Floor Statements

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the conference report to accompany the Agriculture appropriations bill; provided further that following the completion of that debate it be laid aside, that the vote occur on adoption of the conference report tomorrow morning immediately following the remarks of the two leaders.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we now have 2 hours equally divided to discuss the conference report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the following Senators on our side be allowed to speak on the conference report: Senator Burns for up to 15 minutes; Senators Enzi, Craig, and Thomas for up to 10 minutes each; Senator Thune for up to 7 minutes; and Senator Cornyn for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, that is my understanding. This is the reservation of time on my side so that Senators will know the time is reserved for them, and if one Senator might otherwise be tempted to run on, the order can be called so that every Senator will have his right for speaking reserved. It does anticipate time will go back and forth between the two sides.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the conference report to accompany H.R. 2744, which provides funds for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for fiscal year 2006.

I will mention a few highlights of the bill to demonstrate why it benefits not just farmers and ranchers but every constituent of the Members of the Senate.

On nutrition, this bill provides for more than $12.6 billion in child nutrition programs, $5.2 billion for the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, and nearly $108.3 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

I know particularly in response to Katrina that there has been great concern about WIC in the country as a whole. This bill funds WIC.

For the farmers, ranchers, and conservation, there is more than $2 billion in farm ownership and operating loans, $840 million for conservation operations, and more than $1 billion total for all USDA conservation programs.

For those of us who are concerned about research, there is more than $2.5 billion for research on nutrition, crop and animal production, bioenergy, genetics, and food safety.

There is funding for cooperative research with agriculture and forestry schools in every State and with Native Americans, Hispanic, and historically Black centers of learning, and extension programs that teach nutrition in low-income communities.

In pest and disease control, there is more than $820 million to protect American agriculture, forests, and horticulture from plant and animal diseases.

For those interested in rural development, the bill provides for nearly $5 billion in single and multifamily housing in rural areas, and more than $6 billion in electric and telecommunications loans.

Turning to the Food and Drug Administration, there is a $62 million increase over fiscal year 2005, with key increases of $10 million for drug safety, $7.8 million for medical device review, and $10 million for food safety. Overall, however, the spending level remains consistent with the previous year and does not represent for the entire bill a major spending increase.

I ask for the support of all Senators for this conference report.

I reserve whatever time may be left after the Senators have exercised their rights.

Mr. President, I have listened to this debate with interest. There are a few things perhaps to get on the record so we have it clear if someone wishes to go back in historic fashion and look at all this and say what really happened. I would like to make a few comments to that extent with respect to country-of-origin labeling.

Conferences are for the purpose of resolving differences. The Senate had no statement at all with respect to country-of-origin labeling, so the Senate bill would have allowed the law to go forward in the way that many of the speakers here tonight have asked. The House bill would have killed it--not delayed it, killed it. The House voted overwhelmingly to eliminate country-of-origin labeling.

We had to come up with a compromise. We could either have the Senate position--that it goes forward--we could have the House position--that it dies--or we could have something in between. In the spirit of most conferences, we came up with something in between.

We have not killed the program in this conference report. We have delayed the implementation. So the Senate did not get what it wanted, which was full speed ahead. The House did not get what it wanted, which was to kill the program. We have a compromise.

I think we should understand that so those who say, We caved in to the House, the House did it to us, without any consultation or conference with the Senate--well, understand that is not true. We arrived at a compromise between two very different positions. It does not satisfy the people in the Senate, and it probably does not satisfy the people in the House.

Now, I will say from a personal point of view, I am getting tired of this debate. It came up when I became chairman of the subcommittee the first time. We have had to deal with it several times now. I think this is an issue that should be resolved in the authorizing committee. I think the authorizers should come to the conclusion it is a good idea and we should go ahead with it or they should come to the conclusion we made a mistake in the farm bill and we should kill it. They should not ask us in the appropriations process to make the decision that the authorizers need to make.

The point has been made here that the date we set on this, with this compromise between the House and the Senate, carries to a point beyond the expiration of the current farm bill. That is true. That means the authorizers will have an opportunity, before we visit this issue again on the Appropriations Committee, to make their decision. The authorizers will have an opportunity to either re-endorse the idea or to kill it.

So I say to those who feel so strongly on both sides: Talk to the authorizers when it comes up in the farm bill and make the decision--do we really want to go ahead with this or do we really want to kill it?-- and not ask those of us in the appropriations conference to have to deal with it. Get it off our plate and put it in the place where it belongs.

I make one other comment. As I have looked at the issue, I find myself on the side of those who think it is a mistake. I have no pressure from consumers who want a label on meat that says where it comes from. I do not think they would pay that much attention to it. The history of country-of-origin labeling for virtually every other product is that consumers are mildly interested but that it does not significantly affect their purchasing.

If someone really believes this would make meat more attractive to customers, he or she has the opportunity to put that label on right now. A voluntary program would make it available everywhere. But if someone wants to promote Iowa beef, they have the opportunity right now as a marketing device to say, This is Iowa beef, without having to go through all of the regulatory requirements that are connected with this law.

So once again, this is an issue that the authorizers should look at. This is an issue that those of us who have been forced to deal with it are tired of. We hope this is the last time we will have to deal with it in an appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me from the USDA Acting General Counsel regarding sections 794 and 798 of the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the conference report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 295, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 296, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 297, submitted early today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Thursday, November 3; I further ask that following the morning 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 then proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany the Agriculture appropriations bill; I further ask that upon disposition of the conference report, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will complete action on S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. There are currently 16 amendments in the queue, and the first vote in the series will occur on the Agriculture appropriations conference report, as noted. We will begin voting shortly after 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, and Senators should plan on staying in and around the Chamber throughout the day tomorrow. We will have at least 17 back-to-back votes.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the time allocated to the Senator from Oregon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, most of the speakers who have discussed this subject have talked about Judge Roberts' qualification. There is no point in my referring to them or repeating them again.

There is a point that I do wish to make with respect to the entire process, which I think needs to be emphasized and stressed. It is this: Nominations are not elections.

Read the Constitution, and we see that it allows for elections. It provides for elections. It says there are places where elections are appropriate. The President is elected. The Vice President is elected. The Members of the Senate and House are elected. But members of the Cabinet are not; they are appointed by the President. And to allow the election process to have an influence, they have to be confirmed by the Senate. But they are not elections.

The same thing is true very much with respect to the judicial branch. A nomination for the Supreme Court is not an election.

The reason I make such stress of that is because there are many groups out there who think this is an election. There are big ads on television. They are organizing demonstrations. They are walking around with placards. That is what you do when you try to influence voters in an election. This is not an election. The Founding Fathers understood that it should not be an election.

There are some who have made up their minds long in advance of any nomination as to what they are going to do. I think, quite frankly, if President Bush were to somehow resurrect John Marshall and send his name to the Senate to be the Chief Justice of the United States, People For the American Way and Ralph Neas would insist that he was badly out of the mainstream and unqualified to be Chief Justice, even though history says he was the greatest Chief Justice in our history. But if he were picked by George W. Bush, that group would immediately say he is radical, he is out of the mainstream.

We are getting the same thing with respect to Judge Roberts--an election

campaign complete with television ads and placards and demonstrations saying that Judge Roberts is out of the mainstream.

I do not know where you go to find mainstream today. I do not know exactly where the mainstream is. I know where the left bank of this particular stream is. The New York Times is against Judge Roberts. That was predictable. That was as sure as the Sun would rise--that the New York Times would be opposed to anybody George W. Bush proposed.

The Washington Post is usually thought of as being fairly close to the left bank, but the Washington Post looked at this nominee and said this is a qualified nominee.

The American Bar Association tries to be as much of the mainstream as they can. They have given Judge Roberts' nomination their highest support, ``well qualified,'' unanimously. Maybe they are not mainstream enough for some of these people who are using this argument.

The Los Angeles Times is not thought of as a rightwing organization. The Los Angeles Times said it would be a travesty if we didn't confirm Judge Roberts by a wide margin.

Why do we want to confirm somebody like Judge Roberts? Why is the President's nomination a good one? In my view, it is because Judge Roberts understands one fundamental truth. Along with the one I have just given, a second fundamental truth, if you will, is that nominations are not elections and judges are not politicians, or more appropriately judges are not legislators. You have elections for legislators. You should not have elections for judges.

Judge Roberts put it this way in describing his understanding of his responsibility. We have heard this before with respect to this nominee, but it is worth repeating. He said to the committee:

I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no

platform.

Again, judges are not legislators.

Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain

things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda but I do have

a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case

with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal

arguments that are presented. I will be open to the

considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will

decide every case based on the record, according to the rule

of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. I

will remember that it is my job to call balls and strikes and

not to pitch or bat.

In other words, he is the umpire, he is not a player. We have seen an example brought up in an effort to try to derail Judge Roberts' nomination of how he called ``balls and strikes'' and how he was not a legislator. It has been dropped now because those people who raised it didn't realize that it was going to be analyzed properly and turn out to be embarrassing to them rather than to the judge.

But there was the case of the 12-year-old girl in Washington who, while waiting with her friend at the Metro station to buy a Metro ticket, happened to eat a single french fry, and she was arrested, handcuffed, and taken down to the station. Judge Roberts upheld the action of the Metro Police.

Horrors, came the groups. There is an election. We can grab onto this as an example that we can sensationalize and win votes on. Then they examined the matter very carefully, and we got Judge Roberts' actual opinion in this case. He did not victimize a 12-year-old girl who was arrested for eating a french fry. This is what he said in his opinion that once again outlines the truth of his position that he will be an umpire, not a player, not a legislator.

He said:

No one is very happy about the events that led to this

litigation. A 12-year-old girl was arrested, searched and

handcuffed, all for eating a single french fry in a Metro

rail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and

crying throughout the ordeal. The District Court described

the policies that led to her arrest as ``foolish,'' and,

indeed, the policies were changed after those responsible

endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make

young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not

whether these policies were a bad idea but whether they

violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

He put the emphasis in the right place. This was a stupid law. It was passed for some other reason and turned out in administration to be a stupid law. It was passed by legislators, people with legislative responsibility. It was repealed by legislators. It should not be repealed by the judge just because it is stupid.

I remember a conversation that took place after the Supreme Court ruled on the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It is no secret that I opposed that act as vigorously as I could. We passed it nonetheless. The President signed it. Then a lawsuit was filed. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the law was constitutional and upheld it.

I will not reveal names because these were private conversations, but a Member of the Senate had the occasion to have a conversation with a member of the Supreme Court. The Member of the Senate said to the member of the Supreme Court: How could you uphold that law? That is a terrible law.

The member of the Supreme Court appropriately said: You are right. It is a terrible law. You shouldn't have passed it.

In other words, the Supreme Court should not be the one that corrects our mistakes unless we violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court should not take a position unless we violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not made up of legislators who fix things; it should be made up of people who examine the law.

Even if the law is foolish enough to punish a 12-year-old girl for eating a french fry on the Metro, the Supreme Court should say: Legislators, this is a dumb law. You ought to fix it. But it is not our responsibility to legislate.

The real reason so many groups have tried to turn Judge Roberts' nomination into an election rather than a nomination is because they lost the election and they are hoping they can turn the Supreme Court into a superlegislature that is beyond the reach of voters. Clearly, that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Clearly, when they put the responsibility to make the choice in the hands of the President, they were saying this will be a nomination and not an election. If the Founding Fathers had wanted the Supreme Court at the national level to be open to the electoral process, they would have done what others have done at the State level. There are States where the appointment to the supreme court of the State is an electoral process. Whether that is good or bad is the subject for another conversation. But in this circumstance, we are talking about the U.S. Constitution, which every Member of this Chamber has taken an oath to uphold.

If we are going to uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend it against all enemies who would undermine it, be they foreign or domestic, we should preserve the constitutional process of nominations coming from the President of the United States. He has to answer to the people for his decisions. He should be the one to make the nomination. He is the one who is given the powers specifically.

We can say, Mr. President, we don't consent to that because we think you made a mistake, but we in the Senate should not condone those who are trying to turn the nomination process into an electoral process. Because we should understand as Members of the legislature that members of the judiciary are not legislators, and we should not move in a direction of turning them into legislators by participating in an election-type process in vetting their credentials. If this man is qualified, he should be confirmed. If he is unpopular with the electorate, that should be irrelevant. The Constitution does not allow for that to intrude upon the confirmation process.

There is no question but that John Roberts is qualified.

I end with a conversation I had with one of my colleagues who made up his mind to oppose Judge Roberts. I said to him: In a theoretical situation, suppose you had everything you own on the line in a nasty lawsuit, and you had a legal problem where you could lose everything. Who would you choose to defend you? Which lawyer would you hire, John Roberts or a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee? He laughed immediately. He said: Bob, it isn't even close. If John Roberts is the obvious choice for a personal attorney for someone who needs real help, why should he not be the obvious choice for the Nation that needs real help?

He will be a superb Chief Justice, and I will vote for him with great confidence.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a son of Utah and a good friend, Mr. Harris H. Simmons, who today, by the selection of his peers, becomes the next chairman of the American Bankers Association. I am honored to highlight a few of his accomplishments, including his significant contributions to the banking world and to the State of Utah.

Mr. Simmons is currently the chairman, president and CEO of Zions Bancorporation. With its corporate offices in Salt Lake City, UT, Zions operates in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington. It is included in the S&P 500 Index, and is a national leader in Small Business Administration lending.

Harris started banking at the age of 16, when as a summer job he filed canceled checks at Zions. He continued his work at Zions in the investment department as he studied economics at the University of Utah. Harris then left Utah for a period as he furthered his studies and received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

Upon graduating, Harris took a job in Houston, TX for Allied Bancshares. After a year and a half, he returned to Zions and became the chief financial officer at the age of only 27. Nine years later he was named president and CEO of the multibillion-dollar asset bank holding company which has seen fantastic growth and success as it has helped build communities and business under his leadership.

In addition to his professional accomplishments, Harris has been an invaluable member of the Utah community. He has served as president of the Utah Foundation, chairman of the Utah Symphony, and chairman of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah. He currently serves as president of the Shelter-the-Homeless Committee, as well as cochairman of the Utah Committee of the Newcomen Society of the United States. Most importantly, he is a loving husband and father of four.

This is but a small glimpse of Harris Simmons' contributions and accomplishments. I commend him to my colleagues as they have the opportunity to meet with him as he serves in his new role with the American Bankers Association. The American Bankers Association is privileged to have Harris Simmons as its new chairman.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaty on today's Executive Calendar: No. 1. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having passed through its various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification, that any committee conditions, declarations, or reservations be agreed to as applicable, that any statements be printed in the Record, and that at 5:30 today the Senate vote on the resolution of ratification; further that when the resolution of ratification is voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the President be notified of the Senate's action.

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