Floor Statements

Mr. President, I notified the other side that I am going to propound a unanimous consent request to which I think they will object. I didn't want to blindside them. I don't know who on the other side is available.

I see both leaders here. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill; that the motion to commit be withdrawn and the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment related to gas prices.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is this an objection or a speech?

I believe I have the floor, Mr. President.

I take no pleasure in cutting off my friend, the majority leader. I have the floor, and I propounded a unanimous consent request to which he objects, which is, of course, his right.

Let me make some observations about the amendment I would have offered had I been permitted to.

My good friend, the majority leader, was complaining about the reading of the amendment yesterday. I remind him it did not take nearly as much of the Senate's time as his reading passages from his own book back in 2003, which took up to 9 hours of the Senate's time, that, too, to make a point about the way judicial confirmations were being handled. So it is certainly not unprecedented for Members of the body-- not the majority leader, not myself--trying to make points with regard to the displeasure, if you will, in the handling of judicial appointments.

With regard to the amendment I would like to have offered, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the amendment so people will know what I would have offered had I been allowed to.

Mr. President, obviously, I am disappointed that the majority has objected to allowing this amendment to become pending. Earlier today, the assistant majority leader said we should be voting on amendments. I actually couldn't agree more. In a week in which gas prices have climbed to an all-time high, the Democratic majority in the Senate is pushing legislation that would send them up, at the very least, another 53 cents a gallon.

Since the majority took over Congress 17 months ago, gas prices have gone up $1.66 a gallon. Since the beginning of this year alone, gas prices have gone up nearly a dollar--82 cents. Today, AAA reported a new record-high average gas price nationwide of $3.99 a gallon. All of this is hurting families, workers, truckers, farmers--it is hurting literally everyone. Yet the majority has nothing to say about it. It has done nothing, actually worse than nothing. It has repeatedly blocked efforts to increase production of American energy at home, as recently as last month, when 48 Democratic Senators voted against the American Energy Production Act.

Now, at the beginning of the summer driving season, it offers a bill that would send gas prices up another 53 cents a gallon, for goodness' sake. People in the Commonwealth of Kentucky are paying, on average, $3.92 a gallon this week. They want to know what in the world is going on around here. I am telling them to take a look at what is going on here this very week. I am asking the same question they are: Why on Earth are we considering a bill that would raise gas prices even higher--even higher--than they already are?

Our friends on the other side have no serious plan for lowering gas prices. Indeed, they seem intent on raising them even higher, which is why I have tried offering this amendment as a sort of emergency brake on the majority.

This amendment says that if the Boxer climate tax bill does, in effect, increase gas prices, its provisions shall be suspended.

Let me say that again. This amendment I had hoped to be able to offer and get pending and voted on simply says, in fact, if the Boxer climate tax bill does, in fact, increase gas prices, its provisions shall be suspended. Turn them off and take a time out.

Earlier this week, the junior Senator from Connecticut said the Boxer bill would reduce gas prices. His contention runs counter to every analysis of the bill of which I am aware. But if he is right--if he is right--if the Boxer climate tax bill actually reduces gas

prices, then there is no reason not to support my amendment because my amendment would not go into effect--if, in fact, the underlying bill is going to reduce gas prices.

If the Senator from Connecticut is right, then my amendment would not have any effect on the cap-and-trade system outlined in this bill because, of course, gas prices would not be increased by the operation of the bill. If he is wrong, my amendment will protect those who are suffering today from the high price of gasoline.

We should have an opportunity to ask Senators where they stand. Do they believe, as I do, that gas prices are high enough already or do they believe, as the sponsors of this bill do, that gas prices should rise even higher? What are they afraid of? Let's have votes on these amendments. This is the kind of bill, as I have said repeatedly, normally in the Senate would have been on the floor for weeks. This is a big, complicated bill, described by my friend and colleague, the majority leader, as the most important matter for the planet. I think we would all agree that is a big deal.

If this issue is the most important issue confronting the planet, then it is worth more than a few days. If we spent 5 weeks and considered 180 amendments and processed 130 of them on the clean air bill in 1990, this bill is certainly worth a multiweek, multifaceted debate and consideration of amendments without preclearance on both sides.

What has evolved in the course of the last year and a half is the only way you get to offer an amendment around here is if the other side agrees to let you. The majority leader and I have been around the Senate long enough to remember when that was not the way you operated on major bills. We were both here in 1990, when Senator Mitchell was the majority leader. The Democrats controlled the House, controlled the Senate, and there was a Republican in the White House. We were trying to do a clean air bill. We spent 5 weeks on it, considered 180 amendments, passed 130 of them. Nobody was asking permission to offer an amendment. It was a freewheeling, wide-ranging, wide-open debate on an important issue at that time.

This strikes me as very similar in nature to that, and I don't know why we are afraid to spend time on this bill, why we are afraid to have amendments on it. My goodness, filling the tree, filing cloture--it strikes me my good friend, the majority leader, doesn't want anybody to vote on any of the amendments. We wish to go through a kind of 1-week, check-the-box exercise and move on. If this is, indeed, the most important issue confronting the planet, why are we not spending time on it?

So I would have liked to have had a chance to vote on that amendment. It strikes me that if the position of the majority is this bill will not raise gas prices, there would be no particular reason not to adopt it because, at the end of the day, it wouldn't become operative unless gas prices went up. GAO thinks gas prices will go up 53 cents a gallon. I hope this bill doesn't pass, but if it does, I hope they are wrong and that the Senator from California is right. In any event, as a good hedge against further raising gas prices on American consumers, it struck me that the McConnell amendment would be a good way to go.

I regret it will not be possible to offer that amendment. It would have been good for the Senate to have considered and to have voted on this amendment. But apparently that will not be the case today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with respect to the judges issue--we are getting things kind of mixed in together--with respect to the judges issue, it was viewed with incredulity the suggestion that somehow reading the amendment yesterday was without precedent. My good friend clearly remembers his reading his own book on the floor of the Senate. According to Senate records, it was nearly 9 straight hours, longer than it took to read the amendment yesterday. Interestingly enough, it had nothing to do with judges. At least reading the amendment yesterday was a way to learn about the Boxer substitute, since we had gotten it about 15 minutes before it was offered.

The fundamental issue on judges is keeping your word around here. Let's not obscure the point. The fundamental issue about judges is, Are you going to keep your word?

At the beginning of this Congress, the majority leader and I agreed we would achieve, working together, the average number of circuit judges of each of the last three Presidents, each of whom, to their regret, ended their terms with the opposition party in the majority. It was not contingent on vacancy rate. There was no discussion of vacancy rate. It didn't have anything to do with anything other than a numerical measurement of success.

When it became clear several months ago that there was no serious effort being made to keep that commitment, we had a conflict here on the floor about another bill. In connection with settling that dispute, the majority leader committed to me that we would do three circuit judges before Memorial Day toward the goal he and I had agreed on earlier. We did one. We did one.

The only way this institution can function is that when we give our word, we ought to keep it.

Now, on a separate track, last night, in connection with a nominations package, the commitment was made to do three district court judges within the next week who are on the calendar right now and have been on the calendar since late April.

So now we have two commitments extant here. We have the commitment at the beginning--well, three actually: the commitment at the beginning of the Congress to reach the average for each of the last three Presidents, which would have been 17; then we had the commitment to do three prior to Memorial Day, only one of which was done; and now last night, in conjunction with a nominations package, we had a commitment to confirm three district court judges who have been on the calendar here in the Senate since late April. And these are typically not even controversial. The chair of the Judiciary Committee was on the floor at the time. So we will see if that commitment is to be kept.

So that is what this is about, Mr. President. It is about keeping your word here in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Reserving the right to object--I withhold.

I object.

I object.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. alexander) would have voted ``no.''

I object.

Cloture Motion

I object.

Mr. President, I hardly know where to start, but let me start with the issue of judges.

The reason it was necessary to make our hard-working and dedicated clerical staff here read the amendment today was to make the Senate understand that commitments are important. The most important thing Senators have--the currency of the realm, if you will, in the Senate-- is their word. When you give your word, you are supposed to keep your word.

On the issue of judicial confirmations, my good friend the majority leader and I discussed this matter publicly at the beginning of this Congress, and we agreed that President Bush, in the last 2 years of his term, should be treated as well as President Reagan, Bush 41, and President Clinton were treated in the last 2 years of their tenures in office because there was one common thread, and that was that the Senate was controlled by the opposition party.

What has become contentious around here in recent years is the confirmation of circuit judges. So we agreed we ought to try to hit the average for each of those Presidents in the last 2 years of their terms, and the average was 17. The low number was President Clinton, with 15. That was the goal. It was clear by April of this year that there was no intent to meet that goal, and so we had a skirmish here on the floor over going to a bill. We reached an agreement. The majority leader indicated we would do three circuit judges before the Memorial Day recess. We did one. That commitment was not kept.

Now, the Senate is not the House. The minority does have rights in the Senate. Most things that are accomplished in the Senate are accomplished on a bipartisan, cooperative basis. Members of the Republican conference believe strongly that commitments ought to be kept. So by the reading of the amendment today, people got a chance to think about the importance of commitments in this body that can only function when our word is kept. Other efforts will be made to drive that point home.

And just keeping the commitment that was made for May--that was not kept--is not enough. We are seven judges away from equaling President Clinton in the last 2 years of his term--15. Time is ticking away. That commitment should be kept for the good of this institution.

I think it is important to remind our good friends on the other side of the aisle that the shoe might be on the other foot. They might be making the nominations. Why would they want to set a precedent such as this that could come back to bite them so quickly? There is a growing sense of anger on this side of the aisle over this issue, and what tends to go around comes around in the Senate. This is a precedent we ought not to set, and I think the adults on the other side of the aisle understand that this is a precedent that ought not to be set for the good of either party. So we will be continuing to look for opportunities to make the point that commitments ought to be kept.

Now, with regard to the underlying bill, let me disabuse our colleagues or anyone else who may be listening of the notion that members of the Republican conference are not interested in having amendments on this bill. This is the most massive reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s--some believe a $6.7 trillion tax increase. Looking at Kentucky alone, it could mean up to $6,000 a year for my people, and the GAO says a 53-cents-a-gallon gas tax increase over the next 20 years.

No matter how you look at this--my good friend the majority leader says this is necessary to save the planet--no matter how you look at it, it is an important bill. This is an important bill. This is no small bill, and we are being put in the position, with the tree being filled tonight and with cloture being filed, to have this massive, significant bill in effect voted on without any amendments.

An interesting parallel--and I see my good friend the Senator from Virginia, who is actually a supporter of this bill and a cosponsor of it, sitting here in the Chamber. He and I were here in 1990, as was the majority leader, when we did the clean air amendments, which was a major piece of legislation. It was not as big as this bill but a big, important bill. The Democrats were in control of the House and Senate. There was a Republican in the White House. How did we handle the clean air amendments of 1990 under George Mitchell, then the Democratic leader? We had 5 weeks of debate on the floor of the Senate and we had 180 amendments. Everybody knew it was an important measure. It deserved the attention and the participation of 100 Members of the Senate, not 1 Member--the majority leader--determining which amendments would get to be offered and in the end asking the Senate to accept a procedure under which no amendments would be offered. Now, Mr. President, by any objective standard, that is not a serious effort to legislate. You can't cram a measure of this magnitude down the throat of the Senate or the American people with that little scrutiny or observation.

With regard to the notion that somehow everybody had a chance to look at this bill, we got it at 11:15 this morning--the substitute at 11:15 this morning. You could argue that the vast majority of the Members on this side of the aisle were reading it for the first time along with the clerks. So this hasn't been laying around for months. The idea that we would go to such a measure may have been around for a while, and it was--and the majority leader did indicate we would go to this bill after the Memorial Day recess, but what was going to be in it? We learned about that this morning.

Thirdly, with regard to nominations, we were prepared to move a nominations package tonight, but the nominations package that was presented was basically negotiated between the Democratic majority and the White House. There is another entity, and that is the Republicans in the Senate. We sought to make some adjustments to the nominations package, which, interestingly enough, included some district judges who are on the Executive Calendar. Now, district judges have not typically been controversial. Are we now to believe that even district judges who have come out of the committee and are on the calendar are a matter of controversy? Is there nothing on which we can agree? Is that the Senate today?

Somebody needs to--and I think it is incumbent upon the majority leader and myself--to restore a certain level of comity around here so we can function. How in the world did the situation deteriorate to the point where district judges who have been reported out of the committee and are sitting here on the calendar are a matter of controversy?

That is where we are as of the evening of June 4, and I think we need to have some serious discussions off the floor of the Senate as to how we can unravel the problems that have been created by the mistreatment of the circuit judge nominations of the President of the United States. I think we need to remind ourselves that when we make commitments to our colleagues here in the Senate, they need to be kept. And it is time to stop this sort of spiral downward that has developed as a result of the apparent refusal to make any serious effort to keep commitments which have been made, which colleagues depend on, and which are essential to the Senate functioning the way it needs to function.

Mr. President, one final observation about the underlying bill. We have enjoined the debate on this bill and would love to be able to amend it. We think it is not a 1-week bill; we think it is

clearly a multiweek bill. If the Clean Air Act of 1990 was a 5-week bill, this is certainly at least a month bill. And at whatever point the majority gets serious about climate change legislation, then we need to set aside enough time to give the entire Senate an opportunity first of all to read it and, second, to offer serious amendments to the measure.

I think probably enough has been said today about where we are. Hopefully, tomorrow, after a good night's sleep, we can take a look at all these matters and see if we can get the Senate back on track to develop a level of comity necessary for us to function in the way in which the Senate has historically functioned.

I yield the floor.

Would the leader yield just for an observation?

Did the majority leader yield for a question?

Parliamentary inquiry: Is it permissible to yield for a statement?

Is it permissible to yield----

Is a question being asked by the Senator from Vermont?

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

I am aware of the rules of the Senate. Three judges on the calendar have been there since April 24. These are not people who just popped out of the committee yesterday.

Can I further inquire of the majority leader, what does ``take a look at'' mean?

I would ask my friend further, are district judges now controversial, too, particularly those who have been reported out of the committee and been on the calendar for 6 weeks or so?

Will the leader yield for a question?

My assumption is if they are on the calendar and made it out of the committee, they are not controversial. How about scheduling a vote? We don't have to do it tomorrow. Can we even schedule one?

Can I ask a question, and maybe we can make some progress here? If we can schedule some of these I think completely noncontroversial district judges--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is here. We would like to move the nominations package.

We are not talking about clearing the judges in connection with this package, we are talking about scheduling votes, and the man you have to clear it with is right there.

I think we are close to an understanding here that allows us to clear this nominations package. You have your chairman here, and I am authorized to speak for the ranking member on this issue.

Did the majority leader say, in consultation with his chairman, that we could expect to schedule these votes within the next week or so on these noncontroversial district court judges?

Then I think we have reached an understanding that would certainly lead me to think we ought to go forward with the nominations package you have been working on with the administration.

Can I have a brief quorum call?

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

Mr. President, I very much appreciate that the majority leader has generously allowed me to go ahead and make my remarks because I have a meeting.

Having spent most of the past week in Kentucky, I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that the single most important issue to the people of my State is the fact that they are paying about twice as much for a gallon of gasoline as they were at this time last year. I am also fairly confident that Kentuckians aren't alone in their frustration. Gas prices are, without a doubt, the single most pressing issue for Americans at this moment. That is why it is so hard to comprehend the majority's decision to move to a bill at the start of the summer driving season that would raise the price of gas by as much as $1.40 a gallon, home electricity bills by 44 percent, and natural gas prices by about 20 percent.

Now, of all times, is not the time to be increasing the burden on American consumers. Now is the time to be considering overdue legislation that would send gas prices down, not up. Now is the time to be considering and approving legislation that would allow Americans to increase energy production within our own borders and to accelerate the process of moving to clean nuclear energy. Now is the time to do something about $4-a-gallon gasoline, not something that would give us $6-a-gallon gas down the road. So the timing of this bill could not be worse, and the substance is just as bad.

Let's be clear on something at the outset of this debate: The Senate supports reducing carbon emissions. Just last year, we took a serious bipartisan step to increase fuel economy standards in cars and trucks, increase the use of renewable fuels, and expand research into advanced technologies to reduce pollution and stress on our environment. But in everything we have done, we have kept a couple of nonnegotiable principles in mind: First, any legislation that reduces carbon emissions can't kill U.S. jobs, and second, any legislation in this area must promote--promote--innovation here at home.

This legislation fails both of those tests miserably. If passed, it would have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. It is at its heart a stealth and giant tax on virtually every aspect of industrial and consumer life. It would result in massive job losses. It seeks to radically alter consumer behavior without any measurable benefit to the environment in return. Overall, it is expected to result in GDP losses totaling as much as $2.9 trillion by 2050. If our economy were running on all cylinders, this bill would be terrible economically. At a time when the economy is struggling, when the price of gas, food, and power bills is skyrocketing, this giant tax would be an unbearable new burden for Americans to bear.

The Senate has already expressed its willingness to cut carbon emissions, and this Congress has acted in a bipartisan way to reduce greenhouse gases by tightening automobile fuel economy standards and by requiring increased use of alternative fuels in last year's Energy bill. But moving forward, we should agree, with gas prices as high as they are now, that any further action in this area must protect American consumers and American jobs. This means investing in new, clean energy technologies, including clean coal technologies, which can capture and store carbon emissions. This means encouraging the construction of new zero-emission nuclear powerplants and ensuring continued domestic sources of enriched uranium. It means developing countries must also participate, countries such as India and China, which already exceed the United States in greenhouse gas emissions.

Legislation that fails to address clean coal technologies would have a disproportionately negative economic impact on States such as Kentucky that rely on coal-fired powerplants. According to one study, this bill would eliminate nearly 55,000 jobs in my State alone and cost the average Kentucky household more than $6,000 a year. This is an unthinkable economic burden to lay on the citizens of my State, especially when developing nations such as India and China wouldn't be held to the same standards. The impact of this climate tax is too great to bear for Kentuckians and for the rest of the country.

At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills and when the price of gas seems to be rising higher and higher every day, the majority is showing itself to be laughably out of touch by moving to a bill that would raise the price of gas even higher.

This proposed climate tax legislation would be a bad idea even if its impact were beyond dispute. The fact that experts tell us its actual impact on reducing global temperatures is hardly measurable--and will be negligible if China and India do not approve similar measures--makes the wisdom of moving to it at this time even more questionable. Why would we raise the price of gas, the cost of electricity, the cost of food, and put the brakes on our economy when it will be all for nothing if China and India aren't willing to do the same? And who exactly expects these developing nations to take similar action to slow their economic growth and raise prices for their consumers? No one expects that. No one seriously anticipates that they will approve anything similar to this legislation, which means that for American consumers, the Boxer bill is all cost and no benefit.

There is a better way to move forward. Climate change is a serious issue, and we should continue taking action to address it, as we did in last year's Energy bill. But the way to proceed is to invest in clean energy technologies that allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming our economy, sending jobs overseas, and raising energy prices across the board for U.S. workers, families, farmers, and truckers. Republicans are eager to begin this debate, and we will have amendments that protect consumers from the price increases and job losses in the Boxer substitute.

Some of the problems with this bill have been explored in a number of excellent articles over the past few days. I note in particular an article by George Will entitled ``Carbon's Power Brokers''; an article by Charles Krauthammer entitled ``Carbon Chastity''; an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal entitled ``Cap and Spend''; a column by Robert Samuelson; and an article in today's New York Post by Jerry Taylor entitled ``Solving Pump Pain.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have all five articles printed in the Record at this point.

It is my expectation that once we get on the bill, the majority will allow for amendments, and I expect there will be a rather robust debate on the merits of this climate tax legislation. I know many of my Members are anxious to begin the debate.

Again, I thank the majority leader for the opportunity to go first today. I appreciate it very much.

If the majority leader would yield for a question.

Is the Senator suggesting we do the farm bill around 2?

That would be the last vote prior to--

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

Mr. President, in the final year of President Clinton's final Congress, two of his circuit court nominees, Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, were pending in the Judiciary Committee. Frankly, they were quite controversial. For example, Judge Paez had openly defended judicial activism. He said if the Democratic branch has

failed to act on a political matter, it was incumbent on judges to do so, even if the matter properly belonged to the legislature.

Not surprisingly, conservative groups and many Republican Senators opposed the Paez and Berzon nominations. The Chamber of Commerce, a business association, not an ideological group, was so troubled by the prospect of Judge Paez's confirmation that it broke its policy of staying out of nomination disputes and opposed his nomination.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the release by the Chamber of Commerce opposing Judge Paez.

The California Senators, to their credit, were tireless advocates for Judge Paez and Judge Berzon. Their nominations became the California Senators' cause, and their ultimate confirmations were due to our colleagues' tireless advocacy.

Their confirmations, though, were also due to then-Majority leader Trent Lott ensuring that his commitment regarding the Paez and Berzon nominations was, in fact, kept. On November 10, 1999, Majority Leader Lott placed a colloquy between himself and then-Democratic Leader Daschle in the Congressional Record. In it, Senator Lott committed to proceed to Paez and Berzon by March 15 of the following year, which of course was a Presidential election year, as this year is.

Majority Leader Lott also stated he did not believe that filibusters of judicial nominations are appropriate, and that if they were to occur, he would file cloture on their nominations and he would himself support cloture if necessary.

He noted then-Judiciary Chairman Hatch was consulted on that commitment. Given that many in our conference and over 300 groups opposed those nominations, it would have been easier in many respects for Senator Lott not to fulfill his commitment. He could have taken a hands-off approach, shrugged his shoulders, put the onus on Chairman Hatch to make good on the majority leader's commitment. After all, Senator Lott was not the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Hatch was. He could simply have said he did not control what happened in the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Hatch did. But Senator Lott understood that commitments in this body are not to be taken lightly, especially when they are made by the majority leader himself.

So true to his word, Majority Leader Lott worked to ensure that his commitment was kept. The Paez and Berzon nominations were reported out of the committee. The majority leader, Senator Lott, filed cloture on both. On March 8, 2000, a week ahead of schedule, he and I and Chairman Hatch and a supermajority of the Republican conference voted to give Judges Paez and Berzon an up-or-down vote.

Most of those Republicans, myself included, then voted against them because of concerns about their records. But Judges Paez and Berzon were then, of course, confirmed and have been sitting on the Ninth Circuit for 8 years because Senator Lott honored his commitment.

Unfortunately, a similar commitment made to my conference was not honored today. Last month, my good friend from Nevada, the majority leader, acknowledged that the Democratic majority needed ``to make more progress on'' circuit court nominations.

To that end, he committed to do his ``utmost;'' ``to do everything'' possible; to do ``everything within [his] power to get three [more] judges approved to our circuit [courts] before the Memorial Day recess.''

``Who knows,'' he even suggested, ``we may even get lucky and get more than that [because] we have a number of people from whom to choose.''

True, the majority leader gave himself an out. He could not ``guarantee'' his commitment because ``a lot of things can happen in the Senate.'' But when the Senate majority leader commits to do everything in his power to honor a commitment, that should mean choosing a path that likely will yield a result.

Well, today we learned we are not going to get three more circuit court confirmations by the Memorial Day recess, let alone the four or more the majority leader thought might be possible. No, we are going to get one. Only one.

Given my friend's clear commitment and the numerous nominees the Democratic majority had to choose from, the question my Republican colleagues and I are asking is this: Did the majority do its ``utmost''? Did it do ``everything'' possible? Did it do ``everything within [its] power''?

In fact, we are asking did it do anything at all to realistically ensure the commitment would be kept?

When my friend made his commitment, he noted that we had circuit court nominees from all over the country in the Judiciary Committee who could be processed. He listed the States they were from. Most have been pending for a long time, and the Judiciary Committee has had ample time to study their records. Indeed, some have already had hearings; others have already been favorably reported by the committee to other important positions. These nominees were, in effect, on the two-yard line, and could easily have been picked and confirmed.

People like Peter Keisler; he has been pending for almost 700 days. He has had a hearing. He has been rated unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association. He has earned accolades from Republicans and Democrats alike, including an endorsement from the Washington Post. His paperwork is complete, and he is ready to go.

Or people like Chief Judge Robert Conrad; he has been pending for over 300 days. The Senate has already confirmed him, on two separate occasions, to important Federal legal positions, first as the chief Federal law enforcement officer in North Carolina and then to a life- time position on the Federal trial bench. He, too, has received the ABA's highest rating, and has earned praise from Republicans and Democrats alike. He has the strong support of both home-State senators and is ready for a vote.

During our colloquy, my friend did not reference the nomination of Michigan State Judge Helene White as an option. That is because her nomination to the Sixth Circuit did not yet exist. It wasn't here. It arrived here later that day, at which point there were only 5\1/2\ weeks until the Memorial Day recess. Or, put another way, her nomination arrived 700 days after Mr. Keisler's, 300 days after Judge Conrad's.

Thirty-five days is not much time to process a nominee who, by her own admission, has participated in 4,500 cases, half of which are completely new since her last nomination. Indeed, the average time for confirming a judicial nominee in this administration is 162 days. The majority decided to try to

run Judge White through the process in just 35 days. It scheduled a hearing for her that was only 22 days after her nomination. I respect the abilities of members on the Judiciary Committee, but even they cannot review 4,500 cases in 22 days.

In addition, when the majority scheduled her hearing, the ink was barely dry on the FBI's background investigation, which had come up only the day before, and the committee had yet to receive her ABA report. In fact, today as I speak, it still is not here.

This matters because Chairman Leahy has made it abundantly clear that the receipt of the ABA report is a precondition for him to allow a vote on a judicial nominee, saying: ``Here is the bottom line. . . . There will be an ABA background check before there is a vote.'' He reiterated that his rule will be observed with respect to the White nomination.

So to honor the majority leader's commitment, did our Democratic colleagues choose someone whom the committee had ample time to vet, whose paperwork has been done for a long time, and who, in the case of Judge Conrad, the Senate had already confirmed--twice? No, they decided to rush through Judge White, someone whom several members of the committee are completely unfamiliar with, and whose record for most of the last decade the entire committee is completely unfamiliar with, including thousands of her cases.

In essence, the majority decided to throw a confirmation ``hail Mary'' to satisfy its own Democratic membership, instead of taking a bi-partisan path that had every indication of success and would have fulfilled the commitment, like finally processing Mr. Keisler or Judge Conrad.

If the majority were serious about keeping its commitment all this should have been avoided. My friend from Nevada has said he consulted fully with Chairman Leahy before making his commitment. Chairman Leahy has been the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee for over a decade. He, perhaps more than anyone, is aware of the logistical requirements for processing nominees.

We assume he would have advised the majority leader of the near- certain impossibility of confirming Judge White in time to keep the commitment. Even if he didn't, the ranking member and I did just that almost a month ago, when we wrote to him and the Chairman, expressing our serious concerns about this very situation arising.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

The reasons for our concern a month ago have proven to be correct. Anyone could have seen this problem coming--anyone, except evidently, our Democratic colleagues who must have chosen not to.

Which brings me back to the question I and my Republican colleagues are asking: Is it consistent with a commitment to do ``everything within your power'' to confirm three more circuit nominees by Memorial Day, to then choose the one nominee who, for logistical reasons alone, is the least likely to be confirmed in time to keep the commitment? Mr. President, chasing the impossible, and then blaming others or expressing surprise when it eludes your grasp is not a good excuse, and will be remembered for a long, long time.

So today is a sad and sobering day for me and my colleagues. There are now well-founded questions on our side about the majority's stated desire to treat nominees fairly and to improve the confirmation process. And there is frustration that will manifest itself in the coming days, and will persist until we get credible evidence that the majority will respect minority rights and treat judicial nominees fairly.

Mr. President, in observance of Memorial Day this year, I had the distinct honor of meeting a group of World War II veterans from Kentucky who had traveled to our Nation's Capital to see the World War II Memorial. A couple of the veterans, by the way, told me this was their first trip to Washington.

This memorial, completed in 2004, is a fitting tribute to the millions of Americans--some who returned home, some who did not--who put on their country's uniform to fight the greatest and most destructive war the world

had ever seen. The awe the memorial inspires reminds us all why this group of patriots is called the ``greatest generation.''

The 35 Kentucky World War II veterans I met were able to travel to Washington thanks to the nonprofit organization Honor Flight, which transports World War II veterans from anywhere in the country to see their memorial, free of charge. Many veterans, for physical or financial reasons, are unable to make the trip on their own, and so without Honor Flight they would not get the chance to visit the memorial created for them and their fellow fighters at all.

About 36,500 World War II veterans live in Kentucky today, with about 2.5 million throughout the country. Unfortunately, that number shrinks each day as time advances for these brave warriors. Honor Flight and its volunteers, many of whom are veterans themselves, are doing a great service for our Nation by making it possible for these veterans to make this important trip.

So this Memorial Day, I hope everyone says thank you to a man or woman who wore the uniform. We should remember the bravery of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. And while most of us will never know the heroism shown by the World War II veterans I was privileged to meet, we can marvel at the courage shown every day by our current generation of heroes serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I mentioned to the veterans from Kentucky yesterday my own father who served in Europe during World War II, who arrived after the Battle of the Bulge and was in the conflict from about March of 1945 forward, until he met with the Russians at Pilsen, which I believe is now in the Czech Republic. I mentioned to them that I have a letter he wrote to my mother. There were a number of letters, but this particular one is etched in my memory because it is dated May 8, 1945.

Underneath the date he wrote ``V-E Day,'' so they were calling it Victory in Europe Day even then. He had seen some very severe fighting and lost a great many of his company, and one could sense the elation in his voice that the conflict was now ended.

But then there was a subsequent letter I thought was quite prophetic, particularly for a regular foot soldier who was not an officer. He had a chance to interact with some of the Russians because they met the Russians in Pilsen. He said to my mother: I think the Russians are going to be a big problem down the way.

So it was interesting that there was this sense, even to the foot soldiers, that our alliance with the Soviet Union was a short-term marriage of convenience and might subsequently be a big problem down the road. Of course, his prophecy was proven accurate.

While in Pilsen, he got a chance to befriend some Czechs, and I have some letters that were exchanged with friends from what was then Czechoslovakia. He told me that all of those letters stopped a couple years later when the Iron Curtain descended across Europe and he was unable to communicate further with any of the Czech friends he made. I share that story of my own father on Memorial Day for my colleagues.

In closing, I would mention that the particular flight from Kentucky yesterday was dedicated to the memory of John Polivka, who had planned to be on the trip. He was a World War II veteran who planned to be on the trip but who passed away on Monday, May 19, just this week. So the veterans dedicated their Honor Flight to Washington to their colleague whom they had hoped would be able to join them. Even though there was great sadness over his loss, there was great joy in being able to witness the World War II Memorial which symbolizes their extraordinary contribution to our country.

I ask unanimous consent that names of the World War II veterans who were here this week be printed in the Record.

I conclude by saying they were indeed the best of the ``greatest generation.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me say to my good friend, the majority leader, we would be happy to work out a process by which we could have the debate on the budget today. We would even be prepared to have the vote on the budget today, but I understand that is problematic.

Well, that is something we could probably work toward, yes.

Mr. President, with regard to the budget, we have our differences in the Senate, but there are a few ideas that have wide bipartisan agreement. One is we need to rein in Federal spending, and another is we need to do our part to ensure that middle-class families keep more of the money they earn.

But the Democrats' latest budget shows we have a very different view of what these ideas mean. Our friends on the other side said they wanted to raise taxes on the rich and keep taxes low for working families. But this budget would provide for the average family a tax hike of $2,300 on people earning as little as $31,000 a year and couples making $63,000 a year. For a little perspective, first year schoolteachers in my hometown earn $35,982, and I do not think they consider themselves rich.

With rising gas prices and economic concerns, middle-class families are tightening their belts. Yet this budget would take more money out of the paychecks of these families to fill the Government's coffers. At a time when all Americans are watching their spending, shouldn't Washington be doing the same?

Not according to this budget, which does nothing to address entitlement spending and sets a new record--a new record--for nonemergency spending, topping the $1 trillion mark for the first time in American history. That is not a record I think we should be welcoming.

So I am a little confused as to why this budget is at odds with the Democrats' promise of keeping taxes low for working families and putting a stop to wasteful Washington spending.

It seems to me, if Congress was serious about letting Americans keep more of the money they earn, we would make tax relief permanent. If we were serious about reining in spending, we would pass a budget that calls for responsible growth. Instead, we are on the verge of passing a budget that goes in the opposite direction, contains the largest tax hike in U.S. history, and sets a new record for spending.

American families cannot afford this budget, American job creators cannot afford this budget, and our economy cannot afford this budget. I urge all of our colleagues to protect the American family's budget by voting against this budget when we have an opportunity to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to rise today to speak on the life and legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson. He served his country as a teacher, naval officer, Congressman, Senator, Vice President, and finally President of the United States. In every stop along the way of his storied career, he blazed new boundaries of the possible in American politics.

When Lyndon Johnson first came to this body in January 1949, he was teased by his fellow Senators with the nickname ``Landslide Lyndon,'' due to his victory in the Texas senatorial primary election by just 87 votes. Within a few years he had taken the fastest path to being elected a floor leader in Senate history.

Johnson went on to serve as both minority leader and majority leader during the 8 years of the Eisenhower administration, and shaped legislation dealing with the Cold War, agriculture, labor and civil rights.

Lyndon Johnson showed the same compassion and courtesy to the Texas rancher or the destitute living in America's deepest pockets of poverty as he did to the powerful and the mighty. In fact, through his generosity of spirit, he made a friend out of one special Pakistani camel-cart driver.

Some of my colleagues who are old enough may remember that in 1961, as Vice President, Johnson toured the country of Pakistan and at one point stopped to meet an illiterate camel-cart driver named Bashir Ahmad.

Still displaying his Texan manners half a world away, the Vice President told the man, ``You all come to Washington and see us sometime.'' Imagine his surprise when Bashir Ahmad decided to take him up on his request.

But the quick-thinking Johnson turned his unexpected guest's visit into a boon for American-Pakistani relations. He met Ahmad personally at the airport, to see the man at the end of his first-ever jet plane ride.

Johnson treated his guest to a barbecue at the LBJ ranch in Texas, enabled him to step onto the floor of this U.S. Senate, and arranged for his visit to the Lincoln Memorial.

He even brought together the camel-cart driver and the former U.S. President, Harry Truman, who was so taken with Ahmad's eloquence that he referred to the Pakistani visitor as ``His Excellency.''

The final Johnson touch came just as Bashir Ahmad was about to board his plane for the ride home back to Pakistan. He opened a telegram from the Vice President which read: ``Since your return to Pakistan takes you so close to Mecca, arrangements have been made . . . for you to visit there.''

This was just one example of many of the canny Texan's consummate political skills.

Now just like Bashir Ahmad, I had the honor of being in Lyndon Johnson's presence once, and for a very momentous occasion. In August 1965, I came here, to our Nation's Capitol, to visit Senator John Sherman Cooper.

In 1964, after receiving my undergraduate degree from the University of Louisville, I worked as an intern for Senator Cooper and watched up close as he applied his wisdom and experience to the issues that gripped Kentucky and the Nation in the 1960s.

After completing my first year in law school, I came back to Washington to visit the Senator who had become my mentor and friend.

I was waiting to see Senator Cooper in his outer office when suddenly he emerged and motioned for me to follow him. We walked together from his office in Russell 125 to the Capitol Rotunda, where I saw more people, and more security, than I had ever seen before.

Then Senator Cooper told me what was happening: President Johnson was about to sign the Voting Rights Act, an act that was the culmination of Lyndon Johnson's years of effort in support of civil rights that had begun when he still served in the Senate.

Soon enough, the President emerged. Every good biography of President Johnson describes him as a larger- than-life man, with an imposing physical presence. Let me testify right now, from personal experience, that they are correct.

President Johnson seemed to tower a head taller than anyone else in the room. He was a commanding figure that immediately filled the Rotunda.

A journalist once described a typical Lyndon Johnson entrance as ``the Western movie barging into the room''--it's hard to put it better than that.

I was overwhelmed to witness such a moment in history. As he was about to sign the legislation that he would later point to as his greatest accomplishment, President Johnson said, ``Today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any

victory that has ever been won on any battlefield.''

Although I am sure that if my good friend Phil Gramm, the former Senator from LBJ's own Lone Star State, were here, he would add one more honor that ranked above all the rest: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Texan.

Today this U.S. Senate recognizes the legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson and his many achievements. I join with my colleagues today in asking all Americans to celebrate the Lyndon B. Johnson Centennial.

Mr. President, the supplemental spending request that was sent to Congress last year by the President was unambiguous: the funds were to be spent on forces in the field, on the men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on their families here at home.

Last week, the Democratic leadership of the House showed us what they thought of that request. They took it up, hollowed it out, and filled the shell with a raft of unrelated domestic spending projects and policy proposals that did not include a dime for the troops in the field. House Democrats took a request meant for the troops and used it to fuel their own domestic spending habits. Then they sent this piece of legislation over to the Senate on the eve of Memorial Day and told us to vote for it. The Senate was being asked to vote not on troop funding but on two other amendments. One included unemployment benefits and a Medicaid proposal. The other sought to undermine the constitutional powers of the Commander in Chief by proposing a withdrawal date from Iraq.

Unfortunately, our Democratic friends in the Senate made it even worse. Taking up what they got from the House, they added even more unrelated policy proposals. In the name of combat readiness, Senate Democrats also sought to restrict the ability of our military commanders to deploy forces, ignoring the fact that the surest way to degrade troop readiness is to delay the delivery of funds that are used to prepare and train our forces in the first place.

Taken together, it seems the only issue unaddressed by the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate is the only one that matters: how and when we will fund our forces in the field.

The bottom line is this: Tasked with the responsibility of funding our forces in the field, Democrats in the House and Senate neglected that task in favor of domestic spending and freelance policy proposals that we know in the end will not be signed into law--this despite the fact that the House will soon take up the Defense authorization bill, which is ordinarily the vehicle for the kind of policy proposals our friends on the other side have included in the supplemental spending request. The House has failed in its basic responsibility. It is my hope the Senate will do better.

While some of our friends on the other side seem to be counting on the fact that most Americans are distracted by the ongoing Presidential contest, the families and friends of U.S. soldiers and marines who are fighting overseas are, indeed, paying attention.

The President sent a request to fund these men and women. As long as they remain in harm's way, we have a strict obligation to give them what they need. On this point, there really should not even be a debate. The Senate must pass a bill funding our troops free of restrictions on their ability to win and free of spending unrelated to their mission. And we must try to do it by Memorial Day. In less than a month, the Defense Department will be unable to make payroll for our uniformed Army unless Congress approves the President's supplemental spending request. Less than a month after that, funds for operations and maintenance will also run dry. It may be convenient for those focused on the political calendar to ignore these pressing needs, but ignoring them really does not make them go away.

I hope the Senate will do its duty this week. The majority leader just indicated it is challenging. Of course, it is always challenging to do that. But we need to do our duty this week. Our forces in Baghdad and Ramadi will not be taking a week off for a recess.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one additional word. The process for doing this has been offensive, I know, both in the House and in the Senate. It is my understanding that what will happen later this week is the tree will be filled and cloture will be filed. If any amendments are allowed on the floor of the Senate, it will be because my good friend, the majority leader, decided to let us have a vote. The whole process is one that doesn't immediately engender a great level of cooperation.

Having said that, the underlying legislation is important, and hopefully somehow we will find our way through this process this week, but I think it is pretty safe to say that 49 Republicans of the U.S. Senate are going to insist on being an important part of the process. Hopefully, we will be able to sort all that out and work our way through it and get this important piece of legislation out of the Senate and on the way, at least, back to the House or, hopefully, if we are lucky, back to the President for signature.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Republican conference, at noon today, paused for a prayer for our friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. As the majority leader has indicated, we are, in spite of our political differences, one large family.

Senator Kennedy enjoys great respect and admiration on this side of the aisle. He is, indeed, one of the most important figures to ever serve in this body in our history, and Republican Senators recognize that as well.

On a personal basis, he came down to the University of Louisville, at my request, a couple years ago to speak to students and the general public on the campus. It was a speech of Presidential quality. He knew I had been an intern in the office of Senator John Sherman Cooper, who represented my State in the Senate for almost 20 years and who was a fast friend of his brother, President Kennedy, and of his. He brought down with him to U of L that day a framed picture of his brother with Senator Cooper, carefully inscribed at the bottom with the most appropriate inscription you can imagine. He did not miss a thing.

Our prayers go out to Vicki and to the family.

On behalf of every member of the Republican conference of the Senate, I say to you, Ted, you enjoy our admiration and our respect, and our wishes for a speedy recovery.

I yield the floor.