John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The President has made an inspired choice. Mr. Bolton has the necessary experience, the knowledge of the U.N. system and the confidence of the President to be a successful advocate of U.S. policy at the United Nations. As Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Mr. Bolton has taken a tough line against the tyrants and the despots who wish to harm us. He has stood up to Iran and North Korea, refusing to appease their nuclear ambitions. Mr. Bolton is candid about his disdain for rogue regimes. He's not going to be dancing with Kim Jong Il--he called him a tyrannical dictator. That is fine with me. He has also been candid about the weaknesses of the United Nations. That is fine with me too. The United States has sent forceful, blunt-speaking ambassadors to the United Nations before like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and the United States has been better for it. Senator Moynihan called the U.N. ``a dangerous place'' for American interests. That is why it is necessary to send Mr. Bolton to the U.N.--to make sure that American interests are advanced. He is outspoken, but he also is a skilled diplomat, who knows how to work with friends and allies, and has a proven track record of success in building coalitions to support vital objectives. It was John Bolton who led the effort to create the Proliferation Security Initiative--a multinational coalition of nations, working together in unprecedented ways to stop the transport of dangerous weapons and materials at sea, on land and in the air. Some 60 nations are now supporting this effort. When he was Assistant Secretary of International Organization Affairs, with the United Nations as part of his portfolio, he was the one responsible for the repeal of the odious 1975 ``Zionism is Racism'' resolution that was passed in the United Nations. At a time when the United Nations continues to be plagued by scandal and mismanagement, the United States needs a strong presence to reform that body. Just look at the scandals the UN is facing on oil-for-food, sexual abuse, theft, and sexual harassment: We now know that Saddam Hussein, corrupt U.N. officials, and corrupt well-connected countries were the real benefactors of the Oil-for-Food Program. They skimmed their illegal gain from illegal oil shipments, financial transactions, kickbacks, and surcharges and allowed Saddam Hussein to build up his armed forces and live in the lap of luxury while his people starved. There have been allegations of sexual abuse in peacekeeping operations by U.N. personnel going back at least ten years, most recently in the Congo where 150 allegations of rape, pedophilia, and prostitution are being investigated. The theft of $3.8 million by an employee of the World Meteorological Organization led to the revelation that Mohammed Hassan apparently cashed an undetermined number of checks for his own enrichment, but his colleagues chose not to speak out. There was a recent whitewash by the Secretary General of sexual harassment by two senior U.N. officials, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nation's top oversight official. This list of current scandals does not even begin to touch on broader issues such as the proper role of the United Nations and the need for fiscal responsibility and austerity. There has been a 42 percent increase in the U.N. regular budget over the past 10 years. The United Nations is supposed to have a zero nominal growth budget. Those funds support programs with questionable value. We are all painfully aware that the United Nations has a Commission on Human Rights which includes notorious human rights abusers such as Sudan, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. The United Nations is imploding under the weight of its own scandals. And these scandals are helping to unveil the cronyism that is corroding the U.N. system. The U.N. is in desperate need of reform--and in desperate need of a reformer like John Bolton. Perhaps most importantly, John Bolton is a strong believer in sovereignty. The principle of state sovereignty is what undergirds the entire international system. Yet today we see respect for state sovereignty eroding all around us. We see it in the International Criminal Court's claim of authority to try the citizens of countries that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction. We see it in the U.N. false claim to have sole authority to permit the use of force. These trends are dangerous, not only because the erosion of sovereignty is a threat to freedom, but because the erosion of respect for state sovereignty absolves states of their sovereign responsibilities to deal with problems within their borders. It gives states an excuse to punt problems to supra-national bodies, like the UN and the ICC, instead of taking responsibility for problems that originate within their border from poor national governance. In the war on terror, every state needs to meet its sovereign responsibilities. As sovereignty has eroded, terrorists have taken advantage of these trends. John Bolton has the fortitude to stand up for what is right, fight the good fight, and prevail. Secretary Rice called John Bolton a tough-minded diplomat. That's exactly what the U.S. needs at the U.N.---and exactly what the U.N. needs from the U.S. Let me conclude by reinforcing why this body should support John Bolton's nomination. The U.S. does not need a U.N. representative for the world. We need a U.S. representative to the world. We need someone who has the interests of our country first and foremost in his mind as he represents us at the U.N. There are many anti-U.S. forces at the U.N. Appeasement has never worked in dealing with aggressors. And it will not work for our country at the U.N. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time since Senator Nelson of Florida yielded the floor be charged against Republican-controlled time.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 26, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 26, 2005 at 9 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Report to the Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies.''

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 26, at 9:30 a.m., to consider comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the issue of judicial nominees, their confirmation process and whether nominees should receive an up-or-down vote. We are currently discussing Justice Priscilla Owen and her nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. There has been a lot said about this nominee. Her qualifications have been enumerated on the Senate floor. We have heard that she was elected with 84 percent of the vote in Texas. This is a very large percentage that represents overwhelming support in her home State of Texas. My Democrat colleagues have questioned her position on the issue of parental notification. As my friend and colleague from the State of Oklahoma talked about, parental notification is supported by nearly 80 percent of the American people. Before a school nurse gives a child an aspirin, the school will ask for the parent's permission. When it comes to an abortion, which is a surgical procedure, abortion providers do not want to be held to the same standard. The vast majority of the American people believe that a parent should be notified before a surgical procedure, like an abortion, is performed on a child. The parental notification cases that Priscilla Owen has heard while serving on the Texas Supreme Court all involved a lower court decision that the child should tell a parent about her desire to have an abortion. So in many of these cases, Justice Owen was upholding the determination of the lower court judge who had directly listened to the testimony of the minor who wanted an abortion. In these cases, there was disagreement among the justices on the Texas Supreme Court, but in cases where she voted in favor of parental notice, her determination was the same as the lower court. It was very reasonable. Anybody could look at that and say this is a reasonable person. When we review the record of a judicial nominee, when we review their opinions, we should ask ``does that judge follow the law?'' We ask ``is this judge well reasoned?'' We ask ``did they look at the facts?'' Anybody who has reviewed Priscilla Owen's record and her opinions would conclude that she has a good temperament. They would conclude that she was not making law but was interpreting the law according to the way the Texas Legislature had intended. In cases involving parental notification, they would conclude that she had faithfully applied the law. In addition to discussing Justice Owen's nomination, I also want to address the confirmation process as a whole. In the past, whether it was Judge Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas, Republicans were unhappy with the treatment that some nominees of Republican President's received. The reputation of Judge Bork and Justice Thomas had been attacked. These fine men were vilified. Republicans felt that those nominees were treated unfairly in committee and then on the floor. When President Clinton was President, some of his nominees were likewise mistreated. The committee process was used to delay hearings or to bottle up nominees. In most cases though, those nominees were eventually given an up or down vote. We have heard the other side complain about the delays that President Clinton's nominees experienced. I believe that the Senate ought to fix that. I think it is damaging to our system of government to deny any nominee an up or down vote. The Senate should, whether someone is nominated to serve as a judge or in the administration at an agency or department, provide each nominee with an up or down vote. The Senate should reject this delaying tactic which denies a nominee a timely up- or-down vote in committee and on the Senate floor. We ought to fix the whole process. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats have been escalating the fight over nominees for years. As I pointed out before, many Republicans felt that Judge Bork was mistreated. In response, President Clinton's nominees were too. What one side does, the other side will ratchet it up to the next level when they come into power. We can't keep doing that. Neither side is going to win if we continue on this path. But the American system of government and the American people will surely lose. Good people will no longer be willing to serve in the administration or in positions on the bench if we can't put an end to this. No American is going to want to have their name put up for a position if they are promised to be treated so horribly. My home State of Nevada is part of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A few years ago, Nevada had an opening on the Ninth Circuit. I spoke with several people, people who would have been well-qualified as a candidate. I asked if they would be interested if I put their name forward? I consider it a great honor to be on the appellate court. The common feedback: ``Why would I want to put in my name and go through that process given all that you have to go through?'' My fear is that we are discouraging the very type of people who should apply for these positions from doing so. We need the absolute best legal minds to serve on the appeals courts and Supreme Court that we can possibly get. It should be an honor to serve there. We should not do anything to dishonor those positions with the political farce that we have going on in the Senate. The Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to change the rules. The rules changed 2 years ago. And it was the Senate Democrats that changed the rules with a partisan filibuster. A partisan filibuster was never done in the history of the Senate before 2003, never. Search the history books, it is very clear. The two cases Democrats bring up were not partisan filibusters. The one case about Abe Fortas, that was clear, he had engaged in objectionable practices while serving as an associate justice on the Supreme Court and was opposed by many Senators in both parties. He was not opposed on a party line basis. It was clear to President Johnson that his nominee did not have the votes to be confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What we call the constitutional option--is an effort to reestablish the tradition of what the Senate has always done. The minority is correct that filibusters were allowed under the rules. But the people who considered them in the past, the majority of Senators, said it would do too much damage to the institution to actually carry out those filibusters. So, in a bipartisan fashion in the past, before the Democrats led the current filibusters, Senators got together and said: We will go ahead and have up-or-down votes on these nominees. I believe, for the future of this institution and for the future of bringing good people to the judiciary, we need to fix this process once and for all. Whether it is a Republican President or a Democrat President and whether Republicans or Democrats are in control of the Senate, regardless of which party is in charge, good people should have an up-or-down vote in a timely fashion in committee as well as on the floor of the Senate. I hope we can join across the aisle and fix this. I actually thought we should have fixed it last year before the Presidential election. I tried to extend my hand across the aisle last year and say to Democrats: We don't know who is going to win the Presidential election, so let's put something in place now so that the filibuster will not continue after the 2004 elections. I don't think it should matter whether it is a Republican President or Democrat President sending nominees up here. It is OK to vote against them, but I don't believe that only 40 Senators of one party should be able to choose who is on the bench.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will conclude very briefly with this. For the good of our country, for the balance of powers, we need to end this process of filibustering good people. These good people deserve an up-or-down vote. It is only fair. Let's join together in a bipartisan fashion to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would like to think that if some of the finest and most respected jurists in our country's history were nominated today to sit on the Federal bench, their successful confirmation by the Senate would be guaranteed. I am talking about jurists such as Chief Justice John Marshall, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Imagine where we would be today without their bright, insightful legal minds. Unfortunately, in today's bitter and partisan atmosphere, I don't see how any of them would make it through this grueling, humiliating, and endless judicial nomination process. That is a disturbing thought. We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate. In our history, many nominees have come before us who have generated strenuous debate. Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas are two of what the other side would consider more controversial figures to be considered for a position on the Federal bench. It is important to note that both of these men, despite the strong feelings they generated from their supporters and their detractors, received an up-or-down vote. Now, sadly, due to the efforts of the Democrats in the Senate, the 214-year tradition of giving each Federal candidate for judge a solid ``yea'' or ``nay'' is at risk. Senate tradition is not the only thing at risk here, though. The quality of our judiciary is at grave risk. It is and should continue to be an honor to be nominated to serve on the Federal bench. Nominees are aware of the rigorous process that goes along with their nomination-- intense background checks and the opening of one's life history to the public. However, highly qualified and respected nominees do not sign on to being dragged through a bitter political battle. If we allow the filibustering of nominees to continue, I fear that those highly qualified candidates will decline to put themselves and their families through the abyss of this process. The American judicial system will be sorely hurt should this happen. And it already happened with Miguel Estrada, who was an outstanding nominee. We cannot afford to let this happen and let it continue. I believe that anyone who has been nominated by the President and is willing to put his or her name forward and be subjected to the rigorous confirmation process deserves a straight up-or-down vote on his or her nomination in both committee and on the floor of the Senate. Guaranteeing that every judicial nominee receives an up-or-down vote is truly a matter of fairness. It doesn't mean that there is no debate or opportunity to disagree. It does mean fair consideration, debate, and a decision in a process that moves forward. I say that today with the Republican President in the White House and a Republican majority in the Senate, but I know we will uphold the up- or-down vote when we eventually have Democrats back in control. That is because this is the fairest way to maintain the health of the judicial nomination process and the quality of our courts. Our Founding Fathers set up a form of Government with three separate branches, and they were all very distinct. The current state of affairs in the Senate threatens the very balance of power. Although the up-or- down vote is critical to maintaining that balance, there is a need to reform the committee process as well. Each committee should discharge nominees, whether it is with a positive or a negative vote. But at some point, that nominee deserves to have a vote of the full Senate on the floor. The committee should not have the power to kill a nominee on its own. I sincerely hope we can put an end to this crisis, judge judicial nominees on the basis of their character, qualifications, and experience, and return to fulfilling our constitutional duty. I understand that the majority leader has just put forward a proposal to correct the unfair treatment of judges. Senator Frist's proposal will ensure that each and every nominee will be treated fairly. It will ensure that each nominee will receive a fair up-or-down vote, whether a Republican President or a Democrat President nominates him or her. I commend Senator Frist for his leadership. His proposal ensures future nominees are treated fairly. I urge my colleagues to adopt Senator Frist's proposal. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield back my time on the amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in the decade before 9/11, al Qaeda studied how to exploit gaps and weaknesses in the borders of the United States. A few months ago, intelligence officials confirmed that the terrorist Zarqawi plans to infiltrate America through our borders. He plans to attack targets such as movie theaters, restaurants, and schools. A year-long investigation recently concluded with authorities arresting 18 people who planned to smuggle grenade launchers, shoulder- fired missiles, and other Russian military weapons into our country. Let's face it--the dual threat of illegal border crossing by people who wish to kill us and the weapons they need to do it is very real. We are not dealing with rational people. We are not dealing with people who respect life or freedom. It would be irresponsible to sit idly by and not treat these threats seriously. We must continue to be diligent in our fight to defeat terror and protect our homeland. Before 9/11, INS had only 9,800 border patrol agents. With the agency focused on immigration and narcotics, no major counterterrorism effort was underway. More than 3 years after the devastating terrorist attacks, the men and women who serve on the border's frontline of defense are still overwhelmed. The Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has admitted they need more agents. Our agents catch only about one-third of the estimated 3 million people who cross the border illegally each year. Three and half years ago it only took 19 to change the course of this country. The 9/11 Commission addressed this very problem. They recommended banning terrorists from traveling to our country. This is exactly what my amendment attempts to accomplish. We must commit resources to block terrorists who attempt to enter our country. Last year, I sponsored an amendment to the National Intelligence Reform Act that authorized the hiring of 10,000 new agents to patrol our borders over the next 5 years. And last month, the Senate approved a Budget which funded the hiring and training of 2,000 new border patrol agents next year. Border security requires a serious commitment by Congress. There is no question that we need to hire new agents. Our security depends on it. But it will take more than simply hiring agents. Congress needs to increase funding for training and equipment. I hope we will remember this during the regular appropriations process. We cannot wait another year to improve our border security. This is an emergency. The amendment that I am offering will put new agents on the ground in the next few months. My amendment begins to fulfill the commitment Congress made last year. It provides $147 million to hire and train 400 new border patrol agents by October; 400 new agents is the maximum number of new agents that the Department of Homeland Security can train before the end of this fiscal year. My amendment does not require any new spending. It is completely offset. The 9/11 Commission found that many of the 19 hijackers could have been placed on watch lists. They were vulnerable to detection by border authorities. Without adequate staff and coordinated efforts, the terrorists were allowed to enter the United States. Once here they learned how to fly airplanes at American flight schools. They conducted surveillance to assess our weaknesses. And they attacked. In order to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must improve every aspect of our nation's security. Our security is truly only as strong as our weakest link. For too long, the lack of funding for border agents has been a weak link. By funding additional agents, we protect both our southern and our, often neglected, northern border. This will make it harder for terrorists to enter the United States and attack us. The world has changed dramatically since 9/11 when the terrorists used our open and trusting society against us. We can not allow a repeat of that tragedy. This amendment will help those who guard our frontiers by providing necessary tools to ensure the safety of our citizens. Amendment No. 520

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. I object.

Mr. ENSIGN. No objection.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 475 and make a point of order that the amendment is not germane under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, which amendment is this?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will the Senator yield for a second first to take care of a procedural matter?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent the pending business be set aside and Senate amendment No. 487 be called up.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 290, 291, and 317, en bloc