Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to urge my friends and colleagues in the House to pass more appropriations bills, but frankly, they are reticent to do so because the Senate is working off much different numbers than the House. Always before, when we passed a budget, ultimately the House and the Senate worked off similar numbers, the same gross numbers. So there is a reason the House is reluctant to pass bills because they are going to pass them at lower figures than the Senate, and they feel as if that puts them at a disadvantage when they go to conference. I do not know that I agree with that. I know Senator Harkin was on the floor wanting to pass Labor-HHS. The House has not passed Labor- HHS. I never believed constitutionally that we had to wait on the House. Some people have made that argument, but that is not constitutional. The Senate does not have to wait on the House of Representatives to pass an appropriations bill--a tax bill, yes, not an appropriations bill.

Mr. NICKLES. I understand.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. NICKLES. I did not quite catch the request. To clarify, this would set aside the homeland security bill? This would set aside the Iraqi resolution?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is not working. The Senator from Iowa is correct. The Senate is almost being dysfunctional when it comes to appropriations bills and the budget process. We haven't passed a budget. I could ask unanimous consent to bring up the budget. This is the first time since 1974 that the Senate has not passed a budget. The Senate has not passed any appropriations bills and sent them to the President. I can't remember any time that at the beginning of the fiscal year we haven't sent one appropriations bill to the President. I fault the Senate because we haven't passed a budget. Therefore, we haven't worked out an agreement with the House on the total amount of money we are going to spend. The House has passed some appropriations bills because they have a budget, and we don't have a budget. So the Senate passes bills that are much higher than the House. They don't want to go to conference when the two numbers are not the same. Usually, if you have a budget, both the House and the Senate will at least be working with the same figures and it is much easier to reconcile and actually have a bill that would pass. Also, I might mention that the President has already said he would veto a bill that would be in excess of what the House passed. We would be wasting our time in that respect. I would love to take up more appropriations bills, but we haven't finished the appropriations bill that is pending before the Senate. Since we came back on, I believe, September 3, the day after Labor Day, the majority leader said we would do a dual track. We would take up the Interior appropriations bill in the morning and then we would take up the Department of Homeland Security in the afternoon. We would double track those. We didn't object. It took unanimous consent to do that. One would have thought we would have rapidly finished both bills. Unfortunately, we haven't finished one in the entire month of September when we usually do a lot of appropriations bills. We have not done one appropriations bill. The Department of the Interior appropriations bill is still pending before the Senate. It is not up to the individual chairman of the subcommittee to advance this bill on the floor. It is up to the majority leader to move to consideration of the appropriations bill, and the majority leader did not do so--I would guess because we still had other items on the floor. The Department of the Interior appropriations bill should have taken 2 days. We have been on it for 4 weeks. We have been stuck on an issue dealing with fire management. The State of South Dakota has an exemption. They have fire management that the majority leader was able to pass earlier to deal with cleaning up their forests so they do not have such a volatile fire situation in their forests. Many Senators wanted to do the same thing for their States. They have offered amendments to do so, and they have yet to get a vote on their amendments. I have stated repeatedly that they are entitled to a vote. That is on the Department of the Interior appropriations bill. Hopefully, we can vote on those amendments and finish the bill. We should be able to do that in no time. It should not take too long. People should be able to offer amendments. If people don't like the amendment, they can object. It doesn't take too long to finish appropriations bills if the managers and the leaders are willing to vote to table the amendments and find out where the votes are. If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. We are willing to do that. We haven't finished the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, nor the homeland defense bill. People say, let us add another bill to the equation. I disagree. We just voted on a cloture motion. We have had several cloture votes. I happen to disagree. Every time we turn around we are voting on cloture. I disagree with that. I think we are trivializing the rules of the Senate. Cloture should be used to break a filibuster. There was no filibuster on the Department of Justice authorization bill. We had a cloture vote. Some of us were hoping we could get some agreement on when we would have more votes on judges. We are disappointed in the fact that we have a lot of judges who were nominated a long time ago and who have yet to get a vote, and in many cases even a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. I spoke to that yesterday. I don't need to repeat it. But several outstanding nominees have not been voted on and in some cases have not even had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. That bothers me because we are going to finish this Congress and these people have been waiting in some cases 1\1/2\ years and they are not going to get a vote. John Roberts comes to mind. He was nominated on May 9. He has argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court and he didn't even get a hearing this year. He is eminently qualified. He is a former assistant solicitor general and he didn't even get a hearing this year. I have been pushing and I hope maybe we will be successful in getting a vote on Michael McConnell this year. At least the committee has had a hearing on him. He is from Utah. He is from Senator Hatch's State. He was nominated by President Bush and is supported by Senator Hatch. The tradition of the Senate is that surely the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee is entitled to get a vote on his judge. I have asked for the Judiciary Committee--and I hope it is not too late--to put Michael McConnell on the docket to be voted on next week. I hope they will. I understand he is not on it yet. I am going to encourage our colleagues to include him, as well as Dennis Shedd and others. There is a lot of work to be done. Now we have a whole succession of people coming in asking to take up their bills. The majority leader has the right to move to whatever item is on the floor of the Senate. That is his prerogative. That is the prerogative of the majority leader, and I support maintaining that tradition. Obviously, we have others who are saying: Wait a minute. I want to take up my bill. Labor-HHS has not passed because we haven't passed a budget. Other bills haven't passed because the Senate didn't pass a budget. Unfortunately, the majority leader never called the budget up to put it on the floor for a vote. It may well have been because he didn't have the votes. But I know when Senator Domenici was chairman of the Budget Committee he had a difficult time. And every once in a while we went to the floor and fought lots of battles. We won some and we lost some. But we ended up with a budget resolution that we were able to work out with the House. We would pass a budget resolution, and it would be identical figures, total spending figures, between the House and the Senate. That enabled us to move forward on the appropriations bills. We did not get it done this year, so we have not passed appropriations bills. I would also like to say I heard: Well, all these education accounts, they are being cut, cut, cut. That is not actually correct. I believe the correct statement would be: We are continuing appropriations. We just passed a continuing resolution for funding until next week, and that continues at last year's level--not an increase, not a decrease. So I just mention that. I think people should understand we may be on a continuing resolution, unfortunately--because we have not done our work, because we have not passed a budget, because we have not passed appropriations bills--we may be on a continuing resolution for months, but that will not be a cut for anybody. It is basically going to be a continuation of funding levels at last month's, last year's level. I say that just for people's information, so they will not be saying: Well, this group is being cut or this group is being hurt, and so on. There may be some groups for which there would be pluses or minuses as to what they would have received compared to last year, but basically a continuing resolution says: Continue at last year's level. So I want to make sure that is noted as well.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the majority leader filed a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the resolution dealing with Iraq. I happen to be proud of the fact the Senate has bipartisan support for this resolution. The President has worked hard on it, as well as Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and others. I compliment them for that. I look forward to the debate. I think we can have a good debate. We can pass a positive resolution that will reaffirm the United States in saying we believe the resolutions we supported and passed in the United Nations should be enforced. This body and the United Nations have passed several resolutions telling Iraq they must comply, and then not enforcing them, and we have done it year after year. In 1998, we passed a resolution unanimously saying we should enforce the existing resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm. Unfortunately, that resolution was good on paper, but it was not enforced. Now we have an administration that says they are willing to enforce it. I believe this Congress will stand behind President Bush in saying: Yes, we will give you the authorization to enforce it. These resolutions mean something. We don't think it is acceptable to have a person with Saddam Hussein's known history of using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and also invading his neighbors, and lobbing missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia--it is not acceptable for him to be developing further these weapons of mass destruction. That is against the United Nations resolutions. We are saying these resolutions mean something. Let's enforce them. We said that unanimously in 1998. It is going to be interesting to see if people want to weaken what we passed in 1998. I hope our colleagues read President Clinton's statement he made in 1998 to the Pentagon that talked about the need for strong enforcement. That is not the same speech President Clinton made yesterday in London, unfortunately. And I am very disappointed in President Clinton's speech. Former Presidents usually have a tradition to not undermine current administrations in foreign policy, certainly in foreign lands, and that is not what President Clinton did. President Clinton, in London, I think, made a speech that very much undermines the current administration, including the administration in London, in trying to develop an international coalition to stand up to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I mention that. I don't really like being critical of anyone or any administration, but for the former administration, which did not enforce the existing U.N. resolutions during their tenure, during their 8 years in office, did not pursue terrorists, including terrorists that were al-Qaida, who were directly responsible for blowing up two U.S. Embassies in Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole in the year 2000--when they did not go after the terrorists aggressively after those two terrorist attacks, did not enforce the U.N. resolutions, then to have President Clinton being critical of President Bush in Great Britain I think is very demeaning to the office, and I am very regretful a former President would make such a statement. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues in saying thank you to Senator Helms for his 30 years of service to the Senate and to the country. I have had the pleasure of serving with Senator Helms for 22 years, and the last several years I had the pleasure of sitting right in front of him or, conversely, having him at my back. I like that. I moved over to Senator Thurmond's desk so I can look at Senator Helms when I make these remarks. I pointed out to Senator Wellstone when he was complimenting you on your demeanor, politeness, kindness to our fellow employees, that was my first recollection of Jesse Helms. The character of Senator Helms was one of this pretty tough Senator. In my career of 22 years, I have never known a kinder, gentler, more polite Senator than Senator Jesse Helms. I say that because he has been kind to me. Obviously, he was kind to Senator Domenici. He has been kind to every Senator, Democrat and Republican--Senator Wellstone mentioned it--but also to every single staff member, to every single elevator operator and security officer. I am amazed at the number of people he calls by their first name. I have tried to emulate that and have not done it very well. I have tried to emulate Senator Helms in many ways. Senator Helms will never know how many people he has inspired in the Senate. I say that because of his kindness. I say that because of his politeness. I say that because he says grace before meals and he does it today. I say that because he has shown such courage and conviction on so many issues. His ability to be courageous and kind at the same time is a very unusual special talent that very few have been able to do, and Senator Helms has done it well for so many years. The word ``patriot'' was used. If anybody ever defines ``patriot,'' Senator Helms' name comes to mind. Standing at Strom Thurmond's desk, patriot comes to mind when I think of Strom Thurmond, and it comes to mind when I think of Jesse Helms. We are losing two patriots in the Senate in this retirement, and I hate to see that happen, but I am so grateful to have had the privilege of having Senator Helms as a mentor, as a colleague, as a confidant, as a teacher. I remember in my early career, we had battles. I served in the Senate for 22 years, and he served in the Senate for 30 years. Prior to his service in the Senate, Senator Helms served as administrative assistant to a couple of Senators. During that time, he learned the Senate rules. I remember some of our earlier battles having Senator Helms help me learn the Senate rules. I was amazed that someone would go to that trouble. But he used the Senate rules both politely and correctly, and in the process made the Senate a better institution. I realize this goes all the way back to Richard Russell. It goes back to some of the greats in the Senate, and how this tradition is passed on is truly amazing--and with a whole lot of fond memories. I remember, Senator Helms, when you taught me some of the rules, I believe it was in 1983, when we had the little battle on the 5-cent- per-gallon gasoline tax, that most of the Senate was for, including the majority leader at the time, our very good friend Senator Baker. President Reagan, I believe, was in favor at the time, but we were sort of opposed to it, thinking it should be left to the prerogative of the States. It was rather a difficult time because it was right before Christmas. It was a pretty protracted and extended debate, one that required cots in the back. Our colleagues' tempers were short because we were getting closer to the holiday season and most everybody wanted to vote and get out of here. I remember going into your office one night when things were kind of difficult, and we talked about it. You said: I have an idea. We will just pray about it. Let's call Rev. Billy Graham. Well, I was awestruck that we were calling Rev. Billy Graham, and impressed. I will not forget that conversation. I also will not forget another thing that you said. If it was not that night, it was the next night--we had two or three nights of this little battle--and I remember you telling me a story which I have never forgotten. In fact, I think about it all the time when I fly at night. I do not even know if you will remember it but I bet you do. You relayed to me how you were flying over North Carolina at night. And if any of my colleagues have been with Senator Helms for any period of time, they know he has a great love for his State of North Carolina, and vice versa. It is a mutual love, respect, and admiration. You relayed to me, Senator Helms, that while flying over North Carolina at night you see all these lights, and you realize how big Raleigh is and you realize how remote small towns and some rural areas are, a light here and there. I remember you told me you were flying over there somewhat in awe but also thinking about individuals who live in those areas, and every one of those homesteads represent some of your constituents. You wondered if they really thought anybody in Washington, DC, cares about them living in that little rural area or maybe living in the city. There you are, flying over their State and you are thinking about them. I think that was one of the guiding principles of your public service and career. I will never forget that. You were thinking about them when we were fighting over that nickel-a-gallon gasoline tax. You have been fighting for them. Whether talking about a strong national defense or about giving them some tax relief, you were thinking about your constituents, those people in the rural areas that probably never gave two thoughts about who their Senator was. Maybe they do not know, maybe they do not vote, but you cared about them. I can tell you cared about them because of the way you have served this Senate and the way you have served your State, the way you have talked to individuals on the floor, the way you talk to employees, whether they are the lower level employees or people just starting out, or whether it is my daughter who was working as an intern one summer. You were so kind to her. She loves Senator Helms. I saw her last night and she wanted me to say thank you, Senator Helms. You have inspired more people than you will ever know. I see some of your employees are in the Chamber and you are sitting with one of the best, Mr. Broughton, but I wonder how many of those employees, who have launched their career under your tutelage, have very bright futures. They are going to make outstanding contributions. Some of them are in the State Department. Some of them are working in very high level positions. Some of them are on the Federal bench because you got them started. They are some of the best people in the country. I think of them as expanding good government, and you have made that contribution. I wanted to say thank you on behalf of Oklahomans, and on behalf of all Americans for your 30 years of service in the Senate. I have had the privilege of working with you for 22 years, getting to know you and Dot Helms. I think the world of both of you. God has truly blessed all of us for your service to our country and we thank you for it.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I ask my colleague a couple of questions. I have not looked at this issue for some time. There is a committee substitute to S. 724?

Mr. NICKLES. Does the Senator remember how much that bill costs?

Mr. NICKLES. Could my colleague tell me how it was offset?

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that. I believe I heard one or two Senators say Secretary Thompson supports this bill. It is my understanding that that is not the case. Secretary Thompson may support the thrust of it. I understand he supports the regulation that goes into effect today and this bill somewhat counteracts the regulation that he is primarily responsible for promulgating. Is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. It is my understanding that Secretary Thompson has promulgated a regulation which I believe he thinks satisfies a lot of the unmet health care needs of children, including unborn children, and he supports the regulation that he promulgated and is now effective, and does not support the legislation which goes far beyond the regulation he has promulgated. I am very particular on making sure we are accurate in our statements. I believe that is accurate. I have asked my staff to check with HHS. I have a note that says he supports the regulation but not the legislation. Maybe he did make a statement that was supportive in March, but he may well believe that was accomplished in the regulation. I have not talked to him personally. I am stating my belief. I need to learn more about the bill. It has been months since we have looked at it. We have been doing a few other things. I object at this point. At this point I will further my contacts with those in the administration who know more about the regulation just promulgated. I compliment the Secretary on the regulation. I also wish to do a little more homework. I will check with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I will check with the States. I believe this is an expansion of Medicaid which I know my State is struggling to pay. As a matter of fact, the State was reducing cases, in some cases in Medicaid because they do not have the budget. Our State Medicaid director told us, do not increase any new expansions on Medicaid because we cannot afford it. Correct me if I am wrong: I think pregnant women who have incomes less than 150 percent of poverty are now eligible for Medicaid and States have the option to take that up to 185 percent. Pregnant women with incomes of less than 185 percent of poverty are eligible for Medicaid, and I believe the legislation takes that up to 300 percent. It makes many more people eligible for Medicaid, which increases the costs to the States, which some States cannot afford. I object at this point and will check with a couple of other people who may have reservations, and perhaps those questions can be resolved, and I will get back to my friend and colleague from New Mexico. I object.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator say it is his belief that this bill does not increase Medicaid coverage for pregnant women up to 300 percent of poverty?

Mr. NICKLES. We will both do a little more homework and I will be happy to talk to my friends and colleagues, both from Arkansas and from New Mexico, and see where we go from there.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today is October 2, the second day of the new fiscal year, and this Congress has not passed any appropriations bills. We have passed a continuing resolution that takes us to next Friday, and I guess we will pass another one that takes us into the following Friday, October 11. This may be one of the poorest records we have ever had. We do only a few things in the Senate. We pass bills, changing some laws. We may occasionally do something very important such as a war authorization or resolution dealing with Iraq. Every once in a while we might create a new Cabinet-level department. We have the Department of Homeland Defense that has been before this body for the last 4 or 5 weeks, but we have not been able to draw it to a conclusion. Then we spend money and occasionally we change the tax laws. We spend a lot of money. That is something we do every year, but we have not gotten it done this year. We have not passed our appropriations bills. As a matter of fact, this year for the first time since 1974 we have not passed a budget. The House has passed a budget. We did not pass a budget. Because we did not pass a budget, we have had differences with the House. The House has passed a few more appropriations bills than we have. We have only passed three. Three out of 13 is not a very good record, and none have passed conference. I hope, and I would expect, that we would be successful in passing the Department of Defense appropriations bill next week. We certainly should. I think it would be grossly irresponsible of us to leave without passing the Department of Defense appropriations bill, but we actually should have done a lot more. I believe the reason we did not is because we did not pass a budget, so we did not get that done. Something else we did not get done is we did not confirm enough judges. We now have the Department of Justice reauthorization bill. It is the first time we have reauthorized the Department of Justice in 20 years. I have been in the Senate for 22 years, so I guess we did it back in 1982 or 1983. So maybe it is long overdue. When I look at the conference report--and it is a fairly extensive conference report--it creates 20 new judge positions through permanent and temporary judgeships. Now, that is well and good, but we have a lot of judges who have been nominated for existing positions who have yet to be confirmed--in many cases yet to be considered. I notice we are going to set up several permanent and several temporary positions in this bill. I do not doubt that in many cases along the border, particularly in southern California, Texas, Arizona, and others, there is a demand for new judges with the caseloads they have. So I am not disputing the fact that either permanent or temporary judges who are called for in this bill are needed, but I find it ironic when I look at the current status of judges. There are 47 judges who are now pending, many of whom have been nominated for over a year, and we are in the process of creating an additional 20 new judgeships. Some of these people I mentioned have been nominated for over a year, many of whom were nominated on May 9, and they have yet to have a hearing. Several of these nominations are outstanding individuals, and I will mention a couple. John Roberts has been nominated for the DC Circuit. He has argued 37 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He was nominated 510 days ago, on May 9. He has yet to have a hearing. If this is an individual who has argued 37 cases before the Supreme Court, somebody thinks he is well qualified. As a matter of fact, he has been rated well qualified by the ABA. He was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is a Harvard law graduate, magna cum laude; unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA; law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist; principal Deputy Solicitor General between 1989 and 1993. I have requested that John Roberts have a hearing and be voted on in the Judiciary Committee, and I have not been successful. I think it is hardly fair to him, an outstanding attorney, more than well qualified, to not have even had as yet a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Miguel Estrada just had a hearing before the committee. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for finally having a hearing on Miguel Estrada. This is a young man who has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. He was unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA. He immigrated from Honduras as a teenager, could hardly speak English, and he graduated at the top of his class from Harvard Law School. He was a law clerk to Justice Kennedy. He is a former Solicitor General and assistant U.S. attorney. He had a hearing. As of yet--maybe this will change and I hope it will change--he has not had a vote in the Judiciary Committee. Some people said they want more information from Mr. Estrada. Frankly, they are just running out the clock because they do not want to vote on him. Miguel Estrada is more than qualified. He should be confirmed. Even a ``conservative newspaper'' such as the Washington Post says he should be confirmed, and we have yet to get a vote on him in committee. I hope we will. Michael McConnell was nominated for the Tenth Circuit. He is a professor of law at the University of Utah, unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA. He is one of the country's leading constitutional law experts. He has argued 11 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He graduated the top of his class from the Chicago Law School. He was a law clerk for Justice Brennan. Prior to that, he was Assistant Solicitor General. Again, he is eminently well qualified. The committee held a hearing on Mr. McConnell on September 18. I ask the committee to please put him on the calendar and on the agenda for the next business meeting, which is next Tuesday. I urge the committee to do so, and I hope vote affirmatively for Michael McConnell to be on the Tenth Circuit Court. Jeffrey Sutton was nominated for the sixth circuit, which is half vacant today. It needs judges to fill the vacancies. He is rated well- qualified by ABA and qualified by ABA majority. He graduated first in his class at Ohio University College of Law. He law-clerked for Justices Powell and Scalia and argued nine cases and 50 merits amicus briefs before the Supreme Court. Prior to that, he was State Solicitor in the State of Ohio, he clerked for Supreme Court Justices and is very well qualified. Nominated 510 days ago, and has yet to get a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Deborah Cook, also from Ohio, also on the sixth circuit. Unanimously rated well-qualified by the ABA. She has been a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio since 1994. She sat on the Ohio District Court of Appeals from 1991 to 1995 and chaired the Commission on Public Legal Education. She is a member of the Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution. Again, I remind Members, the sixth circuit is almost half vacant: Seven out of the 16 spots are vacant. I urge the committee to move forward. Deborah Cook was nominated May 9, 2001, and has yet to have a hearing. Terrence Boyle was nominated for the fourth circuit. He presently is a chief judge on the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina. He has held that position since 1997. He was rated unanimously well-qualified by ABA. He went to American University, Washington College of Law; was minority counsel, House Banking subcommittee; also legislative assistant to Senator Helms; and a partner in a North Carolina law firm, and a prior district court judge. He has been a sitting judge on the U.S. District Court in North Carolina since 1997, and was nominated on May 9, 2001. He has yet to have a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. I mention these, and urge the committee--it is not too late to move forward with some of the well-qualified people. Hearings have been held on Miguel Estrada and Michael McConnell. They can be voted on next week. I urge them to do so. I plead with them to do so. I like to cooperate with my colleagues, and I look at the conference report on reauthorizing the Department of Justice. There are a lot of things in this bill a lot of Members would favor, and some things perhaps some have reservations about. The majority of this bill never passed by either the House or the Senate. Now I mention that to let my colleagues know there are rules against doing that in the Senate, rules to protect Members. You do not have the House pass a bill, the Senate pass a bill, and have totally extraneous measures put in a bill in conference and say: Take it or leave it. It is called rule XXVIII. I mention to my colleagues, this is a rule to protect Members of both parties in both bodies, to make sure we follow the proper legislative process. Usually in Politics 101, we learn you pass a bill, the bill passes the House or passes the Senate, you go to conference and work out the differences, but the bill has to pass one of the Houses to go to conference. The majority of this bill did not pass either House; the majority of the bill--whole sections of the bill. I am not saying I have objections to many pieces of the bill. I don't doubt I would not vote for a lot of it. Included in this bill are intellectual property rights. Again, never passed the House or the Senate, but it is in this bill. There is a juvenile justice section, an entire new section, there is criminal justice, civil justice, and immigration changes, improvements of criminal justice, intellectual property, all of which never passed the House or the Senate, and would be subject to rule XXVIII if the rule was invoked. I bring this to my colleagues' attention, knowing this rule is there and that at least this Senator, for one, realizes we have an opportunity and an obligation to legislate correctly. This Senate is becoming more and more willing to bypass committees, bypass legislative process, report bills, take up bills directly to the floor without ever going through committee, not giving committee Members the opportunity to have amendments, to have discussion, to have vetting, offer alternatives, or come up with bipartisan approaches. I found this year very frustrating in both the Energy and Natural Resources Committees on which I serve. We had the most significant piece of legislation in the energy bill since I have been a Member, and it was not even marked up in committee. Yet we spent 7 weeks on the floor of the Senate marking it up. Not a good way to legislate. That bill is in conference. I hope we can come up with a conference report that is a good piece of legislation. That remains questionable. We had prescription drugs many wanted to mark up in the Finance Committee. We did not do that. We bypassed the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee never had a markup on the most expensive expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965. We had a debate on prescription drugs with several alternatives, some of which, in my opinion, were fatally flawed. Part of that is because they were not vetted. We did not have a thorough discussion in committee. If some of the obvious flaws were introduced on the floor, they would have been exposed and probably corrected, and we probably would have passed a bipartisan bill that would have had enough momentum to not only get through the Senate but be a strong force in conference, and thereby provide prescription benefits for Seniors. We did not do that because we did not go through the committee. We are breaking the process. I did homework on the Finance Committee. In every major expansion in Medicare for the last 22 years, almost every one except one went through the committee process and ended up with a bipartisan majority on the floor of the Senate and helped become law. Usually, the Senate markup vehicle that came out of committee was strongly supported on the floor and strongly supported in conference, and was close to being the vehicle to become law. Sometimes it is adjusted with our friends and colleagues in the House. When you take a bill directly to the floor, and I note now there are a couple of other packages that some say, rule XIV--in other words, take directly to the Calendar a provision dealing with give-backs, additional money for Medicare, some for rural hospitals, some for doctors, some for other providers. Let's bypass the committee and go directly to the floor and, yes, we will spend $40 or $50 billion in doing so, most of which will be spent the first year or two. What happened to the committee process? Shouldn't every member of the Finance Committee have a chance to say, I think we can do a better job? Maybe we can do it more efficiently or better. No, we bypass the committee and take it directly to the floor. Now I understand we are going to bypass the Finance Committee on a small business package. I used to be a small businessman. I have ideas what should be in that package. I would like a say-so in the amendment. We will not get a vote. No Finance Committee Member--maybe one or two that are putting the package together, but the rest of us on that committee do not get to vote. We did not get to offer an amendment. We did not get to say, we do not think that should be in, maybe something else should be in. Should we have ``pay-fors''? What should they be? Do we have tax cuts and tax increases? What should they be? How can we best stimulate the economy? Some of us think we have something to offer in that debate, not if you bypass the committee and go straight to the floor. I object to that process. That is a process at least this Senator is going to be very reluctant to support. I don't like bypassing the committee process. I don't like introducing things that are totally extraneous to the House bill or the Senate bill and putting them in conference. I may support those provisions, but I don't think that is a good way to legislate. I am bothered by the fact the Senate is not working. I am bothered by the fact we did not pass a budget this year for the first time since 1974. I am bothered by the fact that we are yet to pass and send to the President any appropriations bills other than a 1-week continuing resolution. I am bothered by the fact we didn't do the energy bill right. We didn't do prescription drugs right. We didn't get it done. And I am bothered by the fact I look at two-thirds of this bill and I say: Wait a minute, where did this come from, even though they may be perfectly acceptable provisions. Some might say we have done it before. That is true. But we also have rules against doing it. I believe the rule would be upheld. I believe these were extraneous to the conference. So I think rule XXVIII would by upheld. We may find out. I haven't decided to make that point of order. I am letting my colleagues know the rule is on there for a purpose. We should follow legislative procedure. We should abide by the rules. Unfortunately, we have not done so. I see we are going to create 20 new judgeships. I guess I am all for that, but I look at several outstanding judges, 47 of whom are yet to be voted on, 7 of whom--I just mention 7--have waited for a year and haven't even had a hearing, 2 of whom have had a hearing, Miguel Estrada and Michael McConnell, and we don't know if they are going to get a vote in the committee or not. I think every one of the 12, I believe--or the 11 that were nominated on May 9 are entitled to a vote. People can vote up or they can vote down, they have that right. But I think to deny them even a hearing after 510 days is not fair, especially when you look at the qualifications of somebody like John Roberts, who has argued 37 cases before the Supreme Court, and he is yet to have a hearing; or Miguel Estrada, who has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, yet to have a hearing. Michael McConnell argued 10 cases--I take it back. Miguel Estrada has had a hearing, so has McConnell. They just have not been voted on in the committee. It is not too late. We may only have a week and a half left in the session, so I urge the Judiciary Committee to move forward on Mr. McConnell and Mr. Estrada and give these fine individuals, who have very distinguished reputations, distinguished legal careers, give them a vote in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. I am confident both would be confirmed, both would be confirmed overwhelmingly and would make outstanding jurists for many years to come. I urge the Judiciary Committee to do that. I hope it will happen in the next few days. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Is the Senator going to make a unanimous consent request?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I need to ask my colleague a couple of questions. I am sympathetic to granting an extension of unemployment compensation. As the Senator mentioned, we have done it in the past. I am not familiar with the Senator's bill. Has the bill been printed yet? Not to get in too big a hurry, but is the bill available? My staff said maybe we can find it on the Internet, but I don't believe it has been printed yet.

Mr. NICKLES. I would appreciate a copy. I would like to look at it.

Mr. NICKLES. I don't think asking a couple of questions is too much to ask. Is this a clean 13-week extension in unemployment compensation?

Mr. NICKLES. Is that all it is?

Mr. NICKLES. Back to my question, it is not just a 13-week extension of unemployment compensation----