Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 8:35 p.m. tonight, at which time the Senate will proceed as a body to the House of Representatives Chamber for the President's State of the Union Address; provided that upon the dissolution of the joint session, the Senate adjourn until 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, February 1. 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 proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 325, H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation bill. I further ask consent that following the majority leader, there be a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the Democratic leader or his designee, with that time counted against the underlying statutory time limitation.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be using some leader time. For my colleagues, the vote will be in about 10 minutes or so. In a few moments the Senate will decide whether to invoke cloture to close debate on the nomination of Sam Alito to be the 110th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Before we vote, I want to take a minute to reflect just a bit on the progress that we have made in this overall judicial confirmation process over the last 12 months. In the Senate, I really wear three hats. One is the Senator from the great State of Tennessee; second, the Republican leader; and third, majority leader. Wearing the third hat as majority leader, I have become a steward of our institution, steward in the sense of its rules and its precedents, its practices and the customs of this Senate. My job is to bring Senators together, both sides of the aisle, to govern. That is why we are here, to govern with meaningful solutions to people's real problems, problems today, problems in the future, to identify what those problems are and then to resolve them and to secure America's future by honoring its past and by building on a record of accomplishment every day as we move forward. Three years ago, when I assumed this position as majority leader, there was probably no single greater challenge or obstacle than the judicial confirmation process. In a word, it was broken. The minority party had decided to put partisanship first in the judicial confirmation process by, at that time, orchestrating regular, almost routine filibusters to block what we all know were highly qualified nominees from getting fair up-or-down votes. This partisan obstructionism began in 2001, it continued into 2002, in 2003, and then 2004. If we look back to the 108th Congress alone, the Senate voted 20 times to end debate on 10 different nominees. Each time, cloture failed. We spent more time debating judicial nominations during those 2 years than in any previous Congress. This partisan obstructionism was unprecedented. This routine use of the filibuster was wrong. Never in 214 years had a minority denied a nominee with majority support that fair up-or-down vote. The minority had used the filibuster to seize control of the appointments process. They used it unfairly to apply a new political standard to judicial nominees and to deny a vote to any nominee who did not subscribe to a liberal, activist, ideological agenda. To justify this unprecedented obstruction, Democratic leaders unfairly attacked the character of these nominees. They sought to paint them as extremists and radicals and threats to our society and our institutions. But the American people saw through the attacks. They saw them for what they were, purely partisan. Finally, early this year the Republican leadership said: Enough is enough; enough obstruction, enough partisanship, enough disrespect to these good, decent, and accomplished professionals. We put forward a very simple, straightforward principle. A nominee with the support of a majority of Senators deserves a fair up-or-down vote. And we led on that principle. Because we did that, seven nominees who had been previously filibustered, or blocked, obstructed in the last Congress-- and we were told at the time would be blocked in this Congress--got fair up-or-down votes and were confirmed and now sit on our circuit courts. A new Chief Justice of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts, now sits at the helm of the High Court. If we had not led on principle, there would have been no Gang of 14. Filibusters would have become even more routine and led to more obstruction. However, the sword of the filibuster has been sheathed because we are placing principle before politics, results before rhetoric. With the nomination of Sam Alito before the Senate, this Senate must again choose principle or partisanship. Should we choose to lead on the principle that judicial nominees, whether nominated by a Republican or a Democrat, deserve an up-or-down vote, or should we revert to the partisan obstructionism of the past? I believe a bipartisan group of Senators will choose today to put principle first. Last week, the distinguished minority leader said there has been adequate time for people to debate. No one can complain in this matter that there has not been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro or con. I could not agree more with my colleague and friend. It is time to end debate. It is time to move on. Since President Bush announced Judge Alito's nomination on October 31, Senators have had 91 days to review his nomination, to review his records, his writings. To put that in perspective, Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation took 72 days, even including an extra week's delay to pay respects to his predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. Justice O'Connor, who Judge Alito will replace, was confirmed in 76 days. President Clinton's two Supreme Court nominees, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, got a fair up-or- down vote in an average of 62 days. Judge Alito today is at 91 days. During this 3-month period since Judge Alito was nominated, Members have had an abundance of his written materials, documents, and opinions to review. They have had over 4,800 opinions from his tenure on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals spanning 27,000 pages; another 1,000 pages of documents from Judge Alito's service at the Department of Justice; numerous speeches and news articles. The list goes on and on. Members have had 30 hours of testimony from Judge Alito's judicial committee hearings; statements of 33 witnesses, including 7 who are Judge Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit; Judge Alito's answer to over 650 questions, doubling the number of questions that either of President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees answered; and 4 days of debate in the Senate. Despite all this, some Members have launched a partisan campaign to filibuster this nominee and have forced the Senate to file cloture which we will be voting on. Certainly, it is any Senator's right to force this vote, but it sets an unwelcome precedent for the Senate. As a reminder to my colleagues, the Senate did not have a cloture vote on any of the nine Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court. Judge Alito has majority support. A bipartisan majority of Senators stands ready to confirm him and have announced their support. Judge Alito deserves to be Justice Alito. He has the professional qualifications, the judge temperament and integrity our highest Court deserves. Whether Members agree with me, whether Members support him, we should not prevent Judge Alito from getting a vote. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for cloture. It is our constitutional obligation of advise and consent, because it is fair and because it is the right thing to do. Senators stand for election; judges should not. Absent some extraordinary evidence, we should not challenge a nominee's personal character, credibility, or integrity. Continuing down this path could deter qualified men and women from putting their names forward for nomination, from volunteering to serve their country as Federal judges. It could threaten the quality Americans most desire in their judiciary: fairness and independence. A vote today for cloture is a vote to support all we have done over the past 3 years to repair what was broken. True, it is a vote to bring Sam Alito's nomination to a fair up-or-down vote, but it is also a vote that is so much more. It is a vote to demonstrate Members working together to end partisan obstructionism and to lead on that simple principle that every judicial nominee, with majority support, deserves a fair up-or-down vote. In closing, if I may borrow the words of my good friend Senator Kennedy from 1998: We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our [colleagues] don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote. I agree with Senator Kennedy's statement. I say to my colleagues, if you do not like Judge Alito, vote against him. That is your right. But let's give him a vote. That is our constitutional duty.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, January 31, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session and the consideration en bloc of calendar Nos. 440 and 441, the nomination of Ben Bernanke to be a member and Chairman of the Federal Reserve; further, that there be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Bunning and 60 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of calendar Nos. 440 and 411, and that following the votes the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and then the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, earlier today I filed a cloture motion on Judge Alito's nomination in order to bring to close in the not too distant future this outstanding nominee's confirmation process. The cloture vote is scheduled, as my colleagues know, for 4:30 in the afternoon on Monday. If cloture is invoked--which I believe it will be--we will have a final up-or-down vote on confirmation on Tuesday at 11 o'clock in the morning. While I believe the Senate has a responsibility to have a thorough debate, a robust debate on every judicial nomination, I am disappointed and it is time to end the delay tactics which we have seen play out over the last several weeks, delay tactics my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using to obstruct this nominee. Thus, that is why I filed cloture to say enough is enough. It has been 87 days since the President announced Judge Alito's nomination. I should say, by the way, that it took an average of 63 days from announcement to confirmation of both of President Clinton's nominees. When Judge Alito was nominated on October 31, or shortly after that-- maybe even that day--Chairman Specter and I worked in good faith with Senator Reid and Senator Leahy for a timeline on confirmation projecting out where we would be. We agreed to give Judge Alito a fair up-or-down vote after plenty of time for hearings and preparations for the hearings on January 20. We agreed to consider the nomination--it wasn't our preference--after the holidays. We also agreed--again it wasn't our preference--to the Democratic schedules not to begin hearings the week we preferred, January 2. All of these accommodations were made with the expectation that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, once they had plenty of time for their hearings themselves, would not delay the vote coming out of the committee, which would set back the schedule yet a week later, which indeed is what happened. Judge Alito was responsive. He was forthcoming. He answered more than 650 questions. Again, when people hear these numbers, what is the perspective? That is more than double the number of questions that Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer answered during their entire confirmation hearings. But still, the Democrats delayed Judge Alito's vote coming out of committee. Yes, it is within the rules. All of this is within the rules. But we have seen this steady delay, postponement, obstruction. Luckily, the process continues forward. That is where we are today. We are now scheduled to have a vote on January 31. That is the agreement the Democrat leader and I agreed to in representing our caucuses earlier today. That means we will have had a total of 5 days of floor activity. It is 8 o'clock tonight. We have had speech and debate over the course of the day, and we will have debate tomorrow. As everyone is well aware, we are given plenty of time in the Senate. We could stay here later tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow night. I said we will plow through Saturday until we get this done. It will end up being 5 days in terms of floor action. Just to put that in perspective, for all of the sitting members on the Supreme Court today, only one other had 5 days of floor debate on a nominee. Again, we are pushing the limits once again. That is why we came forward to file cloture, to bring closure to this process. Throughout the entire process I have been very consistent: These judicial nominees deserve, in terms of just dignity, but also it is our responsibility, they deserve a fair up-or-down vote. I should add, also, a recent poll shows that a majority of Americans believe Judge Alito should be confirmed. So, tonight, I can say not with absolute certainty but with as much certainty you can get around this place that on Tuesday Judge Alito will get that fair up-or-down vote. I mentioned the recent poll. That is the general sense people get as we go back to our communities talking about the hearing process and the confirmation process. They broadly support this highly qualified individual. The list goes on and on in terms of his qualifications, his 15 years on the Federal courts, his highest rating with the ABA, the testimony from some of his colleagues in the hearing, now 2 weeks ago, all of which underline his modest judicial temperament, his integrity, his character. The polls show that the American people have spoken in a fairly dramatic way to us as we go back to our States. I agree with the American people. Next Tuesday, a bipartisan majority will vote to confirm Judge Alito as Justice Alito.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. 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, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Friday, January 27; 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 proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand that earlier today, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee was on the Senate floor--actually, several times. During his last discussion on the Senate floor, he asked unanimous consent for an up-or-down vote on this distinguished nominee to the Supreme Court. As all of our colleagues know, it is very important from our standpoint that this nominee be given a vote that is up or down, which reflects the advice and consent of this body. It has been reported to me over the course of the afternoon that there are Members from the other side of the aisle who have expressed their intent to filibuster this nominee. As I have said at the outset, it is important to me to make sure that this nominee be given plenty of time in terms of advice and consent on the floor of this body, and, indeed, he has had just that. It is time to establish an end point for that up-or-down vote. Although we have attempted to set a time certain to have that vote in the future, we have not been able to receive that from the other side of the aisle. Again, this is a nominee who is well qualified, has the highest ABA rating. We heard seven of his circuit court fellow judges testify on his behalf. Now is the time to bring his vote to the floor of the Senate. There is objection to that, and it has been now 87 days. I believe this is the 87th day since he was initially nominated. We wanted to have hearings in November and December, and there was objection, so we pushed those off until January. In those hearings, Judge Alito testified and was present for 18 hours and answered over 650 questions. We have had debate today and yesterday, and the debate will continue tomorrow and possibly Saturday and Monday--however long it takes for people to be adequately heard. But it is time to set that vote. Even after we came out of committee, there was yet another delay in terms of bringing Judge Alito's nomination to the floor of this body. I was disappointed that he came out of committee on a party-line vote. That at least raises the specter that this becomes too partisan, and so I am very concerned. All that is behind us now, and it is time to move toward that up-or-down vote. cloture motion

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk at this point.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on cloture occur at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, January 30, with the mandatory quorum waived. I further ask consent that if cloture is invoked, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, January 31. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on Tuesday prior to 11 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that cloture vote may be vitiated by the agreement of the two leaders.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just to summarize, we will be here tonight for as long as people want to speak. We will be here tomorrow, and we will announce what time we will be in tomorrow. We will be available as long as people would like to speak. If Saturday is necessary, we will provide that time as well. The cloture vote will be at 4:30 on Monday. Once cloture is invoked, we would have a vote at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, January 31. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. 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. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. To reiterate, today we filed a cloture motion on the nomination of Judge Alito. The cloture vote will be 4:30 on Monday. We will have some more debate time on Monday. I believe we have provided plenty of time for debate on the nomination. I hope and expect cloture will be invoked and that we will proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Samuel Alito on Tuesday at 11 a.m.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, America is confronting a childhood obesity crisis, and over the past 25 years, the percentage of overweight girls has more than doubled--to 16 percent of girls ages 6 to 19, up from 6 percent in 1974. To support the search for a solution, the Girl Scout Research Institute asked girls directly how they define health and what motivates them to lead a healthier lifestyle. The results are captured in a new report, titled The New Normal? What Girls Say About Healthy Living. This new report brings the voice of girls to the forefront of the conversation on childhood obesity for the first time and finds that girls are in many ways ahead of the curve, using a varied, complex set of norms to define health. Today's girls are defining ``health'' on their own terms, placing the same value on emotional well-being and self-esteem as they do on diet and exercise. For girls, being healthy is more than just eating right and exercising; it is also about feeling good about oneself and being supported by family and peers. Girls say that efforts to reduce childhood and adolescent obesity that focus solely on nutrition or physical activity miss the mark. The study lays out four key findings: One, girls aspire to be ``normal healthy,'' a concept they often associate with appearing normal and being supported by peers and family. Girls tended to view any diet or lifestyle choice as healthy as long as it doesn't harm their appearance or their relationships with friends and family. Overall, 65 percent of girls say their lifestyle is ``healthy enough for my age,'' while just 16 percent describe their lifestyle as ``very healthy.'' Although about two-thirds, 65 percent, correctly identify themselves as being either normal weight or overweight, one in three girls has a distorted idea about her weight. Older girls also tended to be less satisfied with their weight than younger girls. Two, girls have a holistic view of health and describe emotional health as important as physical health. Virtually all girls agree that emotional health is as important as physical health--and 88 percent of 11- to 17-year-old girls believe that feeling good about yourself is more important than how you look. More than a third of girls ages 11-17 reported eating more when they are ``stressed out'' and overweight girls are more than twice as likely as girls who are not overweight to report eating more in times of stress. Three, girls already know what is healthy, but many don't use the information they have to make healthy choices. Obstacles at home include a decline in the frequency of family meals and increased television watching and computer use as girls get older. A third of girls experience sit down to a family meal no more than twice a week. More than 60 percent of teenage girls skip breakfast at least once a week and nearly 20 percent skip it every day. Obstacles at school include reliance on vending machines, poor taste and quality of school lunches, optional physical education classes, and a lack of access to more informal physical activities are all barriers. Many girls ages 11-17 say they do not play sports because they do not feel skilled or competent, 40 percent, or because they do not think their bodies look good, 23 percent. Four, girls cite their mothers not only as role models but also as leading sources of nutritional information and emotional reinforcement. Mothers exert tremendous influence. Girls tend to mirror their mothers' activity levels, weight and body image. And given the increasingly poor diet and sedentary lifestyle of today's adults, it is clear that efforts to improve the health of girls must also target parents-- especially mothers. Continuing a 93-year tradition begun by founder Juliette Gordon Low, Girl Scouts offers an array of successful initiatives and age- appropriate curricula in health, nutrition, and fitness--including more than 60 badges and awards related to healthy living. And the findings of The New Normal? What Girls Say About Healthy Living, will continue this tradition in helping inform GSUSA's ongoing program and policy work. To turn this research into action today, Girl Scouts is encouraging all girls and their families to engage in advocacy at the local level. Advocacy is a critical component in educating and influencing key policy and decision makers as well as the general public about what girls need to lead healthy lives. To bring girls' voices to the discussion about health in their communities, Girl Scouts is calling on all girls to become involved in the development and implementation of their local School Wellness Policy. Ninety-five percent of schools must establish a school wellness program consisting of nutrition and physical activity goals by the first day of the 2006-2007 school year. We want girls to take action through advocacy on this timely and important issue so that as schools address the wellness of our Nation's children and youth, the unique girl-perspective is fully considered.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Today, the Prime Minister of Cambodia dropped the criminal defamation lawsuits against five government critics and human rights advocates. Along with the administration, I welcome the Prime Minister's decision and applaud his efforts to recognize the right of free political exchange. I am hopeful that today's action represents progress and a greater commitment to human rights and civil society on the part of the ruling authority. In recent months, we have had cause for alarm that the Government of Cambodia is engaged in a campaign of political persecution and intimidation. Prime Minister Hun Sen and his apparatus have consistently and blatantly violated basic democratic principles, the rule of law, and human rights as enshrined in the Cambodian Constitution. Tonight, the Senate stands unified in calling upon Prime Minister Sen and the government of Cambodia: To immediately cease and desist from its systematic campaign to undermine democracy, the rule of law, and human rights; to immediately release all political prisoners and drop all politically motivated charges against opponents of the government; and to demonstrate through word and deed the government's commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights; We also call upon the King of Cambodia to play a more active and constructive role in protecting the constitutional rights of Cambodian citizens. And we urge international donors and multilateral organizations, including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the United Nations, to hold the Prime Minister and his government fully accountable for actions that undermine the investment of international donors in the democratic and economic development of Cambodia. I would like to thank Senator McConnell and Senator McCain for their leadership and commitment to the people of Cambodia. They deserve special recognition for their unflagging support. Let me close with a report today in the International Herald Tribune. At a recent gathering of 800 impoverished farmers and townspeople in a village south of the capitol of Phnom Penh, an elderly Cambodian woman asked: I have a question for government. You talk about democracy, but how much right do the people of Cambodia have to speak out? If we speak out, will we be arrested like Kem Sokha? I put that question to Prime Minister Hun Sen. Will the people be allowed to speak out as free citizens in an open and just democracy? The people of Cambodia want to know. And on their behalf, the U.S. Senate demands an answer.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just a very short comment. I have been in discussion with the Democratic leader on this issue as well. As our distinguished colleague from Arizona has just said, we on the Republican side have put together a working group in terms of how to address this very important issue. It has to be done in a bipartisan way. America is looking at this body to respond to abuses that we have all seen in our Government today. I think we all need to be committed to address this in a bipartisan way. We have a great structure to build upon in the legislation that has been introduced in a bipartisan way with Senators McCain and Lieberman. I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle in developing an appropriate response over the coming days. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the time from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m. tonight be divided, with the time from 10 to 11 under the control of the majority leader or his designee, the time from 11 to noon under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, with each hour rotating back and forth in that same manner. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday this same division occur, with the first hour from 10 to 11 under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, I am honored to open debate on the nomination of Judge Sam Alito to be the 110th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I enthusiastically support his confirmation. Judge Alito deserves to become Justice Alito. Those who oppose him are smearing a decent and honorable man and imposing an unfair political standard on all judicial nominees. I support Judge Alito because he is exceptionally qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. I support Judge Alito because he is a man of integrity and modest judicial temperament. I support Judge Alito because he has a record that demonstrates a respect for judicial restraint, an aversion to political agendas on the bench, and a commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution. There is no question that Judge Alito is exceptionally well qualified. He is measured, brilliant, deeply versed in and respectful of the law, and a man of character and integrity. But there is another reason I support Judge Alito. I support Judge Alito because denying him a seat on the Supreme Court could have devastating long-term consequences for our judicial nomination process. Let me address these issues one at a time. Exceptional qualifications: From the moment President Bush nominated him last October, Judge Alito's exceptional qualifications had a ``wow'' factor that impressed Senators of both parties. In every respect, Judge Alito is a nominee who meets the highest standards of excellence. He is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School. He has dedicated his 30-year legal career to public service as a Federal prosecutor and assistant to the Solicitor General, where he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, and for the last 15 years as a Federal judge on the Third Circuit in New Jersey. He has been unanimously confirmed by this body not once but twice. On the Federal bench, he has participated in more than 3,500 cases and has written more than 300 opinions. The American Bar Association gave Judge Alito its highest rating, unanimously ``well qualified.'' He is a man of integrity and modest judicial temperament. Exceptional qualifications only begin to reveal why Sam Alito should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Throughout his career as a prosecutor and a judge, Sam Alito earned a reputation as a man of integrity who was fairminded and evenhanded. He earned the trust and respect of his colleagues, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. That is one reason seven Federal judges endorsed his nomination and testified on his behalf. Through the Judiciary Committee hearings, we saw a clear picture emerge of Judge Alito's modest judicial temperament. Despite enduring relentless questioning of his credibility, integrity, and personal and political views, Judge Alito remained unflappable, never once raising his voice or becoming confrontational, focusing clearly and articulately on the facts, the law, and the constitutional questions presented to him. He understands the limited role of a judge--judicial restraint, impartiality, and a commitment to the rule of law. In addition to all of his exceptional qualifications, integrity, and temperament, Judge Alito deserves confirmation because he understands the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. He practices judicial restraint and refuses to prejudge cases or apply a personal political agenda on the bench. In his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, this philosophy was clear. He said: A judge can't have an agenda. A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case. . . . The judge's only obligation--and it's a solemn obligation--is to the rule of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires. In his 15 years on the bench, Judge Alito has done exactly that. Just listen to the words of one of Judge Alito's former law clerks, a registered Democrat who, by the way, still has a ``Kerry for President'' bumper sticker on his car. His words: Until I read [Judge Alito's] 1985 Reagan job application, I could not tell you what his politics were . . . When we worked on cases, we reached the same result about 95 percent of the time . . . It was my experience that Judge Alito was (and is) capable of setting aside any personal biases he may have when he judges. He is the consummate professional. Long-term consequences for the judicial nominations process: Perhaps the most important reason to support Judge Alito has less to do with Judge Alito himself and more to do with our judicial nominations process. Regardless of their political views, Senators should treat judicial nominees with dignity, respect, and fairness, not just because it is the right thing to do but because a process that politicizes and degrades judicial nominees will drive our very best and our brightest away from the bench. I am profoundly disappointed in the unfair and unseemly treatment of Judge Alito during this process. His judicial record has been distorted and mischaracterized. He has been labeled as nonresponsive during his hearings, despite providing candid and articulate answers to more than 650 questions and over 18 hours of testimony--far more than many, perhaps any Supreme Court nominee in the past--and most sadly, he has been the victim of a calculated but unsuccessful campaign to smear his character, his integrity, and his credibility. In an editorial in support of Judge Alito, published on January 15, the Washington Post expressed this concern, even though they would have chosen a different nominee than Judge Alito: He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set . . . Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither has their history generally been one of party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law--which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law. However one reasonably defines ``mainstream'' of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito's work lies within it. While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No President should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Washington Post editorial of January 15 entitled ``Confirm Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FRIST. Thirteen years ago, a Republican minority in the Senate voted to confirm the qualified nominee of a Democratic President by an overwhelming vote of 96 to 3. Despite a well-documented liberal record, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sits on the Supreme Court today because Republican Senators chose to focus on her qualifications and not to obstruct her nomination based merely on her judicial philosophy or ideology. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge Alito by applying that same fair standard. As we debate this week, I hope we can put aside partisan rhetoric and the politics of personal destruction and stand on principle. Qualified judicial nominees such as Judge Alito deserve respectful debate and a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. As Senators, it is our fundamental constitutional duty and responsibility. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2006] Confirm Samuel Alito The Senate's decision concerning the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito Jr. is harder than the case last year of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Judge Alito's record raises concerns across a range of areas. His replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could alter--for the worse, from our point of view--the Supreme Court's delicate balance in important areas of constitutional law. He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set. Though some attacks on him by Democratic senators and liberal interest groups have misrepresented his jurisprudence, Judge Alito's record is troubling in areas. His generally laudable tendency to defer to elected representatives at the state and federal levels sometimes goes too far--giving rise to concerns that he will prove too tolerant of claims of executive power in the war on terror. He has tended at times to read civil rights statutes and precedents too narrowly. He has shown excessive tolerance for aggressive police and prosecutorial tactics. There is reason to worry that he would curtail abortion rights. And his approach to the balance of power between the federal government and the states, while murky, seems unpromising. Judge Alito's record is complicated, and one can therefore argue against imputing to him any of these tendencies. Yet he is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see. Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. The president's choice is due deference--the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president. And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached. Humility is called for when predicting how a Supreme Court nominee will vote on key issues, or even what those issues will be, given how people and issues evolve. But it's fair to guess that Judge Alito will favor a judiciary that exercises restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that of the political branches in areas of their competence. That's not all bad. The Supreme Court sports a great range of ideological diversity but less disagreement about the scope of proper judicial power. The institutional self-discipline and modesty that both Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts profess could do the court good if taken seriously and applied apolitically. Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither has their history generally been one of party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law--which is repugnant to the ideal to the rule of law. However one reasonably defines the ``mainstream'' of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito's work lies within it. While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. President, I welcome everyone back to begin this second session of the 109th Congress. In a few moments we will begin another historic debate in the Senate Chamber as we consider the nomination of Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. We will lock in a debate structure in a few moments so we will be able to alternate hours back and forth between the two sides of the aisle. This will help facilitate the schedule so Members will have a better understanding of when they will have the opportunity to come to the floor to give their statements and to participate in that debate. We will remain in session all day today and into the night this week to accommodate Senators who wish to make statements. As I mentioned, every Senator will have the opportunity to speak, but it is my hope we will be able to lock in a time certain for a vote on this qualified nominee as soon as possible in order that our fellow Senators will know when that confirmation vote will occur. I would like to be able to do that shortly. I have been in discussion with the Democratic leader, and we will continue that discussion on that particular matter.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, I would like to address a troubling series of events that has recently transpired in Cambodia. In the past year, the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen has engaged in a widespread campaign to silence his critics, stifle dissent, and enfeeble his political opposition. The result of these actions has been a very disturbing erosion of Cambodia's commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. Nearly a year ago, in February 2005, Cambodia's National Assembly voted to revoke the parliamentary immunity from prosecution of opposition leader Mr. Sam Rainsy and two of his colleagues. The alleged offense was defaming the Prime Minister. Just after this vote, Mr. Rainsy and one of his colleagues, Chea Poch, managed to escape Cambodia to avoid arrest. However, the other opposition parliamentarian and an ally of Mr. Rainsy, Cheam Channy, was arrested. Several months later, in August 2005, Cheam Channy was sentenced to 7 years in prison for allegedly forming ``a secret army to overthrow the government.'' And, in December 2005, Sam Rainsy was sentenced in absentia to 18 months in prison for defaming the Prime Minister and the President of the National Assembly. The Cambodian Government's assault on its political opposition is only the tip of the iceberg. The Prime Minister has also carried out a campaign against human rights activists in Cambodia. In a period of 5 days, just before and after the new year, three of Cambodia's top human rights activists were arrested. These included Mr. Kern Sokha, president of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights; Mr. Yeng Virak, director of the Community Legal Education Center; and Pa Nguon Teang, a journalist and the acting leader of Mr. Kern Sokha's human rights organization. Again, these activists and critics of the Government were detained on trumped-up defamation charges. These arrests and detentions are just the latest in a series of actions aimed at silencing the critics of the Cambodian Government. In addition to members of the political opposition, Cambodia's Government has also targeted prominent individuals in the media, trade unions, and civil society. The United States has rightly condemned these actions, and I applaud Ambassador Mussomeli and his staff at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh for raising this troubling issue with senior officials in the Cambodian Government. I am also encouraged that the international community is responding to Cambodia's recent transgressions. In particular, the World Bank has issued a stark warning that Cambodia's actions are jeopardizing the millions of dollars in international financial assistance that it receives each year. I call upon Prime Minister Hun Sen and the Cambodian Government to end this troubling series of events. Although the Cambodian Government has released Mr. Kern Sokha, Mr. Yeng Virak, Pa Nguon Teang, and other high-profile political prisoners on bail, the charges have not been dropped and other dissidents remain in custody. The Cambodian Government needs to release all political prisoners and drop the spurious charges being levied against them. These actions point to the obvious conclusion that democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights are no longer priorities or principles of the Cambodian Government. I also urge the international community to increase pressure on Cambodia to reverse its recent actions and to demonstrate to the world its commitment to freedom and to allowing its citizens to express their political opinions without fear and intimidation.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will make a final statement on the deficit reduction act. The Democratic leader also will, and then there will be 10 minutes after that before we begin to vote.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, like everyone else in America, we need to tighten our belts and learn how to do more with less. For the first time in over 8 years in the Senate, we will reduce spending in an area of the budget known as entitlement spending--for the first time in 8 years. As we all know, entitlement spending represents over 54 percent of total Federal spending today. It is going to continue to grow steadily in the years ahead. The infrequency with which this body addresses entitlement legislation underscores the importance of the bill we are about to vote upon. For the first time since 1997, this body, the Senate, is taking action to reduce or slow that growth in Federal entitlement spending. The legislation before us today will reduce spending nearly $40 billion over the next 5 years. If you extrapolate that out to 10 years, it is about $100 billion. For some, particularly on the other side of the aisle, this legislation--and I want to put that in quotation marks--``cuts too much.'' Let me respond by saying entitlement spending is projected to grow from $1.3 trillion to over $1.7 trillion in 2010--$1.3 trillion to over $1.7 trillion over the next 5 years. If you add that up, over the next 5 years, the cumulative entitlement spending will top $7.8 trillion. The bill we have before us reduces that figure, the $7.8 trillion, by a total amount of $40 billion. That is about a half of 1 percent. ``Cuts too much?'' Furthermore, the bill doesn't--that is why I put it in quotation marks--cut entitlement spending, spending which, if we don't pass this bill, will grow at 5.4 percent. Once we pass this bill, it will be slowed to 5.4 percent. That is not a cut. The legislation, as tough as it has been to negotiate--and much of it has played out on the floor of Senate itself--reflects tremendous work over the past several months. It is a small downpayment against greater challenges that confront our country in the years ahead. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report entitled ``The Long-Term Budget Outlook.'' Let me read the very first line of that report. As health care costs continue to grow faster than the economy and the babyboom generation nears entitlement for Social Security and Medicare, the United States faces inevitable decisions about the fundamentals of its spending policies and its means of financing those policies. What it boils down to is the entitlement spending path we are on is simply not sustainable. The legislation we are about to vote on is a good first step on putting us back on a sustainable glidepath. But it is only the first step. I am proud of the work on this bill to control Federal spending. I congratulate the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Gregg, who worked nearly 9 months ago on passage of the budget resolution. The 2006 budget resolution that put in motion this process has brought us to this point of deficit reduction in this reconciliation bill today. Indeed, this final conference bill exceeds the goals set out last spring in that resolution by nearly $6 billion. I also thank the chairmen of the reconciliation committees and the many staff who have worked so hard in putting this bill together. It is time we bring this year's budget process to an end with passage of this legislation today. With the New Year only a couple of weeks away, it is time for us to prepare and actually renew our focus on the continued challenges that lie ahead. The bill shows fiscal restraint. It shows we are going to cut wasteful Washington spending. A ``yes'' vote demonstrates we are governing with meaningful solutions to ensure America's long-term prosperity.

Mr. FRIST

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