Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may it be in order to ask consent that when the distinguished Senator has finished speaking, the senior Senator from Florida be then recognized to speak, all sides retaining their rights, of course, on the offering of amendments?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield, without losing the floor, for a suggestion?

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida is correct. I am told that amendments will be offered on the side. It would be either the Democrat side or the Republican side. There would be objection but Senators agree to speak about amendments and are encouraged to speak about amendments they intend to offer.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the two Senators from Florida be allowed to speak at this point about the Gators as in morning business, but I will then again request at least on our side we have an order of speakers as I have noted. I ask unanimous consent now simply that the two distinguished Senators from Florida be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Certainly, Mr. President.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, any Senator can object. I have been told that there are those on the Republican side who would object to a Democrat offering an amendment, so I suspect there would be similar objections here. But any Senator can speak about his or her amendment. Any Senator can offer an amendment. Any Senator can make an objection. But insofar as there are going to be objections on the Republican side to some Democratic amendments, and vice versa--there is a Democratic amendment pending, of course, that of Senator Mikulski--I thought, until we get to the caucus, at least we could accomplish something by talking about the amendments we want to offer. I will again make a unanimous consent request that after the two distinguished Senators from Florida speak about the Gators, there be 15 minutes a side to talk on the bill or amendments Members wish to offer. And if we do that, again, I realize we would alternate. On the Democratic side it would be Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Menendez, Senator Lieberman, Senator Salazar, Senator Durbin, and Senator Kennedy. I renew that request.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know there are amendments on both sides. I have already stated my admiration for the way the Senator from Pennsylvania moved this bill through the committee and on to the floor. I would like to have finished the bill last week, and I share his sense of urgency to finish. I suspect there will be discussions about this in both the caucuses this noon. I wonder if possibly the Senator from Pennsylvania and I, and whomever else he would like, could try to sit down and work out an order for amendments so that we can move forward. But that probably will not happen until after the caucuses, and I thought we could at least have others speak. I have spoken, and I will include another statement for the legislative record this morning. But I think if we get Senators down here to talk about it, we can also work out the time for amendments.

Mr. LEAHY. No, no. Finish what you were saying.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. A group by the name of the Gators. But before they do that--I hope to maybe go back and forth--I would like to ask to be able to lock in on this side, realizing that we will probably go the traditional way, back and forth on the bill on both sides, that it would be Senators Nelson, Menendez, Lieberman, Salazar, Durbin, and Kennedy. What I was going to recommend is we ask people to be able to speak in 15-minute blocks, each one of them speaking for 15 minutes, realizing that if we work it this way, I would imagine the distinguished chairman would want 15 minutes on his side, and go back and forth. So I would propound that following discussion by Senators Nelson and Martinez, recognizing the significant accomplishment for Florida, we have 15 minutes a side for discussion and that the Senators on our side in the slotted times be Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Menendez, Senator Lieberman, Senator Salazar, Senator Durbin, and Senator Kennedy.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania states it accurately. A number of Senators, I suspect, on both sides are going to talk about amendments they intend to offer. Unanimous consent will not be given for anybody to offer an amendment on either side during this time, but I would encourage Senators to talk about the amendments they intend to offer.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for offering an amendment, it would require, of course, unanimous consent. I have not included, just because it gets too complicated--that is why I wanted to work out with the distinguished chairman when such amendments might be offered. It would allow Senators to speak, but any Senator speaking, if they wanted to offer an amendment, would still require unanimous consent then. Rather than trying to micromanage this all the way down the line, I will let each Senator make that request.

Mr. LEAHY. That is right.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have a number of people who want to speak on both sides, and the distinguished chairman is here. I was going to ask unanimous consent--let me discuss one thing first before I do--to first allow the two distinguished Senators from Florida to speak briefly on a matter not involving immigration but involving----

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will confirm Michael Chagares to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This confirmation will bring the total number of judicial appointments since January 2001 to 235, including the confirmations of 2 Supreme Court Justices and 44 circuit court judges. Of course, 100 judges were confirmed during the 17 months when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate. In the other 45 months, under Republican control, only 135 judges have been confirmed. Ironically, the Senate was almost twice as productive under Democratic leadership as under Republican leadership. Recently, President Bush withdrew the nominations of Judge Henry Saad to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Daniel P. Ryan to the Eastern District of Michigan. These withdrawals are long overdue and bring to a close a sad chapter in history of judicial confirmations when the President and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee ignored opposition to nominations by the home State Senators. Even with negative blue slips opposing the nominations in 2003 from the home State Senators, the former Judiciary Committee chairman took the position to ignore them and proceed with hearing and to force the Saad nomination through the committee on a party-line vote. That was the first time the committee voted on a nominee with two negative blue slips and it may have been the first time any chairman and any Senate Judiciary Committee proceeded with a hearing on a judicial nominee over the objection of both home State Senators. It is certainly the first time in the last 50 years, and I know it was the first time during my 32 years in the Senate. When Chairman Hatch chaired this committee and we were considering the nominations of a Democratic President, one negative blue slip from one home State Senator was enough to doom a nomination and prevent a hearing on that nomination. Indeed, among the more than 60 Clinton judicial nominees who this committee did not consider there were several who were blocked in spite of the positive blue slips from both home State Senators. So long as one Republican Senator had an objection, it appeared to be honored, whether that was Senator Helms objecting to an African-American nominee from Virginia or Senator Gorton objecting to nominees from California. The blue-slip policy in effect, and enforced strictly, by the Republican chairman during the Clinton administration operated as an absolute bar to the consideration of any nominee to any court unless both home State Senators had returned positive blue slips. No time limit was set, and no reason had to be articulated. Remember, before I became chairman in June of 2001, all of these decisions were being made in secret. Blue slips were not public, and they were allowed to operate as an anonymous hold on otherwise qualified nominees. In the 106th Congress alone, more than half of President Clinton's circuit court nominees were defeated through the operation of the blue slip or other such partisan obstruction. Perhaps the best documented abuses occurred in the Sixth Circuit, when the nominations of Judge Helene White, Kathleen McCree Lewis, and Professor Kent Markus to that court were blocked. Judge White and Ms. Lewis were themselves Michigan nominees. Republicans in the Senate prevented consideration of any of President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit for years. When I became chairman in 2001, I ended that impasse. Under Democratic leadership, in spite of the abuses by Republicans, we proceeded to consider and confirm 2 nominees to the Sixth Circuit among the 17 circuit judges we were able to confirm in our 17 months. We have continued to confirm judges, and the vacancies that once plagued the Sixth Circuit have been cut dramatically. Where Republican obstruction led to 8 vacancies on that 16-judge court, Democratic cooperation has allowed these vacancies to be filled and only 2 remain. The Sixth Circuit currently has more judges and fewer vacancies than it has had in years. Ignoring the opposition of Michigan's Senators, President Bush renominated Judges Saad and Ryan in 2005 rather than nominate consensus nominees for those vacancies that could be easily confirmed. In fact, Judge Ryan's nomination was not withdrawn until last week even though he received a majority ``not qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association in March 2005. I look forward to the White House reconsidering its confrontational posture and working with the Senate to send to the Senate well-qualified nominees who can be confirmed with the support of Michigan's Senators. These are not the only nominations the President has withdrawn recently. Last month, the President also withdrew the nomination of James Payne to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest. Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening process or by the ABA but by online journalists. As I discussed last month, at a minimum that case and the other withdrawals reinforce concerns about this White House's poor vetting process for important nominations which became apparent with the withdrawals of Bernard Kerik to head Homeland Security, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and Claude Allen to be a Fourth Circuit judge. It was not the administration's vetting but reporting in a national magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination. Democratic Senators resisted the nomination of Allen, a Virginian, because the President was seeking to appoint someone from another State to a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. Unfortunately, rather than being thorough in selecting lifetime appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, all too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies and picking political fights. As today's confirmation demonstrates, Democrats in the Senate cooperate with this White House when it focuses on sending the Senate qualified consensus nominees. Unfortunately, as the recent withdrawals demonstrate, this White House too often does not want to cooperate with us. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today. Is all time yielded back on the nomination?

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has taken significant and constructive steps over the past week toward fixing our Nation's broken immigration system. On March 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a comprehensive and bipartisan package that is tough but smart. We sent to the Senate a bill that includes critical law enforcement and border security measures--tougher than the bill introduced by the majority leader earlier last month. Our bill, which was passed by a strong bipartisan 12-to-6 vote in committee, also includes realistic solutions for the problem of the millions of undocumented presently living inside our borders. We do not offer these aliens amnesty but create an incentive for them to come out of the shadows, register, and earn the opportunity to obtain legal status over the course of 11 years. Over the past week, we have taken strides to see these proposals passed into law. I thank the many Senators who have come to the floor to speak in support of the committee bill. Senators McCain and Kennedy, who did the hard work of drafting many of these measures, have made strong statements explaining why the committee bill is not an offer of amnesty but represents an earned path to legalization and eventual citizenship. Senator Feinstein spoke about how this bill is tough on enforcement but pragmatic in its temporary worker and legalization programs. I thank Senator Durbin for his eloquent statement last week describing the DREAM Act, which is included in the committee bill. Senator Lincoln, Senator Salazar, and Senator Obama have all come to speak in favor of the ``enforcement-plus'' measures in the bipartisan bill. We have voted to approve several amendments that further strengthen the bill. Senator Bingaman's amendment to bolster national security by assisting local law enforcement in border States was approved overwhelmingly yesterday. So was Senator Alexander's amendment to strengthen citizenship programs, and last week, we passed a Frist-Reid amendment to study the tragic deaths occurring at the border between the United States and Mexico. I hope we will vote next on the important amendment offered by Senator Mikulski with a long list of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. The Mikulski amendment will bring relief to employers by easing the shortfall of seasonal workers. I hope we will also vote on amendments that will be offered by Senator Bill Nelson to add additional enforcement provisions to the Committee bill. We have before us an opportunity to take a historic vote on a realistic and reasonable system for immigration. Our bill protects America's borders, strengthens enforcement, and remains true to American values. We should pass this bill this week.

Mr. LEAHY. Imprimatur.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before we do that, I believe the distinguished Senator from Connecticut wishes to speak.

Mr. LEAHY. No, starting right now. We have one pending. I mentioned that several Senators, including a majority of Senators from the Republican side of the aisle, have amendments that we could be voting on.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, of course the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Vermont were both here, missing all those recesses. As much as I have enjoyed the company of my friend for over a quarter of a century, I did not enjoy it so much that I wanted to miss those recesses. There are several amendments that we could vote on in the next couple of hours, as far as I am concerned. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield without his losing the floor?