Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 90 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees to be used concurrently on the pending amendment and No. 1222; further, that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the pending Frist amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on the Reid amendment No. 1222, and there be no second-degree amendments in order to either amendments prior to the votes.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, briefly, with the three votes we just completed relating to mass transit, we are on a good glidepath toward finishing tonight. I should say we were on a good glidepath for finishing tonight. The chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security subcommittee have cleared a large number of amendments, and it does appear we will be able to finish tonight. Having said that, I am very disappointed that we now have pending before us what is purely a political amendment on which we will be spending the next 90 minutes, plus the votes. We have been working in very good faith on a bill that funds important priorities to this country, to our homeland security, and that has been the focus. We have done very well staying focused on this bill until the Democratic, really political, amendment was offered. The pending amendment offered by the Democratic leader has nothing to do with funding of our national security. I am disappointed because it is going to slow down the underlying process on the bill. We will be spending the next 90 minutes on these two amendments, then followed by two votes. Hopefully after that we will put politics aside and attend to the Nation's business. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I will speak in leader time. For nearly 2 weeks, we have been working in a bipartisan manner for the goal of passing the Homeland Security bill, which spends almost $32 billion for homeland security, all of which is one of our most basic responsibilities, and that is to keep the American people safe and secure. That is what the Senate, this body, was hard at work doing--up until about 2 hours ago, when the Democratic leadership chose raw, partisan party politics over protecting American lives. They filed their political amendments. You know, the American people want better from their leaders than petty politics. Through their votes, they have put their trust in us, and they have elected us to serve their interests and, thus, this is a sad and a disappointing afternoon in the Senate. Madam President, there is a special counsel who has been appointed to look at the whole issue of the CIA leak case. He is doing his job and he is investigating this whole matter. Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that without any of the facts, the hundreds of hours of manpower, and interviews, and the investigation that the special counsel has done, they are better equipped to judge the facts of this case? We should let the special counsel do his job, and we should focus on our jobs as Senators, which is, first and foremost, protecting the American people. Lastly, I want to say that I think the first speech I gave in this Congress was an olive branch to reach out and say let's focus on civility. I thought the bitterly contested elections that we saw--once they were behind us, I thought we could focus on doing the Nation's business, moving America forward, governing. Unfortunately, even on an issue that we should all agree on--homeland security--my colleagues prefer to score political points rather than focusing on the Nation's business. It is this kind of political stunt that causes many Americans watching to lose faith in this body, in elected officials. Let's get back to serving our constituents and get back to the issues that really matter to the American people, such as homeland security, protecting our country from terrorist attacks, strengthening our highways and transportation infrastructure, and pursuing a national energy policy. I urge my colleagues to let civility and duty to the American people prevail. Oppose the Reid amendment; support the Frist amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are going to start the last vote in a few minutes. The managers faced a few roadblocks this afternoon, but we are going to complete this bill. This will be the last vote of the evening. Tomorrow we are going to begin foreign ops. The two managers will be here for opening statements. We will be voting on Monday, and I anticipate that vote would be in relation to an amendment on the foreign ops bill. I thank all Senators for the progress during the course of the week; foreign ops tomorrow.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will return to Homeland Security appropriations in just a few minutes. Last night, we entered into an agreement to provide for a series of five stacked votes beginning at 10 a.m. The first vote will be normal in length; however, the remaining votes in the series will be limited to 10-minute lengths. Senators should remain in or close to the Chamber for the purposes of voting. The two managers expect to stack other votes on amendments that are ready to be disposed of. We will announce shortly whether those will be added to the current list or if we will debate additional amendments and stack them for later this morning. It is possible to finish the Homeland Security bill today or this evening. We can do that if Senators cooperate over the course of the day. We have other important appropriations bills to consider as well as other legislative matters, executive items, over the course of the next couple of days. In all likelihood, we will go to foreign operations tomorrow, assuming--and I hope--we will finish Homeland Security today. I will turn to the Democratic leader, and then I have a few words on port security.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, people around the world know the United States as a land of freedom and opportunity. We have remained that way in large part because we open our doors to immigrants. We must continue to do so. People come to America looking for a better life. We live better lives because of them. They contribute to our economy. They help weave the rich cultural fabric that makes up our society. But we must ensure that immigrants who come to America come here legally. We face a crisis. Over 7,000 miles of land stretch across our borders. Our ports handle 16 million cargo containers. And 330 million noncitizens--students, visitors and workers--cross our borders every year. An unprecedented flow of illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, and unsecured cargo also cross our borders. This challenges our standards of compassion and threatens our national security. It also offers us an opportunity to define our Nation's future. First and foremost, we face a grave humanitarian challenge. Last year, several hundred people died in the deserts and mountains that separate the United States from Mexico. Most died of exposure to the elements. Some died in accidents. An alarming number were murdered. Along Arizona's southern border--the only area for which we have good data--over 20 people died as a result of hanging, blunt-force trauma, gun shot wounds and other apparently deliberate means during 2004. But we have this data collected only because of the work of an Arizona newspaper. We don't know how many more corpses are buried in shallow, unmarked graves. Nobody keeps a complete database of deaths along our borders. And many apparent homicides go uninvestigated. That's why I've asked the Government Accountability Office to produce a report on the deaths along our border as a guide to future action. We must protect our Nation from those who seek to enter it illegally. But we have a higher, moral obligation to do our best to protect the life of every person who sets foot on American soil. Second, the insecurity of our borders threatens America's national security. Each year, thousands of people cross our border illegally. The vast majority seek little more than better lives for their families. But some bring drugs. Some traffic in human beings. A few may even have links to terrorist groups. We don't know exactly how many come. We don't know their backgrounds. Nor do we know who might want to harm us. But we do know one thing: if drug dealers and human traffickers can operate on our borders, terrorists can as well. Our national security requires a safer, more secure border. And our standards of compassion demand it. Anything else is morally unacceptable. We must act swiftly. At the right time, Congress must reform our laws to strengthen and improve our immigration system. We also need free trade agreements like CAFTA, which we passed just before the July 4th recess. This will give economic hope to the people of Central America. It will give them greater opportunities to live more prosperous lives in their communities. But, for now, we must tighten enforcement of our borders. And that's what this bill does. First, it dramatically increases the corps of border protection professionals. Congress has already added 500 border patrol agents this year. This bill adds 2,000 more patrol agents, investigators, and detention and deportation officers. After this bill, there will be nearly 41,000 people protecting our border. Our long-term goal should be 10,000 new border patrol agents within the next 5 years. Second, this bill gives our border patrol more technology and training and aircraft. This will bolster security by, for example, doubling the number of ports subject to high-risk container checks. Third, this bill strengthens the infrastructure that protects our borders. It provides more than $300 billion for frontline defenses-- which will help prevent people from entering our country illegally. Fourth, this bill increases funding for detention beds by 10 percent--boosting the total number of beds to 23,000. It does no good to increase our border patrol forces and border monitoring technology if we don't have the space to hold illegal aliens while their cases are being processed. Simply put, we should not release individuals with criminal ties. Instead, our nation should detain them until their cases can be heard. Over 400,000 individuals--nearly as many as live in Atlanta--have simply walked away from orders of deportation and removal. This is unacceptable. By adding detention space, we can make sure that people entering the country illegally are not released back into the country while we are in the process of trying to send them back home. In all, this bill increases total spending on border security by nearly 12 percent for a total of nearly $10 billion. I congratulate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Immigrants have enhanced our history. And they will enhance our future. But we must make sure they to America legally. It's a matter of security in a time of war. It's also a matter of morality for a caring nation and a nation of laws.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me take a moment and update everybody on the schedule. We are going to have one additional vote scheduled this evening. We will be starting that momentarily. We have 14 additional amendments pending at this time. We should be able to lock in a voting sequence for tomorrow morning, and thus we will have one more vote tonight, and then we will have a series of stacked votes beginning tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. As we have said again and again, we will be completing the bill this week, and we can complete the bill late tomorrow night but, if necessary, we would go into Friday. But we will finish the bill this week. Senators should be prepared to stay late tomorrow night. We will have one more vote starting shortly, and we will start stacked votes at 10 in the morning. We will work straight through tomorrow, hopefully finish tomorrow night. We will be in on Friday as well, but I think we can finish this bill tomorrow night. Amendment No. 1112, As Modified

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today we will return to the pending business of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We have six amendments that were called up yesterday and are currently pending. The two managers have been working on the sequencing of amendments. Therefore, we should have an additional lineup of amendments that are expected during today's session. As we stated at closing last night, we have two Senate delegations today, one attending the funeral of former Senator Gaylord Nelson and another delegation in Florida. It is lining up in such a way that we will have very productive debate over the course of the day, but we will be voting later this evening. I do not know exactly what time that will be. We will have the exact timing of these votes announced later today as we look at the appropriate schedules. I doubt that there will be voting before 7:45 or so tonight. We will be voting tonight. I have said on many occasions that we will be finishing homeland security legislation before we leave this week. I believe we have a good shot at completing that bill tomorrow night. I don't know what time that will be. We will go to another bill on Friday. That bill will be determined over the course of today. The funding legislation we are currently addressing in the Senate is too important to not complete this week. We will be using debate time throughout the course of the day. We will have the votes this evening. We will have a very busy session tomorrow. I also wish to take the opportunity to remind my colleagues we will have an all-Senate briefing this afternoon, for those who are interested, from 3 to 4 o'clock by Director Negroponte. I believe Secretary Chertoff will also be coming by as well.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have some brief remarks about confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice. As we all have witnessed, the process is off to a great start. Consultation is well underway between the President of the United States and the Senate. It is ongoing. The President and his staff are reaching out to Senators from both parties to listen to their suggestions, both in person and through phone calls. To date, the administration, the President and his staff, have contacted directly more than 60 Senators, more than two-thirds of the Democratic caucus, every member of the Judiciary Committee. The President's approach has been bipartisan and open and unprecedented in scope. I commend him for that effort. As we look ahead, I encourage each Senator to reflect upon the nominee we will consider and the confirmation process we will undertake. As Senators, confirming a nominee to the Supreme Court is one of our highest constitutional duties. The new Justice, whomever the President chooses, will influence American law for years and years to come. He or she will impact the lives of millions of Americans. As Senators, we should ask ourselves, What kind of Justice does America expect on the Supreme Court? I am confident President Bush will choose a qualified nominee who will make America proud, someone of demonstrated character and integrity, someone who is fair, intelligent, openminded, and impartial; he or she will listen to the merits of every case and make a determination based on the facts, the law, and the Constitution, not driven to prejudge cases, predetermine outcomes, or advance a personal political agenda; the nominee will treat litigants and their attorneys fairly and with dignity and respect; and above all, this person will uphold the Constitution and be fully committed to equal justice under the law. I am confident of all these things because every day I have seen the care, seriousness, and the thoughtfulness President Bush brings to this task. In addition to considering the type of nominee America expects, I also encourage my colleagues to ask themselves, What kind of Supreme Court nomination process does America expect from the Senate? The American people, through their votes, have put their trust in us. They have entrusted us to govern as their elected representatives. History will reflect on the Senate's deliberations, how Senators conduct themselves, how we treat a nominee, and how we reach a decision. We owe it to the American people to conduct a fair process that treats nominees with dignity and respect. It should include a fair hearing, a floor debate in which all views are heard, and then an up- or-down vote on the confirmation. This process should not become a trial. It is a process by which we examine the character and credentials of someone willing to volunteer to serve America on its highest court. In the past, the judicial nominations process has been marked by obstruction, many times partisan obstruction, and attacks on the character and integrity of nominees. I hope we have put this painful and humiliating process behind us. Given the monumental role this nominee will play sitting on America's highest court, we need the best of the best legal minds. This requires a process that will not deter the best of the best from serving. The fair and dignified nomination process requires civility, requires common sense and some self- restraint. As we consider the nominee who will soon come before the Senate, I encourage my colleagues to focus on questions that are relevant to the nominee's qualifications and experience, questions such as: Will the nominee be fair, independent, and unbiased? Will the nominee consider each case before the Court with an open mind, examining the facts, the law, and the Constitution very carefully? Will the nominee place the Constitution and the law above personal political ideology? Will the nominee approach his or her role as a Justice as an interpreter of the law and the Constitution and not as a lawmaker who will legislate from the bench? Is the nominee qualified to serve on our highest court? Does he or she have the necessary experience to serve as a Supreme Court Justice? These are the questions nominees should be asked to answer honestly and thoroughly. They should not be asked to prejudge cases or to speculate on how they would rule or not rule on a hypothetical scenario that may or may not come before the Court. I look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the coming weeks. We should work together to conduct the kind of confirmation process America expects from its elected representatives, a fair and thorough confirmation process that treats nominees with dignity and respect and confirms a new Justice before the Supreme Court starts its new term on October 3. I am confident the President will nominate someone who will make America proud, someone who will be worthy of this seat he or she will fill. This is what the American people expect, what our justice system needs, and what our Nation and the nominee deserves. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 196, submitted earlier today.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. FRIST. I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. I ask unanimous consent they be read for the second time en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 13. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a moment we will begin consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Yesterday, all first-degree amendments to the bill were required to be filed at the desk. There appear to be about 100 that were filed. Although I hope the Senators will not feel compelled to call up many of these amendments, we have 100. Hopefully we can narrow those down. The chairman and ranking member will do so over the course of the day. We will finish the bill this week. Therefore, Members should contact the two managers to schedule consideration of their amendments. At the current time, we have three amendments pending, one dealing with veterans health funding and two relating to the homeland grant formula. We hope to shortly work out time agreements on these and vote with respect to at least a couple of these amendments. Therefore, there is a chance for a vote prior to our policy luncheons today. We will alert Members as we come to an agreement on the starting times. We will continue to vote throughout the day on amendments. Senators can expect a busy day. Yesterday, we came in for a 3-week block. It will be a very busy 3 weeks before our August recess. We need to continue to address the appropriations measures. Prior to the July Fourth recess, we finished some appropriations in a very positive way. We continue with Homeland Security, and we have a number of other legislative priorities. We need to make the most of this legislative period as we work together to complete all of the work that is ahead of us. We are likely to have a nominee for the Supreme Court sometime in the near future, and much of September, I suspect, will be focused on that, which again establishes a sense of urgency for addressing the very important issues of the business that is before the Senate over the next 3 weeks. I will be talking to the Democrat leader over the course of the day in terms of working through the specifics of that schedule.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will take a moment now to speak briefly about the confirmation process, the upcoming confirmation process of the new Supreme Court Justice. This morning, the Democrat leader and I and the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee had a discussion with the President of the United States which continues the consulting process which I would say, at least as we get started, is being conducted in an unprecedented way. Over the last few months, this Senate has made considerable progress with judicial nominations. We have confirmed six of the President's appellate court nominees and four district court nominees. I am very pleased with this progress. Indeed, this is real progress, especially when you consider each of the appeals court nominees were blocked. Those same people were blocked in the last Congress. That is real progress, working in a bipartisan way for the American people. Now we will be able to continue that progress. To do so, we must place principle before partisan politics, and we must place results before rhetoric. That is the challenge to the Senate. Above all, we need to fulfill our constitutional duty as Senators. Since Justice O'Connor announced her retirement now 11 days ago, the Supreme Court nomination has garnered a lot of attention in Washington, in the press, among our colleagues, and indeed all across America. As the President considers her replacement, many Senators have been talking about the issue of consultation. This raises some important questions: Is the President obligated to consult with Senators about a particular nominee? And if so, to what extent? Under the Constitution, the President is not obligated to consult with Senators before making a nomination. In fact, he is not obligated to consult with anyone. Indeed, the consultation is a courtesy, it is not a constitutional mandate. The Constitution plainly states in article II that the President shall nominate and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. That is it. Yet this White House has welcomed suggestions from Senators. On the very same day we departed for our recess, on the same day Justice O'Connor announced her retirement, the President personally engaged in the consultation process. He called Senator Reid and myself, the two leaders of the Senate. He called the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Specter and Leahy. Since then, the President and the White House have continued to consult in an unprecedented manner and a very inclusive manner. For example, while in Europe at the G-8 summit with the President, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card made time to call a number of Senators, including Senators Durbin, Schumer, Kennedy, and Senator Ben Nelson. In the last few weeks, White House counsel Harriet Miers met one-on-one with the Democrat leader, with myself, with Senator Leahy, and with Senator Specter. She has called a number of other Senators to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy specifically. All together, the White House has reached out to more than 60 Senators, including more than half of the Democratic caucus and every single member of the Judiciary Committee. This consultation process is well underway and, as I mentioned earlier, continued again bright and early this morning when the President invited the four of us to breakfast, the two leaders and the two leaders of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman and ranking member. That meeting was productive. We freely exchanged views on the nomination process and what to expect. We discussed the type of nominee the President may want to consider. It was in a good spirit, bipartisan, working together, everyone stressing the importance of, once the nomination is made, having a process that would play out and have that nominee in place by October 3. I do commend the President for taking all of these steps. He is not obligated to consult before selecting a Supreme Court nominee, but he is choosing to consult. He is reaching out in this inclusive and bipartisan manner. It is a manner that is unprecedented. I understand the White House will continue to consult after the nomination is made. Despite this effort by the President, I am concerned that no amount of consultation will be sufficient for a few of our colleagues in this Senate, and statements will continue to be made. I say that because conomination rather than consultation may be their ultimate goal. Some Senators may prefer to choose the nominee for the President, but that is not the way the system works. That is not the way the Constitution works. The President has the power to nominate, and the Senate offers advice and consent. Again, consultation does not mean conomination; consultation is a courtesy of the President. It works two ways. If he extends it to us, as he has, we should extend it to him. As we look ahead, most Senators face a relatively new challenge in a Supreme Court nomination. We talked about it this morning at breakfast. More than half of us in this Senate were not here 11 years ago when the Senate last confirmed a Supreme Court nominee. But I am confident we will rise to the occasion. We should work together to ensure that the nomination process is fair, dignified, and respectful, and we should make sure that a new Justice is confirmed before the Supreme Court begins its new term on October 3. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. FRIST. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.