Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to respond to my colleague. I actually read both of those quotes. I put one in the Record. I will put both quotes in the Record so the American people can see this. I read the President's comments. You only read one line. I read three paragraphs--he never said, ``The Democrats in the Senate are not interested in national security.'' That was the maddening quote. He never said it--never said it. Yet it was accepted that he said it. That is wrong. It was stated on last night's TV, stated in this morning's floor debate. I heard one or two people say he impugned the integrity of the entire Democratic caucus. No, he didn't. Read what the President said. He even complimented Democrats. He said both Republicans and Democrats are working hard to pass a good bill. There are consequences to words. Words are important. I read the President's statements both at the Forrester event and the Thune event. They were not offensive, and they never stated what was said on the floor of the Senate. They were misconstrued somehow, some way. That is unfortunate because there are consequences to our words. There are some people who listen. There are headlines. I haven't read what the European papers have said, but I don't look forward to that because I am afraid it sends the wrong signals. I do agree with my colleagues, we should improve the quality of debate in the Senate. If we ever quote anybody, we should quote them accurately. We should never impugn the motives or integrity of any Member. That has happened more frequently around here than it should. Nor should we impugn the motives or integrity of the President of the United States. Certainly if we are going to quote the President, an equal branch of Government, we should do it accurately. That wasn't done in this case. I don't think we should be reading from campaign flyers because we could do that all day long. We don't want to turn this into a political brawl. We want to legislate. We need to pass a Department of Homeland Security bill. We need to work out the issues. There is a legitimate debate, a difference of whether or not we should change the President's power or authority in dealing with employees. Should he have a national security waiver? Every President, going all the way back--most people said since Jimmy Carter--I believe to John F. Kennedy, has had a national security waiver in dealing with employees. The President of the United States needs flexibility to put people in, do different things. Senator Gramm has shown me a complaint filed by a union that was upset because of higher notification status--they didn't negotiate that with the union. That is absurd. The President should not have to negotiate with the union; if he feels compelled to issue a higher security threat to the Nation's people, he should not have to negotiate that with the union. One union has already filed a complaint, I guess before the NLRB, about that. Again, I will not impugn the integrity or the motives or the patriotism of a colleague because they may have a difference with me on that particular issue.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. I will conclude very shortly.

Mr. NICKLES. I remember George Romney.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his enlightening the debate. I will yield the floor. Again, I want to help restore the dignity and integrity of Senate debate. I want to help repair some of the damage that might have been done between the legislative branch and the executive branch. It is critically important. I say this mindful that I used to be one of the leaders when there was a Democrat in the White House. I didn't agree with President Clinton many times, and I stated so on the floor with great energy many times. I may have crossed the line sometimes. I am not sure. But I think it is very important that we respect the office of the President of the United States and that we not misquote the office of the President of the United States, nor that we ever misquote colleagues. I am very insistent that we be accurate in our positions, our statements, our numbers, our quotes. If not, it is demeaning to the body. Vice President Gore's speech to a San Francisco group was very demeaning to the office of the former Vice President because I think it undercuts the existing administration's dealing with some problems that were left by the previous administration.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to.

Mr. NICKLES. I will tell my friend and colleague, I just read the quotes. I don't think he was impugning our motives. He did not say Senate Democrats. If there is anything else from this dialog and speech, I hope the press and others will realize, the President never said, ``Senate Democrats aren't interested in national security.'' That is a misquote, and I am afraid a misquote that has done some damage. Hopefully, it can be repaired. I listened to the President. I don't think I have heard him impugn the motives of colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. You mentioned drought aid. Am I not correct that drought aid cannot pass unless the bill passes?

Mr. NICKLES. If one wanted to get drought aid to farmers, would it make sense, since that has been agreed to in the underlying bill, to have a vote on the Craig amendment, and it could be an up-or-down vote or a motion to table, dispose of the Craig amendment one way or another, and pass the bill?

Mr. NICKLES. And every Member on this side of the aisle is willing to do that. No one on this side of the aisle is filibustering this bill.

Mr. NICKLES. If people want to pass this bill, the way to pass the bill is to do it the way Senator Reid and I used to manage the bill, and that is to vote. We get paid to vote. For whatever reason, some people are afraid to vote on the Craig amendment. If we get on the bill, maybe someone will move to table the Craig amendment. We need to vote. The Senators from Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and other States that have fires are entitled to have forest management improvements just like South Dakota. What the Craig amendment is asking for is not as much as South Dakota received. We are entitled to a vote. You can file cloture all you want, but we are going to have a vote. We are going to have a vote. To file cloture, so we do not even get a vote on the Craig amendment, will not happen. If cloture is invoked, we can still offer the amendment, so we are getting nowhere fast. We are not going to finish this bill until we get a vote.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield? I am going to help the majority leader.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to respond to the majority leader, I totally disagree with many of the statements that were made. There is no one on this side of the aisle filibustering the Interior or homeland security bills. No one. None. I know. We are willing to vote. I am embarrassed that we have spent 3 weeks on the Interior bill. Cloture is not filed on the Interior bill; cloture is filed on one amendment. Even if cloture was invoked, the amendments can still be offered. Senators have a right to offer amendments. I just mention that. If the majority leader wants to move forward on the bill, table the amendment. That is the way to do it. I know the majority leader knows that. I will table the amendment if that will help him. If I was managing the bill, I would try to move the bill. I used to be chairman of that subcommittee. It is embarrassing to me that the Senate has been on this and homeland security for now the fourth week. That is not the way to manage appropriations bills. I am embarrassed we haven't passed but three appropriations bills. I just mention that to my colleague. Having a cloture vote on the Interior bill is a total waste of time. Even if it is invoked, you can waste 3 days, and then the sponsors of the amendment can still offer the amendment to the bill. That is correct. Cloture on homeland security is a waste of time. I tell the majority leader that because it would deny the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Georgia the chance to offer the President's substitute. I know the leader knows we have enough votes to make sure they know they are going to get enough votes on the substitute. There is a tendency around here to file cloture thinking that will always expedite matters, but certainly it is not the case with the appropriations bills. It will not work, I am informing the majority leader. I am also saying, with regard to filing a cloture motion on homeland security, we are not going to let that deny the President the opportunity to offer his proposal. We can have all the cloture votes you want, but it does not move us any quicker to passing drought relief or additional money for firemen. It will not happen. If you want to dispose of that amendment, we can table it and find out where the votes are. The Senator from Idaho is entitled to have a vote on his amendment. There is money in it for fire. He is saying we should reform our processes in managing the forests. He has a right to do that. I know Senator Reid and I have managed bills in the past. Senators have offered amendments, and the ones we did not like, we would usually table, and if we were not successful, we would usually drop it in conference, but we would manage the bill. This bill is not being managed. Neither bill is being managed. So we are now on our fourth week on two bills when both should have been done in a relatively short period of time. I mention that to the majority leader. File all the cloture motions you want, but if you want to move forward on the bill, I think we should just vote on these amendments and we can be done. I mention that as friendly advice. I would like to see the Senate work and see the Senate work much better, but I did want to clarify--I have said this about four times--no one on the Republican side of the aisle is filibustering either of these two bills. I think it is in our best interest for the Senate and for the Congress to pass both bills. I am willing to work with the majority leader to do that. I offer a suggestion: If people do not like the Craig amendment, move to table it or come up with an alternative where we vote side by side on different alternatives. I had understood there was going to be a motion to table the Craig amendment, and then there was going to be a Bingaman amendment which is comparable. Ways can be worked out. Senator Craig is entitled to a vote on his amendment, and Senator Bingaman may be entitled to a vote on his amendment. We can dispose of that, finish the Interior bill, get it to conference, and hopefully work it out with the House. I also hope we can do that with the remainder of the other appropriations bills. It is embarrassing for me not to have passed more appropriations bills through the Senate, through the House, and to the President. He is entitled to have an opportunity to sign or veto appropriations bills, and we are not giving that to him. I make those comments and friendly suggestions to my friend. I do want to reemphasize that no one on the Republican side is filibustering either of these bills. I wanted to make sure that is clear. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from South Dakota because he got his people some help. He was able to pass an amendment that would allow them to clean up their forests and maybe prevent forest fires, but the rest of the people in the country did not get the so-called Daschle amendment. He was able to get it. I do not know how. It went through. We did not have a vote on it. We did not have a lot of discussion because a lot of us would have said it should have been national. So Senator Craig offered an amendment that said we want part of the reforms--not all the reforms--Senator Daschle was successful in getting to help South Dakota. We are saying, in forest management, because we have forest fires breaking out all across the country, we should be able to clean up some of the diseased and dead trees so we do not have kindling for further fires. That is the essence of the Craig amendment. We are entitled to a vote on that amendment. We did not get to vote on Senator Daschle's amendment. We did not get a vote on that. We are not even saying we should have that policy nationally, but we should have part of it to reduce the cause and incidents of forest fires. In the underlying bill, we have money for forest fires, and we have money for drought. Senator Craig says: Let's have improvement in forest management simultaneously. He has a right to offer that amendment. Cloture, as Senator Daschle is trying to invoke, would make it impossible for Senator Craig to offer that amendment on the firefighting money. Interestingly enough, it would not prevent him from offering it to the rest of the bill. Senator Daschle is not offering cloture on the bill. He is offering it on one amendment. I am tempted to say we agree to cloture; that would be fine with me. And then Senator Craig can offer the amendment to the bill. So cloture is getting us nowhere fast. We do not need this. I implore the majority leader: Let the Senate work. If you do not want the Craig amendment to pass, move to table it, and we move on. You roll with the punches. You win some, you lose some. Evidently, some people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not want to vote on the Craig amendment. I hope people understand that is what it is about. I am protecting the right of the minority to offer an amendment. I tell the majority, we are going to offer this amendment. Whether it is an amendment to Senator Byrd's amendment or someplace else on the bill, we are going to offer the amendment. We are not going to be denied the opportunity to offer an amendment. I have to protect my Members' rights, and I will do so aggressively. So I urge the majority leader to withdraw the cloture vote. If he wants to have cloture, he is not going to get it. We are going to insist on the right to offer amendments. The same thing would apply to homeland security. If cloture is invoked, then we do not even get to have a vote on the President's homeland security bill. Senator Gramm and Senator Miller have a bipartisan bill, which the President has worked on. They have agreed upon it, they have adjusted it, they have worked on it, and they are entitled to offer their amendment. If cloture is invoked on homeland security, they do not even get to offer that amendment. So cloture is a tool not just to shut off the debate, it is a tool used to deny Members the right to offer their amendments. This is the fourth week we have been on these two bills, and we have made very little progress. We have had very few votes because people do not want to vote? This side is willing to vote. We have been willing to vote on the Craig amendment for weeks. Let's vote. The way to bring a vote to a head if you cannot get somebody on this side ready to vote and that side is not ready to vote, you move to table it. That is a nondebatable motion. You get a vote. Let's find out where the votes are. If somebody does not want to vote, why are they in the Senate? We are delaying one bill for weeks because some people do not want to vote on one amendment. It is ridiculous. We used to manage these bills in ways that if a Senator did not like the amendment and got beat on the floor, he might drop it in conference, or try and change it. But to just say we are going to keep filing cloture, as if that is trying to bring a filibuster, there is no filibuster. If there is a filibuster, it is on the Democrat side; it is not on the Republican side. We are ready to vote. I have heard the sponsors of this amendment say we are ready to vote, we are ready to vote. So to say this is going to risk drought assistance and fire assistance does not fly. We are ready to vote. Let's vote up or down on the amendment. Let's vote today. Let's vote tomorrow. Let's vote the next day. How many weeks do we need to be on it? I am ready to win. I am ready to lose. We are exhausted on the debate, but we keep having it. This is about the fifth debate I have given, not on the substance but on cloture, because the majority keeps filing cloture. They are going to keep filing cloture. Why? It is to no avail. We are not going to get cloture and deny Senator Gramm and Senator Miller the opportunity to offer the President's substitute or the President's proposal for national homeland security. That is not going to work. Everybody knows that. It is not going to work. Why in the world would we adopt cloture and deny Senator Craig the amendment dealing with forest fire management? Senator Daschle was able to get in a management proposal that dealt with his forests. My compliments to him. I like people taking care of their States. I like people doing forest management in their States, working out agreements with environmentalists. Evidently, that happened in Senator Daschle's case so they can harvest some timber and get rid of some of the dead timber. That is great. Why can we not do that for the rest of the country? Are we not entitled to offer that amendment? I believe Senator Craig's amendment is scaled down in comparison to what Senator Daschle was able to do in South Dakota. My compliments to Senator Daschle for helping his State, but I think other people are entitled to offer amendments that would protect their States. Their States are burning. Their States are not just asking us to give them more money for fire assistance, but they want to change the policy so we do not have so many fires next year and the next year. They are entitled to offer that amendment, and if people disagree with that amendment, they are entitled to vote against it or they are entitled to table it. But to file what I think are frivolous cloture motions undermines the whole purpose of the Senate. I am a student of the Senate. I love the Senate. Cloture should be used rarely, when there is a real extended debate. We have not had an extended debate. We are ready to vote. So it is a method where some people are trying to use it to stop amendments that are not liked and on which they do not want to vote. Again, the Senator from Idaho, the Senators from the West, are entitled to say we want at least part of what the majority leader was able to do in his State. We are going to protect the rights of the minority to be able to offer amendments. We are going to protect the rights of Senator Gramm and Senator Miller to offer the President's proposal. Cloture on these two bills is not going to work. It would not work anyway. I am tempted to say let's give cloture and then offer the amendment tomorrow after we wait 30 hours; waste a couple of days and then offer the amendment again. We can do that. Maybe we should do that. It might prove our point that cloture is not the way to go when filing amendments dealing with appropriations bills. It really does not let the Senate work. The Senate should work, but frankly the Senate is not working. Fingers can be pointed at the House of Representatives, but the reason why the House has not done more bills is because there has not been a budget. The House has passed a budget and the Senate has not passed a budget. When I say I am embarrassed for the Senate, I am embarrassed for the majority because they have not passed a budget. They did not even bring a budget resolution to the floor of the Senate. A budget does not take 60 votes to pass. It takes 51 votes to pass in the Senate. For the first time since 1974, the majority did not bring a budget to the floor of the Senate. Because we do not have a budget, we do not have like figures between the House and the Senate. We do not have figures in the Senate because we have not passed it. So fingers can be pointed at the House and one can say the House has only passed so many appropriations bills, but they have passed more than the Senate has. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to wait on the House to pass appropriations bills. That has been the tradition, but it is not mandatory. If the House is not doing its work, we should go ahead and pass our appropriations bills, period. I mentioned this to Chairman Byrd, and I hope we will do that. The Senate should pass appropriations bills. If the House has not passed them, let us pass them. The end of the fiscal year is next Monday. I cannot remember any time in my 22 years in the Senate that the Senate has done so little in the appropriations process with 1 week to go in the fiscal year. Shame on the Senate. People can point fingers at the President that he would not give us an extra $9 billion--really, I think the difference is closer to $13 billion. Between the Senate Democrats and the President of the United States, I believe it is about $13 billion. Why don't we pass everything we agree on or take the House figure and then if Senators want to pass another $9 billion, do that in a supplemental? We could do that. So we could pass the bulk of the $759 billion and then for the additional $9 billion or $12 billion, that could be put in a supplemental and the President could sign or veto it. At least then we would have done our job and we would be able to have appropriations for the bulk of the Federal Government. Right now we are not doing anything. We are not functioning. The Senate is becoming dysfunctional. To only pass three appropriations bills at this late stage is very irresponsible, and I do not get any comfort by having fingers pointed at the House or the White House. The Senate is the one that did not pass the budget, and the Senate has not passed its appropriations bills. We are an equal branch to the White House. So why don't we do our work? We are an equal division to the House of Representatives. If the House is not doing its work, let's do our work. It goes back to the budget because if we have a budget, we have similar levels to work from, and then, since the House and the Senate are working from the same levels, they have something to go to conference with and come up with suitable compromises. This should not be this difficult. I am flabbergasted this is our fourth week now on the Interior appropriations bill, a bill that has total spending of about $18 billion or $19 billion. The $18 billion is a very small amount in the total scheme of Federal appropriations, which is more like $760 billion. It should not take us 4 weeks to do that. If it is going to take us 4 weeks to do the Interior bill, we are never going to finish the larger bills. If the majority leader wants to have more cloture votes, that is fine, but I think the managers of the bill should come down to the floor and say it is time for us to move on. Let's either vote up or down on the amendments or let's move to table the amendments, finish these appropriations bills, and get our work done as we have the constitutional responsibility to get our work done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, several of our colleagues made some remarks concerning our esteemed friend and colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond. I wish to join them in that effort. Strom Thurmond, by the end of this year, will complete 48 years in the Senate--eight terms in the Senate. I will be completing four terms, and it is mind-boggling to think someone would complete eight, 48 years in the Senate. He was elected to the Senate in 1954 and has served this body with great distinction and honor during that time. Prior to that time, he was also Governor of South Carolina. Even before that, he was one of the heroes, in my opinion, who actually helped liberate Europe going into Normandy. He actually parachuted into Normandy behind enemy lines. He earned 18 decorations for his service, including the Purple Heart. He is an outstanding hero, American, Governor, Senator, serving 48 years in the Senate. He has had a wealth of experience. I remember my first contact with Senator Thurmond is when he called me to congratulate me upon my election in 1980 and urged me to serve on the Judiciary Committee, which I respectfully declined, but I found it was hard to turn down Strom Thurmond. He has been a very close confidante and friend. My daughter had the privilege of working for him for a short period of time, and she considers that a highlight in her career as well. He served both as chairman of the Armed Services Committee and also the Judiciary Committee. He served with distinction and honor. He has brought great pride to the Senate. He is the Senator's Senator, and I join my colleagues in saying that we have the greatest esteem and respect for Senator Strom Thurmond.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I will make a couple of comments concerning the budget and the appropriations process. A couple of days ago we heard the majority leader being very critical of the President, talking about his lack of working with Congress and it is his fault we have a budget deficit. Earlier today, we heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee being critical of the President. It looks like a lot of people are throwing rocks at the White House. Maybe that is the easy thing to do, but we should be looking internally and saying: What have we done? We have not passed a budget, and because we have not passed a budget for the first time since the Budget Act was passed in 1974, we do not have a budget that has the same figures with the House. Every other year--and I have been in the Senate for 22 years--we have always had a budget. Basically, the House and the Senate agree on numbers and then we pass appropriations bills. Every year we have been able to do that, except for this year. We have less than a week to go. Next Monday the fiscal year expires, and we have passed 3 out of 13 appropriations bills. That is probably the worst record in Senate history--certainly since the Budget Act passed. Shame on us. And then to say it is the administration's fault or it is the House's fault--I heard somebody say it is the House's fault because the House has not passed very many. That is not our constitutional responsibility. Our responsibility is to pass our bills. We do not have to wait for the House. The tradition is, the Senate waits on the House, but we do not have to wait on the House. We certainly do not have to spend 4 weeks on the Interior appropriations bill. This is our fourth week on the Interior appropriations bill. The Interior bill can, could, and should be done in 1, 2 or, at most, 3 days. It is ridiculous to think we have been on the bill for 4 weeks, and we still do not have an end in sight. Some have said the Republicans are filibustering the bill. No Republican is filibustering the Interior bill and no Republican is filibustering the homeland security bill; none, not one. We have offered an amendment. I noticed the Democrats offered an amendment. They are entitled to offer amendments. We are entitled to have votes on those amendments. For some reason, the majority has come to this conclusion to file cloture. Filing cloture on the Interior bill does nothing. Even if cloture was granted, it does not prohibit somebody from offering an amendment. They filed cloture on an amendment, not on the bill. So that process is going nowhere fast. Now we have another cloture vote scheduled on homeland security, as if that is going to deny us having a chance to vote on the President's homeland security bill. That is not going to happen. It should not happen. My compliments to Senator Gramm and Senator Miller. They have put together the President's package. They have made some modifications to try and accommodate Members. They are entitled to a vote. This idea of we are going to have cloture on the bill so they will not be able to offer their amendment is absurd, and it is not going to happen. So people can file all the cloture motions they want, but it does not move the process of the Senate. We can move it. We can pass these bills. On the Interior bill, all someone has to do is move to table the amendment. Let's find out where the votes are. That is what we used to do. If the managers of the amendment do not like it, they can move to table it. They do not need to file cloture. They do not need a supermajority; just move to table it. It may well have the votes. Certainly the President is entitled to have a vote on homeland security. It would be absurd to invoke cloture so that amendment would not be allowed. It brings home the fact the Senate is dysfunctioning; the Senate is not working. We had a very important energy bill. Did it go through committee? No. Did Senators who have experience and expertise in the energy issues get to mark up the bill? No. It came on the floor of the Senate. We spent 6 or 7 weeks working on marking up the bill on the Senate floor, and now it is in the conference. Hopefully, something will come out of that. Did the Senate pass a prescription drug bill? No. Was it marked up in the Finance Committee? No. Did we have a markup? Did Members on the Finance Committee, some of whom have experience and expertise on prescription drugs and Medicare--every major Medicare expansion has passed through the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote. We did not have a markup this year. We did not even have a chance to offer amendments. Yet we spent 2, 3, 4 weeks on the floor trying to mark up something on the floor with no result, with no prescription drug benefit being offered. The House was able to pass it. We were not. The same thing is true for the Medicare give-back bill. The House was able to do that, in conjunction with the prescription drugs. Some are saying let's put together a give-back bill and run that through. We are going to give providers, hospitals, and doctors more money, but we are not going to give prescription drugs to seniors who really need them, who do not have them, or who are maybe low-income? I am not sure that is very fair. The Senate is flat not working. In the Finance Committee last week, we are going to have a small business bill. Two or three Senators put together a bill, $16 billion. There are some tax increases. There was no consensus whatsoever in doing it, except maybe to help somebody politically, but it was not a question of, is this really going to stimulate small business? Most people realize it is a stalking horse for a person to offer a minimum wage increase which really would hurt small business. I look at the number of judges, and we have confirmed 78 judges. Some say that is great. In President Bush's first 2 years, 78 judges have been confirmed, which is 61 percent of the judges that he has nominated. Maybe that sounds pretty good, but in looking at President Clinton, he got 129 judges in his first 2 years. He got 90 percent of his judges; President Bush has 61 percent. President Bush 1 got 71 judges. That was 93 percent of the judges he nominated. President Reagan got 89 judges, which was 98 percent of the judges he nominated in his first 2 years, but President Bush only has 61 percent. When it comes to circuit court judges, the President only has 14 of 32. He has 43 percent of his circuit court judges confirmed. For whatever reason, it seems as if the majority, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, do not want circuit court judges to be appointed by President Bush, so they are holding up several outstanding, well- qualified nominees, for ages. Miguel Estrada is finally going to get a hearing on Thursday. He was nominated a year ago May. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. He has outstanding qualifications, graduated the top of his class from Columbia and Harvard, was an assistant U.S. attorney, and an assistant solicitor. He finally gets to have a hearing. Then there is John Roberts who was nominated a year ago May. He has argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court, and he is yet to get a hearing, probably will not get a hearing this year. What is fair about that? When people are patting themselves on the back because we have confirmed 78 judges and they are saying that is a lot, well, not when Bill Clinton got 90 percent and President Bush gets 61 percent; not when the current President Bush gets 43 percent of his circuit court judges and President Clinton got 86 percent. President Bush 1 and President Reagan both got 95 percent of their circuit court judges. All of a sudden, when it comes to circuit court judges, we are just going to go slow on those; they are going to have to wait a year and a half to get a hearing, if they get a hearing. I do not think that is fair. If we add together the fact that we have not done a budget, we have not done appropriations bills, we have not been confirming the number of judges that we traditionally have for the previous three Presidents, when we have not done a prescription drug bill, when we have not marked up an energy bill through the committee so it is stuck in conference, this Congress, this Senate, has not been working. For people to say it is the President's fault or it is the House's fault, I disagree. The House has been pretty productive in their legislative efforts. They passed a prescription drug bill. They passed a budget. They have passed more appropriations bills than we have, and they would have passed more had we passed a budget. If this Senate would have passed a budget--which, incidentally, 60 votes are not needed to pass a budget. Fifty-one votes are needed to pass a budget. If this Senate would have passed a budget, these appropriations bills could have gone forward. To cast aspersions blaming the House or the President for not getting the work done, the blame belongs right here. The Senate has not done its work. We have not passed a budget. We have not passed appropriations bills. Next Monday is the end of the fiscal year. Shame on us. This is the first year I have been in the Senate that we have not gotten our work even close to being done. It is not as though the bills are stuck in conference and we have not resolved the differences. We have not gotten the bills out of the Senate, and that is really not very acceptable. The Senate needs to work. We need to do our work. We have not done our work, certainly this past year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas, (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. The vote is anticipated to be at 12:30?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield me a few minutes?