Floor Statements

Now, Mr. President, in order to bring to conclusion today's session, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. on Monday, November 7. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with the time equally divided between the majority and minority. I further ask consent that at 2 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, next week, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. The order provides for up to 12 relevant first-degree amendments on each side, with a limited amount of time for debate. The bill managers have made some progress today on the amendment process, and we will have at least one vote on an amendment on the Defense bill on Monday evening, at approximately 5:30 p.m. Senators should plan their schedules accordingly.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this amendment. In addition, I would like to thank Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy for working closely with me in support of this amendment.

Under the deficit reduction bill, certain educational programs are authorized or reauthorized that provide Federal dollars to help low- income students with the costs associated with higher education. These programs include: (1) Pell grants--in fiscal year 2005 $12.787 billion was spent on Pell grants by the Federal Government; (2) ProGAP grants-- a new mandatory spending program consisting of approximately $1.45 billion a year that is designed to provide supplemental grants to low- income Pell grant recipients, regardless of their majors; and (3) SMART grants--a new mandatory spending program consisting of $450 million a year that is designed to provide supplemental grants to low-income Pell grant recipients in their third and fourth year of college who are pursuing majors in math, science, engineering, and foreign languages.

These initiatives are commendable. I support them. Each program will significantly increase dollars targeted to low-income individuals who wish to pursue higher education to help them with the costs associated with their schooling.

But while I support these programs, I also fervently believe that when the Congress expends taxpayer money, it ought to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs.

The fact of the matter is that should this bill become law, the Federal Government will spend, next year alone, approximately $14.5 billion on grants to help low-income students attend higher education. I repeat $14.5 billion.

Of this $14.5 billion, though, without this amendment, only $450 million each year will be specifically targeted towards encouraging students to enter courses of study that are critical to our national security. That amounts to only about 3 percent of the total amount spent. I repeat, 3 percent. That is astonishing to me.

It is astonishing to me because a key component of America's national, homeland, and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism is having home-grown, highly-trained scientific minds to compete in today's one-world market. Yet alarmingly,

America faces a huge shortage of these technical minds.

Strikingly, America faced a similar situation nearly 50 years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first manmade satellite--Sputnik--into space. The launch shocked America, as many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our Nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.

In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering.

In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to inspire and induce individuals to advance in the fields of science and math. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the Moon within the decade.

These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the Moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers, and the Internet.

Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes: he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.

The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future.

The fact is that over the last two decades the number of young Americans pursuing bachelor degrees in science and engineering has been declining. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering is now substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it is in the United States. If these current trends continue, then, according to the National Science Board, less than 10 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America by 2010.

This shortage in America of highly trained, technical minds is already having very real consequences for us as a country. For example, the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high-tech jobs are being outsourced with them.

Simply put, in today's one world market, while we in America are sleeping at night, the other half of the world is thinking and contriving of every possible way to compete against us economically. Moreover, while we are sleeping at night, there are persons in this world who are awake, working hard in support of efforts aimed at taking our security and our freedoms away from us.

Fortunately, we can do something here today to help us become better prepared. Certainly, the SMART grant program is an important step in the right direction. But while the SMART grant program is one small step for man, it is not a giant leap for America. More has to be done. Remember, even with the SMART grant program, next year only 3 percent of the $14.5 billion targeted towards low-income students will be focused on meeting our security needs.

That is why I am offering this amendment today. The Warner, Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen amendment is simple. It simply allows the Secretary of Education to provide to low-income Pell grant recipients who pursue majors at the college and university level in critical national and homeland security fields of math, science, engineering, and foreign languages, an additional sum of money on top of their normal ProGAP grants. The amendment gives incentives and inducements to students who accept the challenge of pursuing the more rigorous and demanding curriculum of these studies that are critical to our Nation.

The amendment achieves its goal without adding a single new dollar to the underlying bill.

The Warner, Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen amendment does not change the Pell grant program or the SMART grant program in any way. It merely changes the formula of payments to students who will receive ProGAP grants. This change is desperately needed to put our nation on the road to meeting the ever increasing competition from India, China, and other nations where more and more of their students are pursuing studies in the scientific area.

The amendment builds upon the SMART grant program by enabling the Secretary to provide even greater incentives to encourage individuals to pursue studies critical fields. The amendment accomplishes this goal by allowing the Secretary of Education to award larger ProGAP grants to students majoring in programs of math, science, engineering and foreign languages that are key to our national and homeland security.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, we simply must do more to address this glaring shortage in other critical fields.

America can ill afford a 21st century Sputnik. This amendment will make sure that additional monies get focused on training the highly skilled minds that are needed in the 21st century to protect our national, economic, and homeland security.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.

I take this opportunity to propound a unanimous consent request. It has been cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2967, received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week the Senate addressed an identical piece of legislation offered by our distinguished colleagues from Michigan, Senators Stabenow and Levin. Senator Reid was very active in the consideration of that bill at that time. With the consent on that side and the consent of others on this side, I was successful in getting on an amendment that I had been working on for some 3 years, with Senator Leahy and others, to name the new annex to the District of Columbia Federal courthouse system in honor of William Bryant. I have known this outstanding African American much of my life, having served as a young U.S. attorney. He was one of our great teachers at that time, having been a senior U.S. attorney. He was the first African American assistant U.S. attorney, the first African American to become chief judge of the district court. He is 94 years old now and in senior status, and I thought it appropriate that the Senate pass that recognition. That bill by the Senator from Michigan, as amended by the Senator from Virginia, was passed by this Chamber last week. I have been assured by the Speaker of the House of Representatives that bill will be on tomorrow's consent calendar. So both bills will be acted upon in due course. This particular bill was introduced by Congresswoman Kilpatrick, in whose district the courthouse will be named. Therefore, it is appropriate that there be a companion piece of legislation.

I thank all those who participated in this and made it possible.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the annual Armed Forces authorization bill will soon be the subject of further debate in the Senate at a time to be decided upon by the distinguished majority leader in consultation with the distinguished Democratic leader. I wish to thank each of them for their long, consistent, and arduous effort to bring this bill up for what I anticipate will be a successful resolution to the bill, with final passage in this Senate in coming weeks. Senator Levin and I have been on this committee for some 27 years together. We are ready.

Given that the unanimous consent was accepted by the Senate, both committee staffs are actually at this time working on amendments and other

matters in preparation for the future consideration of this bill by the Senate. I urge Senators who might wish to have amendments discussed, first, to listen to the terms of the unanimous consent agreement and study those. Flexibility is given to the managers to reach a joint agreement for Members that have amendments not covered explicitly in the numerical amounts in the unanimous consent.

The committee staffs are working. I urge Senators to bring to Senator Levin and myself such matters as they may be interested in, and we will do our very best to accommodate Senators.

This Nation is at war. Each day we find in our hearts compassion for those we have lost, those on the battlefields today--not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but all throughout the world--and their families at home.

I thank our leaders for passing that unanimous consent, and I encourage Senators to submit their amendments and bring them to our attention.

The committee met this week. We reported out the intelligence authorization bill. That, hopefully, will be a joint referral to the Committee on Government Operations. There is provision in that bill which was clearly within the jurisdiction of that committee. I am very fortunate to have on the Committee on Armed Services both the chairman, Chairman Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Lieberman, as well as, of course, Senator Roberts. During the course of our deliberations yesterday, we quickly recognized it would be appropriate to be referred to that committee the intelligence bill with regard to that provision. That is progress we have made this week.

I am also pleased the committee pointed out a number of nominees for important civilian posts and, indeed, military posts in our Department of Defense. I understand some have been worked on today, and I will check to see whether other nominations can be cleared.

I am proud to say the Committee on Armed Services was very active this week. We have a charter now. We are back in business. I am very pleased that the prospects are we will pass our legislation.

Mr. President, I turn to another matter.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the temporary duty suspension for imports of Nylon MXD6, hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,3-benzenedimethanamine. This product, which is not manufactured in the United States at this time, serves as the favored option for food packaging and other multifunction packaging due to its tough, transparent properties.

It is customary for the Congress every few years to consider relatively minor technical changes to certain trade proposals as one omnibus bill. The most recent of these bills was the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Changes Act of 2004. For a proposal to be included in the legislation, the House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance Committee, and International Trade Commission all have to conclude that the proposal is noncontroversial. As one of the determining factors for a duty suspension request to be considered noncontroversial, no domestic production of the commodity may exist, or it may not be at a sufficient level to satisfy domestic demand.

As I mentioned before, Nylon MXD6 is not produced in the United States, and as a result, a temporary duty suspension was awarded to imports of Nylon MXD6 under the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004. However, this suspension is due to expire on December 31, 2006. While this sunset may sound far from now, no domestic production is expected to exist by then nor is it expected to exist for a few years afterwards, causing uncertainty for future production.

The current duty suspension for this import has been a key element in lowering the costs of domestic production of commodities containing Nylon MXD6. The bill I introduce today would extend the current suspension through December 31, 2008, which will provide manufacturers the certainty they need to plan for their future.

In closing, I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the temporary duty suspension for imports of Nylon MXD6, hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,3-benzenedimethanamine. This product, which is not manufactured in the United States at this time, serves as the favored option for food packaging and other multifunction packaging due to its tough, transparent properties.

It is customary for the Congress every few years to consider relatively minor technical changes to certain trade proposals as one omnibus bill. The most recent of these bills was the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Changes Act of 2004. For a proposal to be included in the legislation, the House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance Committee, and International Trade Commission all have to conclude that the proposal is noncontroversial. As one of the determining factors for a duty suspension request to be considered noncontroversial, no domestic production of the commodity may exist, or it may not be at a sufficient level to satisfy domestic demand.

As I mentioned before, Nylon MXD6 is not produced in the United States, and as a result, a temporary duty suspension was awarded to imports of Nylon MXD6 under the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004. However, this suspension is due to expire on December 31, 2006. While this sunset may sound far from now, no domestic production is expected to exist by then nor is it expected to exist for a few years afterwards, causing uncertainty for future production.

The current duty suspension for this import has been a key element in lowering the costs of domestic production of commodities containing Nylon MXD6. The bill I introduce today would extend the current suspension through December 31, 2008, which will provide manufacturers the certainty they need to plan for their future.

In closing, I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me in support of this legislation.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader. Our committee acted on this nomination yesterday. There has been a vacancy in the Secretary's Office of the

Air Force for some period of time. I thank the members from both sides of the aisle of the Armed Services Committee who have cooperated with me as chairman to get this nomination through today.

Mike Wynne is an extraordinary individual, eminently well qualified to lead the Department of the Air Force with great pride and integrity. He is a West Point graduate, served on active duty in the military. He has had extraordinary experience and degrees from the Institute of Technology, a master's, and on it goes. He has been in the Department of Defense in a variety of positions, and he was recently Under Secretary for Acquisition Technology and Logistics. I cannot think of a better qualified individual than Mike Wynne to take on this important task.

I yield the floor.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I am somewhat troubled. Not more than 10 minutes ago, I say to my colleague, you sat right here and I sat right there. We struck an understanding that tomorrow we would rejoin on the floor to explain the situation. I said, by that time, as it was my understanding that the House would likely have acted upon the measure which was passed by the Senate last night, sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who accepted my amendment. I am not sure why we are here at this time discussing this matter. My understanding was very clearly we would take it up tomorrow morning. Just by chance I caught the screen when I walked back to my office.

Would you kindly advise the Senator from Virginia what took place in the 10-minute interval since we left here?

Mr. President, but we solved, basically, the procedure. What troubles me is that the Senate took considerable time last night to resolve this issue--in favor of the Senator from Michigan and in favor of the Senator from Virginia.

There is a perfectly adequate bill sitting on the desk at the House of Representatives. It can be passed in 5 minutes if not less.

If my distinguished colleague will kindly grant me a few more minutes?

I repeat, there is a bill that has been acted upon unanimously by the Senate. It is at the House desk.

This morning was the first time I ever heard that the Congresswoman, in whose district this courthouse is, desires to have her bill--not your bill. Is that my understanding?

Why can't the Congressional Record of the debate, the traditional report language that accompanies the bill, explain, give her full credit or whatever she desires? But to continually come back and forth and raise the specter that people are trying to interfere with this important legislation in this Chamber, it seems to me, is not fair.

This is a matter that is being followed with great interest because of the magnificent Rosa Parks, and the outpouring of empathy and sympathy, and so forth. I don't wish to have the institution of the Senate appear that it has not acted promptly. It did so last night. There is a perfectly legitimate bill at the House desk which could be passed in a matter of 5 minutes and be sent to the President for signature to honor both Mrs. Parks and Judge Bryant. In report language the Senator from Michigan and the good Congresswoman can solve it in any way they may wish as to allocate the credit.

I think to keep coming back to the Senate implying that we can't use the bill this body passed yesterday evening is, in a way, diminishing the previous action of this institution. It is my understanding that tomorrow the House of Representatives will take up and pass the Senator from Michigan's bill, as passed by the Senate, to name a federal building in Michigan for Rosa Parks and name the new courthouse annex here in Washington for Judge William Bryant.

I must tell you, I have been very patient about this matter. But I hope that we understand the agreement between the two bodies to proceed in this manner. It has been cleared by both the House and the Senate and, as such, is the appropriate course of action.

For the past three years I have been working with my colleagues, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Senator Leahy to name the new annex to the Prettyman Courthouse here in Washington, DC for Judge William Bryant. As I have stated numerous times before, there are rules in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that prohibit moving through that Committee naming bills for individuals that are still living. Prior to the current Chairman of the Committee, the rule was waived in certain instances and I certainly feel that the case of Judge Bryant warrants such discretion. The Senate spoke yesterday that both Rosa Parks and William Bryant are deserving of this great honor.

I wish to share with the Senate again the story of this distinguished jurist, Judge William Bryant.

A product of Washington, DC public schools, William B. Bryant graduated from Howard University in 1936, a classmate of Thurgood Marshall and Appellate Judge Spotswood Robinson. He graduated from Howard Law School first in his class and then, with no real opportunities for African-American attorneys in the District of Columbia, served as chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, who later won the Nobel Prize. From 1943 to 1947, he was in the Army and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel during World War II. He was a criminal defense attorney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, the first African American ever to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Nation's Capital. I was privileged to be in the U.S. Attorney's Office during some of his tenure there and worked with him. He was a teacher to me and many others. He was appointed to the U.S. District Court in 1965. In 1977, he was appointed the first African American to be chief judge of the U.S. District Court.

Now at the age of 94, Judge Bryant is serving as a Senior Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This man, like Rosa Parks, suffered from discriminatory practices and persevered, therefore breaking new ground for African-Americans to come. When he first began trying cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1951, the Bar Association of D.C. did not allow African-American members. William Bryant, while trying cases in District Court was unable to access the law library at the Courthouse like his white colleagues. Despite the obstacles, William Bryant succeeded.

Over the years this man has been a fixture at that courthouse, first trying cases, and for the past 40 years, hearing them as a judge. The D.C. Bar and his colleagues have unanimously endorsed the legislation I offer today as a tribute to this man's truly extraordinary life, legendary career, and service to this nation's judicial system. I wish at this point to print into the Record a September 2004 article from the Washington Post about Judge Bryant and our efforts to name this new annex in his honor:

A Lifetime of Faith in the Law; At 93, Senior Judge William

Bryant Still Wins Plaudits for Dedication to Justice, Carol

Leonnig, Washington Post Staff Writer--September 16, 2004

A few days after the new U.S. District Courthouse opened on

Constitution Avenue in the fall of 1952, Bill Bryant walked

in to start work as a recently hired federal prosecutor.

More than a half-century has passed, and Bryant's life

remains centered on that stately granite building in the

shadow of the U.S. Capitol. It's in those halls that he

became a groundbreaking criminal defense attorney, a federal

judge, and then the court's chief judge--the first African

American in that position.

Today, at the age of 93, U.S. District Court Senior Judge

William Bryant still drives himself to work at the courthouse

four days a week and pushes his walker to his courtroom.

At a recent birthday party for Bryant hosted by Vernon

Jordan, fellow Senior U.S. District Court Judge Louis

Oberdorfer remarked that there were ``only two people in the

world who really understood the Constitution'' and how it

touched the lives of real people.

``That's Hugo Black and Bill Bryant,'' said Oberdorfer. He

had clerked for Justice Hugo L. Black, who retired as an

associate justice in 1971 after serving on the Supreme

Court for 34 years.

To honor Bryant's life's work, his fellow judges this past

spring unanimously recommended that a nearly completed

courthouse annex be named for him. The $110 million, 351,000-

square-foot addition will add nine state-of-the-art

courtrooms and judges' offices to the courthouse and is

designed to meet the court's expansion needs for the next 30

years. It is slated to open next spring.

In urging that the building be named for Bryant, his

supporters cite his devotion to the Constitution and his

belief that the law will produce a just result.

During a rare interview in his sixth-floor office in the

federal courthouse, Bryant reached out for a pocket version

of the Constitution covered in torn green plastic lying on

the top of his desk. Holding it aloft in his right hand, he

told stories of his struggling former clients and made legal

phrases--``due process'' and ``equal protection''--seem like

life-saving staples.

Though he needs his law clerk's arm to get up the steps to

the bench, he is a fairly busy senior jurist. He handled more

criminal trials than any other senior judge last year and

still surprises new lawyers with his sharp retorts.

``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork,'' Bryant said. ``I

have to think hard to think of a time when I wasn't in this

courthouse.''

He started down his career path inspired by a Howard

University law professor who believed that lawyers could make

a difference in that time of racial segregation and

discrimination. Bryant said he remains convinced today that

lawyers can stop injustice whenever it arises.

``Without lawyers, this is just a piece of paper,'' Judge

Bryant said, gesturing with the well-worn Constitution. ``If

it weren't for lawyers, I'd still be three-fifths of a man.

If it weren't for lawyers, we'd still have signs directing

people this way and that, based on the color of their skin.

If it weren't for lawyers, you still wouldn't be able to

vote.

The most important professions are lawyer and teacher, in

my opinion,'' he said.

Some lawyers complain that Bryant is so rooted in his

criminal defense training that he shows some distrust of the

prosecution. And his practice of presiding over trials, but

asking other judges to sentence the people convicted, has

spurred some curiosity. He won't elaborate on the reason, but

his friends say he found the new federal sentencing

guidelines inflexible and harsh.

A 1993 study found Bryant was reversed 17 percent of the

time by appellate judges--the average reversal rate for the

trial court.

Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan presented the proposal to name

the annex after Bryant to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Sen.

Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) earlier this year, and they are now

trying to get Congress to approve the naming this fall. One

member, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), has tried to block

it, with his staff pointing to a D.C. policy that buildings

not be named after living people.

Norton said numerous courts around the country have been

named in honor of living judges, and she said she looks

forward to meeting with Inhofe in person to convince him of

the wisdom of naming this building, designed by renowned

architect Michael Graves, after a barrier-breaking judge.

``This is no ordinary naming,'' she said. ``This is a truly

great African American judge whose accomplishments are

singular. First African American assistant U.S. attorney.

First African American chief judge.''

E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., the son of the jurist for whom

the federal courthouse in

Washington is named, also applauds the proposed annex naming.

He said his father ``admired Judge Bryant tremendously'' and

would have endorsed it, too.

``Whenever it's discussed, people brighten right up and

think it's a great idea,'' said Prettyman, himself a former

president of the D.C. Bar Association. ``I'm sorry it's hit

this snag. . . . If you were going to have an exception, my

personal opinion is you could not have a better exception

than for Judge Bryant.''

William Benson Bryant is hailed as a true product of

Washington. Though he was born in a rural town in Alabama, he

moved to the city soon after turning 1. His grandfather,

fleeing a white lynch mob, relocated the extended family

here, including Bryant's father, a railroad porter, and his

mother, a housewife. They all made their first home on

Benning Road, which was then a dirt path hugging the eastern

shore of the Anacostia River.

Bryant attended D.C. public schools when the city's black

children were taught in separate and grossly substandard

facilities. Still he flourished, studying politics at the

city's premier black high school, Dunbar, then going on to

Howard University. While working at night as an elevator

operator, he studied law and met his future wife, Astaire.

They were married for 60 years, until her death in 1997.

He and his law classmates--the future civil rights

movement's intellectual warriors--worked at their dreams in

the basement office of their law professor, Charles Houston.

Houston promised the group, which included the future Supreme

Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and appellate judge

Spottswood Robinson, that lawyers armed with quick minds and

the Constitution could end segregated schools and unjust

convictions of innocent black men.

``I kind of got fascinated by that,'' he said. ``We all

did.''

But when Bryant graduated first in his class from Howard's

law school, there were no jobs for a black lawyer. He became

a chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, an African

American diplomat who later was awarded the Nobel Peace

Prize, on a landmark study of American race relations; he

then fought in World War II and was discharged from the Army

as a lieutenant colonel in 1947.

His first step was to take the bar exam, then hang out a

shingle as a criminal defense lawyer in 1948. His skills soon

drew the attention of prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's

Office, who liked him even though they kept losing cases to

him, and they recommended that their boss hire him. During a

job interview, Bryant made a request of George Fay, then the

U.S. attorney: ``Mr. Fay, if I cut the mustard in municipal

court, can I go over to the big court like the other guys?''

No black prosecutor had ever practiced in the federal

court--or ``big court,'' as it was called--but Fay agreed.

Bryant signed on in 1951 and was handling grand jury

indictments in the new federal courthouse the next year.

Bryant vividly recalls a case from that time involving an

apartment building caretaker who was on trial on charges of

raping the babysitter of one tenant's family.

``I went for him as hard as I could,'' Bryant said,

squaring his shoulders. ``I didn't like him, and I didn't

like what he did to that girl.''

So the young prosecutor sought the death penalty, an option

then for first-degree murder and rape. He left the courtroom

after closing arguments ``feeling pretty good about my case''

and awaited the jury's verdict in his third-floor court

office. But when a marshal later called out, ``Bryant, jury's

back,'' the judge said, ``I broke out in a sweat.''

He peeked anxiously into the court, saw the jury foreman

mouth only the word ``guilty.'' Bryant learned seconds later

that the jurors had spared the man's life.

``I was so relieved,'' he said. ``When you're young, you

don't know anything. . . . Now I think, murder is murder, no

matter who is doing it.''

He left the prosecutor's office in 1954 and returned to

criminal defense with fellow classmate William Gardner in an

F Street law office later bulldozed for the MCI Center. They

were partners in Houston, Bryant and Gardner, a legendarily

powerful African American firm. Ten judges would eventually

come from its ranks.

In those days, Bryant chuckled, he didn't feel so powerful.

Judges who remembered his prosecution work kept appointing

him to represent defendants who had no money. That was before

the 1963 Supreme Court's Gideon decision requiring that

indigent defendants be represented by a lawyer--at public

expense, if necessary.

The judge would say, ``Mr. So and So, you say you don't

have any money to hire an attorney?'' Bryant recalled.

``Well, then, the court appoints Mr. Bryant to represent

you.''

Some paid $25 or $50. Some paid nothing.

``There were weeks we paid the help and split the little

bit left over for our groceries,'' he said.

Bill Schultz, Bryant's former law clerk, said Bryant took

the cases ``out of this sense of obligation to the court and

legal system. He was very aware of discrimination, and he

always fought for the criminal defendants.''

At the time, blacks were barred from the D.C. Bar

Association and its law library. Bryant went in anyway, and

the black librarian let him.

One of his pro bono clients was Andrew Roosevelt Mallory, a

19-year-old who confessed to a rape after an eight-hour

interrogation in a police station. Mallory was convicted and

sent to death row. Defending Mallory's rights, a case Bryant

took all the way to the Supreme Court in 1957, made him both

nervous and famous.

He said he fretted constantly about his client facing the

electric chair during the two years the case dragged on.

``You talk about worried,'' he said. ``It's something I can't

forget.''

But the Supreme Court agreed with Bryant that a man accused

of a crime is entitled to be taken promptly before a

magistrate to hear the charges against him. The court

overturned Mallory's conviction and handed down a landmark

decision on defendants' rights.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, a longtime fan of

Bryant's, said Bryant's legal talents are on display every

day in his courtroom, but lawyers are still taken aback by

his factual resolve and clear logic when hearing an audiotape

recording of his Supreme Court argument in the Mallory case.

``He's clearly a terrific lawyer, but he's mostly a

terrific human being,'' Friedman said. ``He sees the best in

people, and he really cares about what happens to people.''

Bryant remembers that when President Lyndon B. Johnson

nominated him to be a judge, he felt elated, confident he had

earned his opportunity. But Bryant said a different feeling

came over him the day he donned the robes.

``I was sworn in in the morning that day, and Oliver Gasch

was sworn in that afternoon,'' Bryant recalled. ``I told

Oliver, `You know, I've been a lawyer for many years, but

putting on this robe, I don't feel so sure. This is a serious

responsibility.' ''

Gasch smiled: ``Bill, I don't think it's going to be that

hard for you. You know right from wrong.''

Bryant oversaw some famous cases, and he freely shared his

thoughts when he thought something was wrong.

After presiding over the 1981 trial of Richard Kelly, a

Republican congressman caught on videotape taking money from

federal agents in a sting operation, Bryant complained that

the FBI had set an ``outrageous'' trap for the Florida

representative by stuffing cash in his pocket after he'd

refused the bribe several times. He set aside Kelly's

conviction.

``The investigation . . . has an odor to it that is

absolutely repulsive,'' Bryant said then. ``It stinks.''

In handling the longest-running case in the court's

history, a 25-year-old case about inhumane and filthy

conditions in the D.C. jail, the judge chastised city leaders

in 1995. He said he had been listening to their broken

promises to fix the problems ``since the Big Dipper was a

thimble.''

In weighing the case of a group of black farmers with

similar discrimination complaints against the U.S. Department

of Agriculture in 2000, Bryant warned a government lawyer

that his argument against a class-action discrimination suit

wasn't working: ``Either you're dense or I'm dense,'' he

said.

Schultz said the judge simply trusted the combination of

facts and the law.

``He always said, `Don't fight the facts,' '' Schultz said.

``He thought most of the time the law would end up in the

right place.''

Bryant acknowledges it's hard sometimes to see lawyers

struggle to make their arguments when they have the law and

the facts on their side.

``A judge has a stationary gun, and he's looking through

the sights,'' he said. ``Unless the lawyer brings the case

into the bull's-eye, the judge can't pull the trigger. Good

lawyers bring the case into the sights.''

Bryant said he was preceded by many great lawyers, which is

why the new plan to put his name on a piece of the courthouse

gives him conflicting feelings.

``I was flattered, but I thought they shouldn't have done

it,'' Bryant said. ``There are so many people who were really

giants. I stand on their shoulders.''

I hope that henceforth there is senatorial courtesy--when we decide to proceed in a specific manner as we discussed, we would do it in the morning, I relied on that, and was about to go handle another matter when I noticed that the Senator was on the floor. I am somewhat concerned about that.

I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan for her courtesy in combining these two tributes and look forward to the action of the House tomorrow. It is truly a wonderful opportunity for the Congress to honor two American pioneers. Rosa Parks and Judge William Bryant both deserve to be recognized for their lives and contributions our nation's heritage. I have no objection to this bill moving forward as amended and look forward with great pride to both buildings being named shortly for these two pillars of the civil rights movement that brought so much to our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I never thought I would see the day that I would stand to object to such a meritorious proposal as my distinguished colleague has offered.

Mrs. Parks has been dead but 3 or 4 days. For 3 years, I have been trying to get the new courthouse annex here in Washington, DC named for Judge William B. Bryant. Judge Bryant is an African American. He is 94 years old. Let me tell you about this distinguished individual. Born in Alabama----

I reserved the right to object, and I ask the respect of the manager to allow me to state my case.

I thank the distinguished Senator.

He graduated from Howard University in 1936, classmate of Thurgood Marshall and Appellate Judge Spotswood Robinson. He graduated from Howard Law School first in his class and then, with no real opportunities for African-American attorneys in the District of Columbia, served as chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, who later won the Nobel Prize. From 1943 to 1947, he was in the Army and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel during World War II. He was a criminal defense attorney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, the first African American ever to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Nation's Capital. I was privileged to be in the U.S. Attorney's Office during some of his tenure there and worked with him. He was a teacher to me and many others. He was appointed to the U.S. District Court in 1965. In 1977, he was appointed the first African American to be chief judge of the U.S. District Court.

Now at the age of 94, Judge Bryant is serving as a Senior Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This man, like Rosa Parks, suffered from discriminatory practices and persevered, therefore breaking new ground for African-Americans to come. When he first began trying cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1951 the Bar Association of D.C. did not allow African-American members. William Bryant, while trying cases in District Court was unable to access the law library at the Courthouse like his white colleagues. Despite the obstacles, William Bryant succeeded.

Over the years this man has been a fixture at that courthouse, first trying cases, and for the past 40 years, hearing them as a judge. The D.C. Bar and his colleagues have unanimously endorsed the legislation I offer today as a tribute to this man's truly extraordinary life, legendary career, and service to this nation's judicial system.

However, there are rules in the Environment and Public Works Committee which do not permit courthouses to be named for living or sitting judges. But it is interesting, before the current Chairman of the Committee took over, the rule was waived in certain cases. I am aware of more than 20 instances when this discretion was used to name Courthouses for living and sitting judges. As a matter of fact, I know of some instances where Members of this Chamber have gotten around the rule by attaching naming resolutions to bills in other committees of the Senate. We can all agree that Rosa Parks is deserving of the recognition to have a building named after her. Today I ask

this body the simple question, why is she more deserving today than she was last week?

I thank my distinguished colleague. I send to the desk an amendment and ask if it would be included in the unanimous consent request.

If I could ask my distinguished colleague, were you not faced with the same dilemma several years ago and managed to get a courthouse named for a sitting judge in your State by action of the Appropriations Committee?

I have talked to the Administraive Office of the Courts, and I will get that answer to the Senator.

If I understand, has the Senator amended her request to accept my amendment?

I have to object if the Warner amendment is not included in the unanimous consent agreement.

Fine. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished two leaders. On behalf of Senator Levin and myself, we assure our two leaders we will deal with this expeditiously, with the cooperation of the Senate. I am certain we can have an armed services bill this year. This is a nation at war. We have no alternative.

I yield the floor.

Amendments Nos. 2248, 2250, and 2249, en bloc

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is the time at this point had been reserved for statements regarding the elections in Iraq. Am I correct? What is the time remaining?

I ask unanimous consent the time be extended for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Colorado has spoken very eloquently with regard to the elections in Iraq. I would like to add a few thoughts of my own, for it was truly a momentous event in the sense that a nation which had not had any government since 1920 was given the opportunity to begin its course toward joining the nations of the free world to have some form of democracy of their own choosing--and I underline that: Of their own choosing. They thereby take a place in the world with a responsibility for securing the basic freedoms people worldwide desire.

On Saturday, October 15, 2005, the Iraqi people, once again, following their historic election in January of this year, took another significant step forward in Iraq. We saw millions of Iraqis indicate their willingness to embrace the democratic process by virtue of their voting. There was a strong turnout nationwide, a significantly higher turnout than we anticipated in certain areas. This turnout, particularly in the Sunni regions, is more remarkable because it was often in the face of insurgent intimidation.

We all observed three important signs of Iraqi progress in the events of October 15th. First, the electoral process proceeded as planned. Insurgent efforts to disrupt the elections that were attempted throughout the summer and right up to the elections simply did not succeed.

Second, Iraqi Government's outreach to Sunni leaders during the constitutional drafting process is having an effect. Prime Minister al- Jafari said, ``The victory for Iraq is that Iraqis are voting.''

Third, the Iraqi security forces provided protection to more than 6,000 polling sites. I cannot overstate the importance of that. The United States, together with its coalition partners, worked hard for some 2 years now to establish a military and a police force. I would say, having followed this very carefully in the Armed Services Committee, that significant progress has been made in the last 120 days. We have established criteria to assess the quality and the professional level attained by these individuals, and how best to integrate them in the overall security framework needed to preserve and protect the Iraqi people and preserve their sovereignty. Real progress has been made. The voting day was an example of how they perform. At the polling sites, security was primarily the responsibility of either the Iraqi police or the national forces. It was clear and visible that the Iraqis took the lead in this effort. No security incident appeared to affect voting. The level of security breaches was far below the high of some 300 breaches during the January election of this year. I believe there was less than 20 incidents total that tried to disrupt the election, but all failed to affect the casting of votes at these polling places.

We have no confirmed figures on the results yet. We, the world, await the outcome. Newspapers throughout the world carry reports of the importance of the election and saluting those who made it possible--not just the security forces but also the United Nations and other international organizations which came in and supervised this historic day. Basically the streets were calm. In some places there were mild celebrations.

Last month, for example, in Tall Afar in northern Iraq, coalition and Iraqi forces were engaged with insurgents for control of that city--a bitter battle. It is interesting that on Saturday the Independent Election Committee of Iraq estimated that 80 percent of the registered voters in that community

voted. Therefore we must praise the efforts of the Iraqis, the U.S. civilian and military personnel, all those of our coalition partners and those of international organizations for planning and executing an electoral referendum in such a challenging environment. The United Nations chief electoral adviser in Iraq said:

The process has gone so smoothly and well, from a technical

point of view.

The Vice Chairman of the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, a coalition of electoral monitoring bodies, praised the referendum for its legal framework, planning, and logistics. Now the world will await the final result, due hopefully later this week. The Independent Electoral Commission in Iraq is supervising this process and will announce an official tally after votes are counted at a central location overseen by the United Nations election advisory team to ensure that international standards are being met.

There are, no doubt, difficult days remaining ahead. Generals Abizaid and Casey told the Congress, the American people, and indeed the whole world, just that in appearances throughout the United States last month. Both men were confident that we are moving in the right direction. We saw that progress this Saturday and we salute them for their leadership and their participation and their responsibility in achieving the results that came about on Saturday.

If the constitution is ratified, Iraqis will vote again on December 15. This time they will vote for a permanent government to take office on December 31. That leaves 60 days, basically, between now and December 15. It will be a very unusual period in the history of Iraq, in that many of those in this current government, the interim government, will be seeking office in that election. So we have to exercise a degree of patience as we watch them, as they pursue their political campaigns at the same time they have official duties to maintain a government and serve the needs of the people of Iraq-- whether it is the power, whether it is the water, whether it is the security. All of those things must be maintained during this interregnum until the election takes place.

Then, following December 15 there is basically a 60-day period as established under the law that they have adopted. There is a 60-day period in which that government must replace the existing one and take the reins of authority and govern Iraq for a period of 4 years--truly a permanent government.

As this political situation matures, so too will the Iraqi security forces, and I am confident we will see a continued strong pace to obtain the needed numbers of trained police, border security, internal security, national guard, and a standing army to provide that nation with protection for its sovereignty and internal protection from the insurgents. With an Iraqi permanent government in place and steady progress in these security forces, I see--and I want to say with great caution--an opportunity, following the first of the year, to begin to review our present force structure and to consider such options as will hopefully be available to lessen the size of our overall troop presence.

Watching Iraqis vote, we as Americans should be especially proud of the contributions of those men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States. When I speak with them in Iraq, as I did weeks go on my sixth trip, and in Afghanistan, they know the importance of what they are doing.

I would like to underline that. Individually, they know and understand the importance of the mission which they, as members of the all-volunteer force of our military, have undertaken. Together with the commitments in support of their families back home, they are performing brilliantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all across the world, protecting the security of this Nation and the security of our principal allies.

We will continue to demand from these people as we always have, but they are like generations before them, answering a call to duty to defend the values and freedoms we cherish. We wish them well. We wish the blessings of the Almighty on them and their families. We have taken heavy casualties in this conflict, both in terms of lost lives and wounded. Not a day goes by that those who are privileged to serve in this Chamber do not have that foremost in their minds, as do most Americans.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.