Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. No, I will not. The number is 98 percent----

Ms. LANDRIEU. He has answered my question. He said he didn't know what the number was. I would like to explain to him and to the other Members.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will not.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The number the distinguished Senator from Utah did not recognize--I don't know why he would not recognize it since he is chairman of the committee, but he says he doesn't recognize it. The number is 98. Ninety-eight percent of the judges that were sent to this Senate by President Bush we have approved--98 percent. There are not many people in America, not white people, or black people, or Spanish people, or women, or men, who think the Senate should approve 100 percent of any President's nominees. It is beyond the realm of reason, particularly a President who did not win the popular vote. Earlier in the debate, the chairman, who also doesn't recognize this number, this 98 percent, also fails to recognize the numbers in the last election. The numbers of the last election were Bush 50,456,169; Gore 50,996,116. So 500,000 more people voted for Vice President Gore in the popular vote than President Bush. He won by a handful of electoral votes in Florida, and we know that. The Court decided it. I am not complaining about it, but numbers are important. Let me tell you another number----

Ms. LANDRIEU. The distinguished Senator from Utah has answered the question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Utah----

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object. I know the distinguished chairman has been on the floor for a while making some truly offensive statements to colleagues on this side of the aisle that, in my opinion, are beneath the dignity of the committee on which he serves as chair. I ask the chairman if he recognizes the number on this chart. Could he state for the record what it is.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Good. I am going to take every one of them. I want to tell the Republican majority something quite simple. This country, no matter your best efforts, will not be divided. No matter your vicious rhetoric about Protestants and Catholics and blacks and whites and Hispanics and women, we refuse to be divided. In a time of war, which we are in, when the country is under assault and we have men and women dying in Iraq, it is the height of disrespect and un- Americanism to come to this great floor and talk about the pettiness and say this woman Senator, who has spent 25 years in public office, and every woman who has ever served, that there is something wrong if I don't want a woman as a judge or I don't want African Americans to be here. The Senator from Utah must forget where I am from. I would like to remind him where I am from. I am going to fight for Louisiana. In the 63 years before Rosa Parks decided to sit down in her seat because her feet were so tired she could not move, a man named Homer Plessy decided he would get on a rail car that was entitled ``whites only.'' He got on it in New Orleans, my hometown. He rode on the train and he knew he would be arrested. But a group of lawyers, African-American free men of color, had decided that he would be the right one. Why? Because he was white enough to pass, to get on the train, and black enough to be arrested. And that is exactly what happened. Forty years before the Civil Rights Act, Plessy rode that train and the great movement began to free people who had been slaves for 300 years. I have to sit in the Senate Chamber and listen to the Republican majority argue that, in the whole country, they can't find a better African-American woman than this Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the bench, to hold up Rosa Parks, to honor the work of Louis Martinet, and to honor the memory of Plessy. The only person they can find to serve on the bench is a woman who says--and I want to read what she says so the people in this country can just decide for themselves. Don't listen to all the technical parts. I am just going to read to you what the woman said and you decide for yourself if you think this is mainstream or not: Some things are apparent. When government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is families under siege, war in the streets, the precipitous decline of the rule of law, the rapid rise of corruption, the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. What do you think Rosa Parks thought when the Federal judge came down to Alabama and government intruded and said: Lady, you don't have to suffer anymore. You think that Rosa Parks thought that government was bad? Let me go on to say what this mainstream woman thinks of all the grandparents in the United States. My grandparents' generation thought being on the Government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family honor. Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren, because they have a right to get as much ``free stuff'' as the political system will permit them to extract. Excuse me, but on behalf of all the grandparents I represent, this is an insult to every single one of them who raised their children, and then when some of their children got into trouble, raise the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren on their Social Security paychecks of $672 a month, which the Republican side refuses to raise, and a minimum wage which is $5.50, which they won't raise, and you are asking me to put a woman on the court that insults the grandparents of Louisiana? Take your dossier and go somewhere else. Now, if these people are in the mainstream, then I don't know what mainstream we are talking about, because it is not mainstream in Louisiana. That is what this debate is about. The Senate Democrats didn't want to have this filibuster. We are made to have this filibuster because the Republicans on that side think they can divide the country and split us up and cause trouble. I will tell you what people at home want. We are in a war. They want us to be united and fight together. But they have us fighting against Catholic, Protestant, rich, poor, young and old. It is a disgrace, and it is not the Democrats fault. It is the Republican majority. I will just say this. I know the men and women who serve over there and individually they are fine. But, boy, collectively they can sure get themselves up into a lather. The country deserves better. The people want better. We have an Energy bill to pass; we have appropriations bills to pass; I have 400,000 veterans in my State who are looking for help, and they turn on the television to see the chairman from Utah saying something about the women in the Senate don't want women on the bench, and we don't want Hispanics on the bench, and we don't want African Americans on the bench? Whoever heard of such ridiculousness? I beg this body, let's stay on the facts. The facts are that we have approved 98 percent of President Bush's nominees. We have rejected people such as Janice Rogers Brown, and no matter how many times they bring her up, she will be rejected because she makes statements like this that are an insult. She is not going anywhere. We will vote on her 100 times. She will never get on the bench. Whether or not we have a vote on her, she is not going to get on the bench. Let me say I just made a call--how much more time do I have?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I will not yield the floor, and we are not going to yield this point. Technically, the majority is correct that there has not been a technical filibuster successfully completed. But there have been filibusters on this floor that have been tried, but they weren't strong enough to stand up to them because their arguments weren't strong enough. The only way a filibuster can survive is if the arguments and the truth is strong enough to stand up to lies. That is the only way a filibuster survives. That is why this filibuster survives, because the truth is always stronger than a lie. This 63 people never could come out of committee. I am not even going to go into that. I am going to talk about something else. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Good. I just made a call to the National Bar Association, which is the most distinguished group of African-American lawyers in the country. I am sure maybe there are smaller groups that other people might think are, but this is the most well thought of group of lawyers. This group of lawyers, more than almost any other group, would surely know the history of the civil rights movement. They would surely understand the characters and people I have talked about, and all the stories and all the drama. You would think that President Bush, who ran on compassionate conservatism, and the Republicans who keep saying we are reaching out to African Americans--we want to reach out to African Americans, we want to go and put African Americans on the bench--you would think that sometime in the last 3 years they would have called the National Bar Association, or the President would have called the National Bar Association and said: Look, I'm a conservative. You all probably are more liberal as a group, although there are probably some conservative members. Why don't you give me a recommendation, knowing that I can't support a real liberal judge. But if you work with me we could get some really good African Americans on the bench that are highly qualified, that the Democratic majority would like. I would feel happy about that. We are in a war. It would be really important for us to unite our country. Do you think he ever consulted with them? No. The President, this White House, or the Republican leadership never called the National Bar Association, which is the most prestigious group of African-American lawyers, to just ask them. Is there any conservative judge, moderate conservative judge you all would think would be good that I could appoint? This is not about doing what is right. This is about winning elections and ginning up the far right in the wings. I understand that. It has been done before. But not during a war. Not when people are dying. It is just not right. So we could stay on the floor all night, all tomorrow, all next week, but I tell you the people in this country are going to have enough of it pretty soon because they don't believe this is right. They can tell when something is not moving in the right direction. I will end with this. No matter how hard the Republican majority tries to divide us, we will not be divided. We are going to stand united. We are going to speak the truth. We will debate in the open why these nominees do not deserve to sit on the bench and why we will filibuster these nominees. We will continue to do that until the people decide in the next election what kind of America they want. In my heart I believe they want an America that is united, not divided. I see my colleague from New Jersey is here. We have a few moments left. I thank him for his patience.

Ms. LANDRIEU. No, I will not yield.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do the minority and majority have at this hour to be allocated?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I think I----

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Arizona.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

Mrs. LANDRIEU

Mrs. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

Mrs. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am asking a question: Did you know? That is my question. Did they know that when the former President sent hundreds of nominees and asked for a vote--and I am sure Reverend Sharpton and others--did they know, some of the members and groups involved and interested Americans involved--did they know that 55 nominees were not given a right to have their vote called?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Did the Senator from Utah or the Senator from Virginia know that when President Clinton was in the White House, thousands and thousands of individuals--did you know--called to ask for votes on the 60 percent?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Just a question. I am sorry the Senator from Utah left the floor. Perhaps if he hears this question, he might come back to respond. I am wondering, since he raised the name of Al Sharpton, Rev. Al Sharpton, who asked for a vote on one nominee, supposedly. If Al Sharpton--I am sure he did, and others--asked for a vote on 60 of President Clinton's nominees, which represented 20 percent of the nominees sent up by a former President, would the Senator from Utah have agreed to a vote, if Rev. Al Sharpton had called him? I don't think so. He could come back to the floor and respond to that. The issue is not single votes. The issue is whether the Senate of the United States, the Democrats, have a right to give advice and consent to the President. The facts speak for themselves. The Senator from Virginia knows them well. The numbers are 168 of President Bush's nominees have been approved with bipartisan support and cooperation from the Democrats in the Senate. Only 4--only 4--have been stopped-- only 2 percent. That is in contrast to the thousands--this is my question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the underlying bill as well as to make some general comments about the Defense authorization bill we just passed and a few comments about the veterans provisions generally. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for their good work on the underlying bill. I understand we hope to pass this very important appropriations bill before 6 o'clock this evening. I was unable to be here earlier today. I want to make a couple of comments regarding veterans generally. There are 400,000 veterans in Louisiana, and 12,000 of them are directly affected in a very positive way by the underlying bill. Before I speak about that, I wish to say that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner from Virginia, and our ranking member, Senator Levin, should be commended for crafting a very good Defense authorization bill at a very difficult time. I was formerly a member of the Armed Services Committee and worked for many years to fashion a bill, and I know how difficult it is even in times that are not stressful, much less in a time when we are in a war against terror in Iraq, here at home and other places around the world. It seems to me, as a former member of the committee, that the conference could have imploded many different times. But to Senator Warner's and Senator Levin's credit and very good bipartisan working relationship, that bill was passed earlier today. While I don't agree with all the provisions of it, there are a couple which are very important to our troops in Louisiana: No. 1, the 4.1 percent pay raise for all of our troops. And, No. 2, we moved closer to completely eliminating the disability tax on veterans in Louisiana with 20 years of service; that is, 12,000 men and women who now, when they retire, do not get their full retirement and disability benefits but basically have to give up 50 percent of that benefit. This bill we passed earlier today corrects that. For those families and their loved ones, that will mean immediate help. In addition, the TRICARE eligibility expansion for guardsmen and reservists, if they are unemployed or cannot acquire health insurance from their employers, is a tremendous gesture to the Guard and Reserve who we are counting on and depending on to help defend us at this time. We literally could not win this war or even begin this endeavor without their commitment. We must remain committed to the quality of life of our veterans and to letting our Guard and Reserve men and women know how much we appreciate them. We must keep ever vigilant, particularly when it comes to the Guard and Reserve. We are getting ready to send another 43,000. I wish to make a couple of comments about the tax treatment of our Guard and Reserve and speak about some disappointment in that area. Yesterday, with some fanfare, the Military Family Tax Relief Act was passed. It is a help, but in my mind it is an insufficient gesture. It is too modest for what our men and women in uniform deserve. The bill provided $1.1 billion in tax relief, which was asked for and which is most certainly deserved. It doubles the amount of payments to survivors of soldiers killed in action from $6,000 to $12,000--not a lot of money, but it helps the families better than the $6,000 that was in the previous law. It allows guards and reservists to deduct travel expenses, it allows troops to deduct the cost of equipment they buy themselves, and it reduces the residency requirement so our troops can take full benefit of the capital gains provision in the law as do other Americans who are not in the service. But this bill did not go far enough. I wish to speak for a minute about this and my strong objection to moving forward with it without additional help and support. The bill that was signed, Tax Relief for Families in the Military, represented .006 percent of the $1.75 trillion in tax relief that has been passed by this Congress at the urging of this administration. Let me repeat. The bill that was signed on Tuesday for the military only represented .006 percent of the tax cuts that have been provided by this administration to Americans generally. Yet the military, the men and women in uniform today, the over 1 million men and women in uniform, are providing 100 percent of our security, one could argue. That is not to diminish the role of our men and women in uniform, police and fire on the home front, but protecting our borders, fighting the battles overseas, they are providing 100 percent of the protection. Yet they only receive in this bill .006 percent of the tax cut. We asked, Republicans and Democrats alike, to please include a provision that would have allowed the Guard and Reserve who are leaving their jobs and leaving their businesses to go fight in Iraq, to please have the Federal Government recognize that many of these families are losing income, sometimes as much as 60, 70, or 80 percent. We are asking them not just to go and put their life on the line, but we are asking them to put their livelihood on the line. When some Members petitioned this administration, and particularly the House Republican leadership, to give some relief, to provide some tax relief to these businesses to encourage them to maintain those salaries for our Guard and Reserve, we were told: We do not have enough money. We had 1.75 trillion to give tax cuts generally to people not in the military, but we could not find a few pennies to help our businesses in this country, to help their employees meet their salaries for the benefit of their families. I know the Senator wants to get back to the HUD bill, and I will in a minute, but I want to make this point and then get to the underlying bill, VA-HUD. What we have to do in every way we can, whether it is this veterans bill we are debating now, whether it is in Defense authorization, or whether it is in our tax bills, to recognize our first priority should be to our men and women in uniform, overseas and here on our home front. When we design tax packages and tax benefits, they should be the first, not the last, to receive the help. They should be getting the lion's share or the essence or the core, not the crumbs that fall from the table. Unfortunately, still, despite the lives that are being given, despite the effort that is being made, they still are receiving crumbs when they deserve the whole loaf of bread. I will submit for the Record an article about a reservist reward for MSG Rodriguez: His reward was bankruptcy. When MSG Rodriquez and his company were activated for 1 year, they were given an 8-hour notice. He had to leave behind his wife to run the couple's construction company. He comes home and his daughter, of course, is crying and in tears, his wife is upset because they lost their business. Their income was cut by 80 percent. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.