entire space program.

Sending men and women into space further our understanding of the mysteries of the universe, and reveals answers to some eternal and profound questions about the cosmos and the heavens above. In addition, space exploration improves our everyday lives on Earth in ways both big and small because the insight we gain has important applications for our health, environment, safety, comfort and wellbeing.

The Columbia shuttle mission was devoted strictly to onboard science, with no spacewalks or space station visits involved. More than 80 experiments were conducted during the 16-day flight, including a study of how zero-gravity affected low-level combustion that might have helped reduce automobile pollution, observations of the sun that could teach us more about global climate change, research into water conservation and reuse, and medical research intended to fight cancer.

So space travel is important to Americans and has benefits for all of us on Earth. I will continue to be a strong supporter of our space program.

Certainly, we must investigate what caused the Columbia's demise--and we must ask difficult questions and get all the answers in order to improve the safety of future astronaut heroes--but now is a time to remember the lives of wonderful crew and to grieve.

I encourage everyone to read the newspaper articles about this diverse team of courageous, dedicated and talented individuals. You will be impressed with, and inspired by, the range and degree of their accomplishments.

Nevadans mourn their deaths and extend our sympathy to all of their families and loved ones. My colleagues will speak about each of the crew members we lost, and I will in the future discuss more of them, but in my brief remarks today, I especially offer my condolences on the loss of Columbia's pilot, William McCool, a Navy commander who was 41 years old. His mother Audrey is a dean at the University of Nevada Las Vegas and his father Barry both teaches part-time at UNLV and is a graduate student there.

``Willie'', as their son was known to family and friends, was an outstanding student who maintained a 4.0 grade point average and graduated 2nd in a class of over one thousand at the demanding U.S. Naval Academy. He also excelled in sports, especially running, and was elected captain of the Navy cross-country team. He was well liked by all. He had a great smile, a ``stunning personality,'' is how his classmates described CDR McCool. Later, after the academy, he received advanced degrees in computer science and engineering and became an elite pilot. He had more than 400 carrier landings. Perhaps the most difficult test for any pilot is landing on those carriers as they bob up and down in the ocean. His parents were proud of him. He was inspired by his parents.

Willie's father, Barry, was a Navy and Marine pilot, a veteran of Vietnam. They built model airplanes together when CDR McCool was a boy. These childhood experiences influenced Willie to pursue aviation and serve his country, as he did so well. His example was set his by father. Barry McCool will now serve on the team investigating the disaster that claimed his son's life and the other six Columbia astronauts.

Willie had more than 2,800 hours of flight experience. He reacted to his journey into space with awe and amazement. He said: It's beyond imagination until you actually get it and see it and experience it and feel it . . . I have had the opportunity to be on the flight deck probably more than most of my crew mates, to look outside and really soak up the sunrises, the sunsets, the moonrises and the moonsets, the views of the Himalayas.

For someone who appreciated nature and spending time outdoors hiking and camping, it must have been such a joy to witness the Earth from the heavens where Willie now resides. My thoughts and prayers are with CDR McCool's parents, with his wife, his three sons, and all of his loved ones.

Let me also note that David Brown, a Navy captain, aviator, and flight surgeon, who was also lost aboard the flight Columbia, was an instructor at Fallon Naval Air Station in Nevada, the premier tactical air warfare training facility.

Even after the loss of their children in the Columbia shuttle tragedy, the mothers of both these crewmembers want the space program to continue. Dorothy Brown said in an interview: We're a nation of explorers. That's why this great Nation has come to what it is, and the space program will go on, too, for that reason. Audrey McCool, CDR McCool's mother said: We're very distressed, but we want the space missions to go on.

What strong women these grieving mothers are. We can surely be inspired by them, as well as their sons and the entire Columbia crew.

I am reminded of a poem that came about as a result of a revolution in Ireland. The poem that came from that I have on my desk. I read to the Senate today ``The Mother.''

I do not grudge them: Lord, I do not grudge

My two strong sons that I have seen go out

To break their strength and die, they and a few,

In bloody protest for a glorious thing.

They shall be spoken of among their people,

The generations shall remember them,

And call them blessed;

The little names that were familiar once

Round my dead hearth.

Lord, thou art hard on mothers:

We suffer in their coming and their going:

And tho' I grudge them not, I weary, weary

Of the long sorrow--And yet I have my joy:

My sons were faithful, and they fought.

Mr. President, I want the record to reflect my expectation that the majority whip will return to work soon. I was saddened to learn that Senator Mitch McConnell had triple bypass surgery. We all know the spunk, spirit, and tenacity he has, and I am confident he will return stronger than ever from that surgery.

On behalf of all Senators, I extend to Mitch and his lovely wife, the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, our best wishes and hope for a speedy recovery.

Mr. President, I want to ask the distinguished majority whip a question or two. It is my understanding this Friday the Democrats have a retreat in Washington. It is my understanding there is going to be a joint retreat of the congressional Republicans next Thursday and Friday. Is it fair to be able to tell Members that next Thursday and Friday there likely will be no votes?

It is my understanding the train leaves at noon. So we could have something in the morning, is that the deal?

As I have indicated to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky before we came into session, we will work to see what we can do on the Snow nomination. As the Senator knows, we have one Member on our side who has some questions, I do not think as much with the individual but with some policies. I will talk to him shortly and see if we can expedite this matter.

Will the Senator yield?

I was in my office and heard the Senator begin his remarks. I came here as quickly as I could to tell Senator Lott, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, what a tremendous person Dave Hoppe is and has been.

I believe in making deals. I say that in a positive sense. Legislation is the art of compromise. You have to build a consensus and make deals. That is not a negative term. And David Hoppe was wonderful to work with.

I say to the Senator from Mississippi, for the things we were able to accomplish in the Senate, we always had to go to Dave Hoppe. He was the go-to guy. I say to the Senator from Mississippi, he had really good judgment and showed a lot of wisdom by hiring Dave Hoppe. He not only served the people of the State of Mississippi and this institution but the country.

I commend the Senator from Mississippi for coming to the floor and acknowledging another fine public servant. Washington has a lot of people

who do good work. But Dave Hoppe is one who does work that is at the top of the list.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) would vote ``Aye.''