Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I understand. We were told that the presentation of that was going to be 5 minutes, and we were going to move to that amendment. That has not quite happened. I wonder when we might expect to move to this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, is it not the case that the majority last year passed a tax plan that had the following rather comical circumstance: It said we will sequentially increase the exemption on the estate tax to the point where in 2010 it is repealed, but in the year 2011 it actually comes back again? And if that is the case--I believe it is--I think historians will look back at this and say, well, who on Earth could have thought of that? Well, they thought of it, all right. That is what they put in the tax bill. Now, if that is the case, isn't it also the case that the amendment being offered today says let's make it even more farcical: Let's decide we will increase the exemption up until 2009, and we will have a 2-year repeal of the estate tax, to have it come back in 2011? We laughed a little last year about estate planning. There are going to be a lot of people on life support in 2009 because they have to wait until 2010 to die to get the total exemption, total repeal that was offered by the majority party. Now they are going to offer a 2-year window for death, apparently, and then the estate tax comes back in 2011. It is the most Byzantine, preposterous amount of nonsense. You would not put 10 people in a room with a six-pack of beer and come out with a worse result than they came out with last year on this estate tax issue. But to get back on the final point, it was passed as a repeal of the death tax when, in fact, there is no tax on death. There is a tax on inherited wealth. I ask my colleague, isn't the remaining question for this Senate, do we want to have some basic taxation on the largest estates--on the largest estates--of $1 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion, many of which have never been subjected to any kind of a tax because they were built with inside buildup and built with growth appreciation and have never been subjected to tax? Is the final argument, final debate, and final question, do we want to retain at least some basis of an estate tax for the very largest estates?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Stabenow, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. I say to my colleague, Senator Conrad, I am unfamiliar with this notion of a tax on death. My colleague from Arizona spoke at length about the death tax. I am wondering, would it not be true that should a Member of the Senate, perhaps a married Member of the Senate, die, God forbid, in the coming week or so, that the spouse of that Member of the Senate would inherit, would have all of their property immediately with the spousal exemption, so that death would incur no tax, there would be no tax? So if there is a death in which there is no tax--which is the case with respect to the spouses, a 100-percent exemption--and all the property goes to the spouse, with no tax consequence, then exactly what is the death tax the Senator from Arizona is referring to? Is it, in fact, the tax on inherited wealth that exists in our law? And if it is on inherited wealth, of course, that is a different discussion which we should have. But if it is the death tax--which is a term that was created by pollsters to evoke a certain response--is it not the case that there is not a tax on death, that many deaths in this country means the estate is probated, and all of the assets of that estate go immediately to the spouse, with no tax under any circumstances? Is that not the case?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I, of course, think the response by the majority leader is perfectly appropriate. We do want to finish this bill. We ought to make progress and try and get it done. My only inquiry was if there is military action and if, in fact, our soldiers are in the field in hostile action, I agree with my colleague, Senator Conrad, that I would not want us to be going through a vote-arama for 6, 8, 10, 12 hours with business as usual. I would very much want us, and I think most Members of the Senate would want us, to move off what we are doing and recognize that this Senate will want to express itself on these issues, not to be critical but I think to be supportive, supportive of our troops and supportive of this country's interests. We want this to go well and we want to express ourselves on it. I am satisfied with the majority leader's response. I wanted to say I feel strongly, as do many others in this Chamber, about the desire to address our support for those troops who are ordered to action, if that is the case.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the majority yield for one question?

Mr. DORGAN. If my colleague will yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I ask my colleague, and perhaps Senator Nickles and the majority leader as well, I fully agree with the notion we need to move along, address these amendments, try to get through this budget resolution, but I also understand, as do most of my colleagues, that the potential of military action is imminent--perhaps hours, perhaps a day, perhaps two days, I do not know, but my expectation would be when military action is commenced and our sons and daughters of America are ordered to military action and in the field, almost every Senator will want to address and discuss that issue. My hope and expectation would be at that moment, when we see what is the most serious decision faced by our country, that is, sending our young men and women to combat, that we would want to leave the budget and have an ample amount of time for every Member of the Senate to address that issue. I inquire of my colleague and others who are managing this bill whether that interval will be made available to Members of the Senate?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will describe the general direction of this amendment. I will be followed by my colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, who will talk in greater specifics about the particular approach dealing with a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. Following that, my colleague from Michigan will also speak. This amendment would increase the amount of money available to put a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program. I think we are long past the point where the question is whether we should put a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program. The question is no longer whether. I think almost all Members of the Congress agree we ought to do that. The question is how. How do we do it? What kind of a prescription drug benefit do we put in the Medicare Program? Senior citizens are 12 percent of the population in our country, yet they consume one-third of all prescription drugs. That is important to understand. As people grow older, they have more health challenges. They are able to access these miracle drugs, the new miracle drugs that extend life in so many areas, but miracle drugs produce no miracles if one cannot afford them. At an age in life when people reach retirement and have diminished income, they discover that they cannot afford to buy the miracle drugs they need, the drugs their doctor prescribes, for someone who may have heart disease, diabetes, and several other maladies. We hear senior citizens say over and over again that they go to the grocery store with a pharmacy in the back, and they have to go to the pharmacy first to find out how much they are going to have left for food because they cannot afford all of their medicine and food. If we had created Medicare last year, there is no question that we would have included in that Medicare Program a prescription drug benefit. Instead, Congress created it in the 1960s. Most of us were not here then. So there was no prescription drug benefit put in the Medicare Program because most of the lifesaving drugs that are now available were not then in existence. They are now, and senior citizens are living longer and better lives. Part of it is because we have these prescription drugs that can extend life. So the question is, How do we now modify the Medicare Program to add a benefit for prescription drugs, to help so many senior citizens who simply cannot afford them? I had a hearing in Dickinson, ND, one evening on the issue of prescription drugs in Medicare. An oncologist told me about his cancer patient, a woman on Medicare who had a mastectomy because of breast cancer. He prescribed a prescription drug for her. He said: You need to take this prescription drug in order to reduce the chances of recurrence of this breast cancer. She said: What will it cost? He told her the cost of the drugs. She said: Doctor, I cannot possibly buy that prescription drug. I have no money. I will just take my chances. We do not have to do that. Our amendment is very simple. The underlying budget proposed $400 billion for a Medicare prescription drug plan. We propose that the portion of the tax cut in this budget amendment dealing with the tax cut for dividends be used instead of cutting taxes for dividends in the following manner: That $219 billion be provided in this amendment in order to increase above the $400 billion, so we would have then $619 billion for a prescription drug plan in the Medicare Program. The additional $251 billion in savings generated by this amendment would be used to reduce the Federal budget deficit. We are doing two things: Making more money available so a decent prescription drug plan can be offered, and my colleague from Florida will more adequately describe exactly what kind of a program can be offered for that, and then in addition, reducing the Federal budget deficit. I will make a couple of additional points. Our amendment also establishes a very important principle for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Medicare beneficiaries who choose to remain in traditional fee-for-service Medicare should receive the same level of benefit for prescription drugs as do others. The President has proposed something that says we will provide a prescription drug benefit but we will do it only if someone leaves their fee-for-service type of care and goes to an HMO. That is not fair. That is not the right thing to do. Senior citizens ought to be able to go to the doctor of their choice and get the health care they need from the doctor they have always been seeing for their problems. Yet that will not be the case under the President's proposal. So we say let's increase the amount of money so we can have a reasonable and a good prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program. Let's do that at the same time we reduce the Federal budget deficit with the other money that we save from this tax change, and let's also establish the principle, as we do in this amendment, that all Medicare beneficiaries ought to have the availability of this prescription drug benefit, even if they choose to stay in a fee-for- service program. That is a very important issue. Let me make one final point. As is always the case when we debate the budget in the Senate, we are confronted with a series of choices, difficult choices sometimes but nonetheless choices. We can make a decision about that. We can decide that it is far more important, as some have done in the Senate, to exempt dividends from taxation than it is to have a good prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program. I do not happen to share that choice. I think that is a terrible choice. That is a horrible choice to make in terms of priorities. So with this amendment we make a different choice. We believe that this is one of those circumstances that demands and certainly deserves the attention of the Senate. I think every Senator is on record as saying we ought to do something about this issue of prescription drugs in Medicare, but we have had difficulty trying to find the right approach. We have all kinds of different plans. What we propose with this amendment is to have sufficient money, $619 billion, to put together a plan of which we can be proud, to put together a plan that works, one that really helps senior citizens and one that does not force them all into managed care or HMO organizations as a price for them to be able to access prescription drugs that they need to continue to lead a good life. That is all this amendment is about. It is a simple choice. It is a lot of money, but it is a simple choice. Let's choose the right thing. Let's choose to do what all of us have said we want to do, and that is to put a good prescription drug plan in the Medicare Program. My colleague, Senator Graham from Florida, is going to describe in more detail exactly what that program could look like and how that program would work for senior citizens. I am very pleased to have worked with him, as well as the Senator from Michigan, on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor a bill that imposes meaningful farm payment limitations. A gentleman from Arkansas is the principal landlord of a 61,000-acre farm. Although he serves as president of a tractor dealership with sales over $30 million, this ``farmer'' received $38 million in farm subsidies over 5 years. Stories like these about corporate farmers who received millions of dollars in Federal agriculture payments undermine support for the real purpose of our farm program: to help family farmers. What do I mean by family farmers? I am talking about people out there living in a rural community, trying to raise a family and trying to operate a family farm and trying to raise enough food to support themselves. They go to town and buy their supplies, keeping small town life not only viable, but also vibrant. I am talking about a network of food producers scattered across this country that represents, in my judgment, food security for our country. And this goal of helping family farmers with a safety net in the form of farm program payments during tough times is something that has become much different over a long period of time. It is not the case that we are fighting over farm program payments for family farmers. But regrettably, millions of dollars of farm payments are not going to small towns and family farms. They are going to big cities and corporate America. They are going to that millionaire farmer in Arkansas, to Ted Turner, and city dwellers who visit their farm twice a year. The biggest operations keep getting the bulk of the farm benefits while the small farmers are getting squeezed out of the rural areas. When this happens, the family farm operation can't compete with the larger enterprises because of the financial disadvantages. My fear is that if we do not do something about this problem, the American people are going to push back on this issue and say, ``This is not why we are paying taxes. We really support family farms. We believe family farms are important for America. But we don't believe we are paying taxes so you can transfer money to the tune of millions, even hundreds of millions, to those who need it least and ought not be getting farm payments.'' So I am co-sponsoring this legislation. This bill would impose modest limits on the amount of farm payments that any farm operation can receive in one year. These limits would have virtually no impact on family farms and would strengthen our agriculture program by targeting the payments to these smaller operations. Here are the limitations that my bill would impose: the bill would limit direct payments to producers to $40,000. Limits on counter- cyclical payments would be $60,000. The bill limits Marketing Loan Gains and Loan Deficiency Payments to $175,000. The overall limit for a farm is $275,000. The limits would save the Federal Government more than $1 billion over 10 years. In times of budget deficits, government expenditures need to be targeted to those who need it most. Fortune 500 companies aren't the intended targets of farm legislation, family farmers are. Limiting farm payments to those who provide the food security of this country ought to be the farm policy of this country and this legislation is a step in that direction.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor a bill that imposes meaningful farm payment limitations. A gentleman from Arkansas is the principal landlord of a 61,000-acre farm. Although he serves as president of a tractor dealership with sales over $30 million, this ``farmer'' received $38 million in farm subsidies over 5 years. Stories like these about corporate farmers who received millions of dollars in Federal agriculture payments undermine support for the real purpose of our farm program: to help family farmers. What do I mean by family farmers? I am talking about people out there living in a rural community, trying to raise a family and trying to operate a family farm and trying to raise enough food to support themselves. They go to town and buy their supplies, keeping small town life not only viable, but also vibrant. I am talking about a network of food producers scattered across this country that represents, in my judgment, food security for our country. And this goal of helping family farmers with a safety net in the form of farm program payments during tough times is something that has become much different over a long period of time. It is not the case that we are fighting over farm program payments for family farmers. But regrettably, millions of dollars of farm payments are not going to small towns and family farms. They are going to big cities and corporate America. They are going to that millionaire farmer in Arkansas, to Ted Turner, and city dwellers who visit their farm twice a year. The biggest operations keep getting the bulk of the farm benefits while the small farmers are getting squeezed out of the rural areas. When this happens, the family farm operation can't compete with the larger enterprises because of the financial disadvantages. My fear is that if we do not do something about this problem, the American people are going to push back on this issue and say, ``This is not why we are paying taxes. We really support family farms. We believe family farms are important for America. But we don't believe we are paying taxes so you can transfer money to the tune of millions, even hundreds of millions, to those who need it least and ought not be getting farm payments.'' So I am co-sponsoring this legislation. This bill would impose modest limits on the amount of farm payments that any farm operation can receive in one year. These limits would have virtually no impact on family farms and would strengthen our agriculture program by targeting the payments to these smaller operations. Here are the limitations that my bill would impose: the bill would limit direct payments to producers to $40,000. Limits on counter- cyclical payments would be $60,000. The bill limits Marketing Loan Gains and Loan Deficiency Payments to $175,000. The overall limit for a farm is $275,000. The limits would save the Federal Government more than $1 billion over 10 years. In times of budget deficits, government expenditures need to be targeted to those who need it most. Fortune 500 companies aren't the intended targets of farm legislation, family farmers are. Limiting farm payments to those who provide the food security of this country ought to be the farm policy of this country and this legislation is a step in that direction.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. On this amendment, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Senator Conrad has offered an amendment that is simple, devastatingly simple, and right. I talk often about going to a very small school, probably not the smallest school that anyone in the Senate attended, but it must be close. My entire high school, four grades, was 40 kids, and the senior class in my high school was 9. I kid that I was in the top 5 somewhere in a high school class of 9. We did not have Ph.D.s teaching math. I didn't need a Ph.D. to tell me how to add 1 and 1; 1 and 1 always equals 2--except in Washington, DC, during a budget debate. Let me talk about what is happening with respect to fiscal policy in this country. This is a chart that shows what is happening with respect to Federal surpluses and deficits. We were in the go-go 1990s, turbocharged 1990s; our economy was building, creating new jobs and producing tax revenues, and we began to have surpluses. We had people say: We have surpluses as far as the eye can see; let's provide very large tax cuts. President Bush was the leader of that $1.7 trillion effort. Some said we ought to be a little more conservative, if something happens. But the President got his way, we had a very large tax cut, and guess what. We then had a recession. The attacks of September 11, the war on terrorism, the largest corporate scandals in history, the bursting of the tech bubble, pancaking of the stock market, and guess what happened. We went from black ink to red ink quickly, with a devastating decline into huge, crippling Federal budget deficits. That is where we are. That is where we are headed. What is the answer? The President says, let's have more tax cuts. In my hometown, as they say, when you were in the hole, you did not order more shovels, you just stopped digging. This is a circumstance where we have to sober up as a country and evaluate how do we deal with these hemorrhaging Federal budget deficits in the long term. We do it, as the Senator from my home State says with this amendment, by deciding to wait for additional tax cuts and additional spending: Let's have a pause at the moment, put a lid on it all; no big tax cuts, no big spending increases. He allows in his amendment the opportunity and the need to deal with defense and homeland security, he allows the need in the first 2 years to deal with a stimulus plan, if necessary, but he says, beyond that, let's have a pause. On the eve of potential military action in Iraq, we hope and pray it is quick and decisive with minimum loss of lives, but we know as it happens, it will cost a great deal of money, and we are going to be prepared to respond to that. We will provide the resources necessary to support the brave men and women who fight for this country. But we ought to ask the question on the eve of military action, should we pass a budget resolution that says, by the way, what we propose at the moment, as is the case with President Bush's budget and the budget that came out of the Budget Committee, let's have very large tax cuts, let's have the huge costs of war and reconstruction and the consequence of that, and let's attach to that additional tax cuts? Maybe it is only in this town that there is some sort of escape from reality, but in my little hometown if you talk about budgets and responsibility and, yes, patriotism, it seems to me we have to add up what our needs are, what we have to do as a country, how much revenue we have to do it with, and try to come to some reconciliation of that. But that is not the case in Washington, DC. Let me say this about tax cuts. Tax cuts represent the easiest political lifting in American politics; no question about it. If you want the easiest lift in the Senate, boast about all the tax cuts you support. I would love to say I support all the tax cuts and I believe we all ought to have a zero tax rate, but that is not the fact. The fact is we build roads, we educate our kids, we provide for our common defense, we do all of these things together, and someone has to pay for that. I would love to say let's have giant tax cuts that go on forever. But it is not the responsible thing to do, especially on the eve of a war. The amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Conrad, is simple. He says let's take a pause for a moment. The budget resolution that comes to the floor out of the Budget Committee says: Let's decide to have very large tax cuts, make the previous tax cuts permanent, and on top of that, have additional large tax cuts. And, oh, by the way, we will increase defense, increase homeland security, and shrink domestic discretionary spending, including education, health care, and all the other issues. It seems to me things that go around come around, and we already have a construct of this. David Stockman wrote a book about it. That was in 1981. They said, we can double defense spending and have very large tax cuts and it will add up. It didn't. Someone asked President Reagan about his plan, and there was a parody about that. He said: Well, what this new economic plan is, you take an apple, and you cut it in half, and then you have three glasses, put half an apple in one glass, half an apple in the second glass, and half an apple in the third glass. They said: How do you get three halves from one apple? And he said: See, you don't understand our theory. I think I do understand the theory. There are only two halves of the apple, but this budget resolution provides the kind of theory and gimmickry that will head us down a road to hemorrhaging deficits that will cripple this country. It will devastate our ability to restart this economic engine of ours. The people who watch us here in the Congress, watch what we do, they need to see we are serious about trying to put this fiscal house in order. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Those who watch this process need to understand we are serious about what we are doing here, that what we do will lead to some kind of economic stability in the future. They count on it, that we are not going to spend money we don't have. We are not going to burden our kids with debt. We are going to try to have some means to pay for that which we do and, yes, that includes paying for the costs of military action and supporting our troops. I support this Conrad amendment because I think it puts national security and economic security first. I support this amendment because I support the troops, and I support this amendment because I support efforts to increase homeland security in this country. I support this amendment because I believe our economy needs a boost. All of those, in my judgment, will be the fruits of this amendment. I regret that we have the budget resolution on the floor that came from the Budget Committee. It has completely taken a vacation from reality. There is no way it adds up. You can explain it until you are blue in the face, it doesn't add up, and it is not going to lead to a better and brighter economic future. I want a fiscal policy, as does my colleague, I believe, a fiscal policy that expands this country's economy. First, we need to jump- start it and then we need to try to find ways to give people confidence to expand it. Our economy is all about confidence. When people are confident in the future, they do things that manifest that confidence: buy a house, buy a car, take a trip. They do the things that expand the economy. When they are not confident about the future, they do exactly the opposite and the economy contracts. They defer the purchase, don't take the trip. The economy contracts. I want people to take a look at what the Senate does, what my colleague has done with this amendment, and say this gives us some confidence about the future. There are people who are serious about making sure this adds up, about making the right investments, establishing the right priorities for this country. That is what this amendment does. In my judgment, if you decide you are with the Budget Committee resolution that came to the floor of the Senate, what you are saying is we believe we should have long-term, growing, inescapable Federal deficits and we don't care much about it. I will tell you what, if you don't care much about it in the Senate, there are many who will. They will pay for it with their jobs. They will pay for it with lost opportunity. They will pay for it with weaker schools. They will pay for it with less homeland security. That is a guarantee. On the positive side, let me say this amendment is a giant step in the right direction and I hope my colleagues will support it. I commend Senator Conrad for the amendment that he calls The Patriotic Pause amendment. It says: Let's stop. Let's take a look. Let's listen to what is happening around here and let's make a sound judgment about where this country ought to head and what its priorities are. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, I was not aware you had gone to the second amendment. The first amendment, which I intend to support, has a pause with respect both to spending and a tax cut in the name of fiscal sanity to try to resolve massive deficits in the outyears. The Senator makes the same point, in many ways, with respect to the Social Security amendment as we get into the period of time when the war babies, the largest baby class in American history, begin to retire. The explosion of costs in Social Security to meet those demands will cause us to have serious shortfalls unless we plan for it now. It is precisely the reason we have a so-called ``surplus'' in Social Security each year. It is not truly surplus. It is to be put away in a trust fund and used for that period of time when we need it when we have maximum strength on the Social Security. If I may make an additional comment. The charts make the compelling case that this fiscal policy is completely out of whack. It reminds me of the joke about the guy caught stealing who said to the policeman, Are you going to believe me or your own eyes? The presentation is so clear that we are headed towards a cliff. We better stop this one way or the other and find a way to have a pause, find a way to restore some stability and solvency to the Social Security system. I intend to support both amendments.

Mr. DORGAN. I note the last comment about discipline with respect to spending. It is the case that the amendment the Senator offered not only has a pause with respect to tax cuts but also on the spending side, is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I say this, I am a little weary of the campaign that is going on around the country, letters to the editor, and talk shows, and all the rest that forget about two, three, or four key pieces to the puzzle, and the key pieces to the puzzle are this: This President has a right to nominate candidates to Federal judgeships. He has done two in North Dakota, both Republicans, both wonderful people. I supported them strongly. They are both now on the Federal bench. Our country is better because of it. I have voted for other Federal judges whose philosophy I disagree with because I think by and large they were qualified to serve on the Federal bench, and I have voted for all but one of those nominees sent by President Bush. Let me come back to this point. On the very day the Senator from Utah presided over a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, Judge Hovland from North Dakota answered questions that Mr. Estrada did not answer. I do not understand why a committee chairman is not the first one on the floor of the Senate to say we ought not move this until we get all the information we requested. I am not someone who will stand in the way of a final vote on Mr. Estrada because of philosophical or other concerns. I will not do that. But as long as I am in the Senate with Republican or Democratic candidates for the Federal bench, I will demand they answer the questions put to them. In this case, Mr. Estrada has not done that. One last time I will yield on your time.

Mr. DORGAN. Reclaiming my time, a fishing expedition is not at all what this is about. The Senator from Utah knows that. I have listened to him at great length and voted with him on almost all judgeships. The Senator from Utah ought to demand what I demand and others demand: Candidates who aspire to a lifetime appointment to the bench ought to respond to the request for information from this Congress. That has not happened in the case. You can assert it until you are blue in the face. It is not the case that the information has been made available. Other candidates made it available. Mr. Estrada has not. When he does, I believe he ought to get his vote. Until he does, he should not get that vote. I am weary that those who support this President's nominees almost universally are told we are somehow obstructing. That is not the case. Especially in circumstances where there were a good many fine people in this country who were nominated for the Federal judgeships, including circuit courts, who never got a hearing before the committee, I didn't hear anyone on the floor of the Senate, especially from that side, talking about it at great length. These are good men and women. They never got a hearing. This is not payback as far as I am concerned. Mr. Estrada should get his vote as soon as he complies with the request for information from the Senate, which he has not done. He can do it this afternoon, and we can have a vote tomorrow, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. DORGAN. Well, that is not the case. That has not been done. But No. 2, release the information that is available with respect to his service at the Justice Department for the Solicitor General's Office. The fact is, when those conditions are met, I will be on the floor saying, let us have a final vote on Mr. Estrada. If those conditions are not met, neither the Senator nor anyone else in the Senate ought to demand that we give up our rights and opportunities to ask questions for those who seek a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator on his time, if that is all right with the Senator.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with respect to this issue of Mr. Estrada, if those who come to the floor to make speeches about Mr. Estrada are trying to put together a puzzle for us, they are missing about six or eight key pieces. Let me use some information and some time to describe what those pieces are. I do not want anyone to tell me that we have folks in this Chamber who do not support the President and the process by which we nominate and confirm judges. I think we have voted on 111 Federal judges in the Senate and I believe I voted for 110 of them. Now, I am a little weary of people coming to the floor and misstating the facts. They say, this is the first filibuster we have ever had. Not true. That is just not the case. Mr. Paez waited 4 years in the Senate, under the leadership of those who are now concerned about moving Mr. Estrada through this Chamber, and in order to get Mr. Paez through this Chamber there had to be a cloture vote. So I am a little weary of these stories about cloture. We had a cloture vote on Mr. Paez. Why? Because that was required in order to move his nomination, which waited 4 years.