[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8528-S8532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Omnibus Spending Bill

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, there are only 22 legislative days left in 
this fiscal year. The Senate seems to be frittering away those precious 
days. To date, the Senate has only passed one appropriations bill, the 
Defense bill. Only four bills have been reported from the Senate 
Appropriations Committee.
  The House has passed nine appropriations bills, but apparently the 
Senate would rather work on political messagemaking than to take care 
of the Nation's vital business. So I fear, once again, that the Senate 
Republican leadership is setting a course for a massive omnibus 
spending bill. That is what it looks like. That is what we are going to 
do, have a massive omnibus spending bill, in all likelihood.
  This year, with the failure of the Senate Republican leadership to 
even bring the Homeland Security bill before the Senate, the Omnibus 
appropriations bill may include as many as 12 of the 13 annual 
appropriations bills. That is very conceivable to ponder.
  On July 8, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director 
Robert Mueller announced that another terrorist attack is likely before 
the November elections, yet the Homeland Security appropriations bill, 
which the committee reported 4 weeks ago, has not even been presented 
to the full Senate for its consideration. What is wrong? What is wrong 
with this picture? Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. The flames are 
all around us.
  The Senate Republican leadership is setting the stage for another one 
of these massive spending bills that may be brought up in the Senate in 
an unamendable form. And one shudders to think what will go on behind 
closed doors. Who among the 100 Senators will be in the meetings that 
produce a massive bill that appropriates over $400 billion for 
veterans, education, homeland security, highways, agriculture, and the 
environment? Who among the 100 Senators will be in the meetings when 
decisions are made about including provisions on drug importation, gun 
liability, farm bill issues, nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, 
overtime rules, or on the outsourcing of government services? Does 
anybody know?
  And, who knows what surprises, that were never debated or even 
contemplated in the Senate, will find their way into such an omnibus? 
What kind of interesting bugs will crawl into this big bad apple of a 
bill? I cannot tell you how many Senators will be in the room, but I 
can assure you of one thing. The White House will be there. You can bet 
on that. They will be there with their pet projects and their pet 
peeves and their opportunities to move certain items into their 
favorite States--doing their bidding, legislating right along with the 
Senators. They will be there. White House bureaucrats and soothsayers 
will suddenly become legislators for a day, or perhaps several days.

  That is not the way our Constitution contemplated the writing of 
appropriations bills. The Framers believed that Congress ought to have 
the power of the purse. This White House would like to have it. They 
would like very much to have it. But all of those constitutional 
niceties get blurred and blended when it comes time to deal on Omnibus 
appropriations bills. The checks and balances gets thrown out the 
window when it comes time to deal with Omnibus appropriations bills.
  One could conclude that the only thing the President wants from the 
fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill is the Defense appropriations 
bill. That is the only thing the President would want from the 2005 
appropriations process--the Defense appropriations bill.
  On June 24, 2004, in its Statement of Administration Policy, the 
White House urged the Congress to pass the Defense bill before the 
start of the August recess. Why?
  In February, the President did not ask for one thin dime, not one 
thin dime did he ask for as far as the costs

[[Page S8529]]

of the war in Iraq--nothing. Administration officials had the temerity 
to insist that the costs of the war were not knowable. Then suddenly, 
on May 12, 2004, the President saw the light and realized that he 
needed more money for the war in Iraq. It must have come to him in a 
sudden vision. So, like a teenage driver, he put the foot on the gas 
and insisted that the Congress give him a $25 billion blank check for 
the escalating costs of his war in Iraq.
  With the help of Senator Stevens of Alaska, the blank check got 
canceled, but the defense conference report will include the $25 
billion in additional funds. The President will get the one thing he 
wanted out of this year's appropriations process; he will get the 
Defense appropriations bill.
  So I must ask the American people, why is it the President has not 
sent messages to the Congress urging prompt action on the bill that 
funds the veterans health care system? I am sure the veterans are 
concerned about what is going to happen with respect to their needs.
  Moreover, does the President not know that the bill that funds our 
Nation's schools is stuck in subcommittee? What about the 
appropriations bill that funds our highway system that has not yet been 
considered by the House or the Senate? In February, the President 
proposed to put a man on Mars, but the bill that funds the space 
program has not been marked up by either the House or Senate 
appropriations committees.
  According to President Bush, Congress must urgently send him the 
Defense appropriations bill; but for all of the other appropriations 
bills, the attitude is ho hum; so what.
  According to the administration, we are facing another terrorist 
attack. Are we not even going to debate whether a 5-percent increase 
for the Department of Homeland Security is enough?
  Last year, we fell prey to a 7-bill omnibus, but at least the Senate 
debated as freestanding bills 12 of the 13 bills. Now we are down to 
only one debate this year on the Defense bill. That is one bill, and 
only one debate this year, on the Defense bill.
  Where do we go from here on funding the needs of the people? One of 
the options that has been discussed by the Republican leadership is to 
pass the full-year continuing resolution and leave town, get out of 
town, catch the next train, all aboard. That is right. The exalted 
servants of the people may just decide to enjoy a summer vacation if 
some in the Republican leadership have their druthers. What does it 
matter if all of the Federal Government, except the Pentagon, operates 
on automatic pilot for a full year? Who needs guidance from the 
Congress on the priorities? Who needs careful scrutiny of Federal 
programs? What about the new initiatives? Shouldn't they be under 
careful scrutiny? Shouldn't questions be asked and questions answered?
  Let me give you, my colleagues, a few examples of what would happen 
under a full-year continuing resolution. If that is what you want, I 
tell you what you are going to get.
  If the Senate Republican leadership refuses to allow the Senate to 
debate the Homeland Security appropriations bill, important funding in 
new programs would not be available to the Department.
  As we all know, on March 11, 2004, nearly 200 people were killed by a 
series of bombs detonated on the transit system in Madrid, Spain. The 
Department of Homeland Security responded by sending out a list of 
security recommendations for mass transit and rail systems in the 
United States. These recommendations included moving garbage cans and 
asking commuters to be more alert to suspicious people and packages, 
like unattended backpacks. However, despite my efforts, no moneys were 
approved for fiscal year 2004 for mass transit or rail security. Are we 
comatose in the Senate? Perhaps we better reach back in our desks 
somewhere and get our living wills.

  On an average workday, 32 million people travel on mass transit. Get 
that, 32 million people travel on mass transit on an average workday. 
However, under a continuing resolution, there would be no funding to 
help secure our mass transit and rail systems. There would be no funds 
for additional law enforcement presence, no funds for additional K-9 
teams, no funds for additional surveillance, no funds for additional 
public education about the threat. Is that OK with the Senate?
  Following the tragic events of September 11, the administration 
established a firm goal for the number of Federal air marshals so that 
a high percentage of critical flights could be protected. The exact 
number of air marshals is classified, but the fact is, the Federal air 
marshals program has never reached the staffing level called for in the 
wake of the September 11 attacks.
  Instead, the White House has allowed the number of air marshals to 
fall by 9 percent, falling far below the goal. As air marshals leave 
the program, budget constraints prohibit the hiring of replacements. 
The number of air marshals continues to dwindle and the number of 
critical flights they are able to cover remains on a steady downward 
spiral. If forced to operate under a continuing resolution, the number 
of air marshals protecting domestic and international flights could 
fall by another 6 percent, putting Americans in greater danger. How can 
we contemplate such irresponsibility? Doesn't public safety count?
  How about funding for our Nation's schools? Two and a half years ago 
the President promised to leave no child behind. The No Child Left 
Behind Act authorized $20.5 billion in fiscal year 2005 for title I, 
the Federal program designed to help disadvantaged students in 
kindergarten through high school, those students who are most at risk 
of being left behind. A continuing resolution would freeze title I 
funding at just $12.3 billion. That would leave behind 2.7 million 
students who would not receive the title I services that were promised 
to them in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  A continuing resolution would also freeze funding for special 
education. Two months ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly by a vote of 
96 to 1 to authorize a $2.3 billion increase for the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act--better known, perhaps, as IDEA--in fiscal 
year 2005, and fully fund the law within 7 years. A CR would put the 
lie to that pledge.
  As candidate for President in 2000, President Bush said:

       College is every parent's dream for their children. It's 
     the path to achievement. We should make this path open to 
     all.

  But, my dear friends, under the Bush administration, the cost of 
tuition has gone up by 26 percent, making it harder and harder for low- 
and middle-income students to pursue that dream.

  The Pell grant: A maximum Pell grant now covers only 34 percent of 
the average annual cost of college compared to 72 percent in 1976. 
Under a continuing resolution, there would be no increase in the 
maximum Pell grant now set at $4,050. There would be no increases for 
the College Work-Study Program or for other campus-based aid programs. 
So much for dreams, so much for promises, so much for empty talk.
  For the construction and restoration of our Nation's highways and 
bridges, a long-term continuing resolution would stifle the flow of 
billions of new dollars going to our States to improve safety 
conditions, minimize congestion, and create badly needed jobs.
  Just this past February, more than three-quarters of the Senate, 76 
Senators, approved a surface transportation bill that called for an 
overall commitment of highway funds for fiscal year 2005 of $37.9 
billion. Under a long-term continuing resolution, highway funding would 
be $4.25 billion less than that amount, a $4.25 billion shortfall. That 
difference represents more than 200,000 jobs across America, jobs that 
are desperately needed all across our States. But the Senate is in 
gridlock, much like the gridlock on our Nation's highways.
  Our Nation's military is serving gallantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
but under a continuing resolution the Veterans Health Administration, 
unbelievably, would get drastically reduced health care services for 
our fighting men and women. Approximately 237,000 veterans would not be 
able to receive care, and veterans outpatient clinics would schedule 
2.6 million fewer appointments. The waiting list for veterans seeking 
medical care would grow to over 230,000. What a way to treat our brave 
men and women. Shabby and shameful are the two words that come to mind.
  Al-Qaida operatives are in the United States preparing for another 
terrorist

[[Page S8530]]

attack. The FBI must mobilize to find those terrorists before they 
attack us. But a full-year continuing resolution would force the FBI to 
freeze all hiring in fiscal year 2005. That would result in the FBI 
losing 500 special agents and negating the proposed increase of 428 
special agents. Nor would the FBI be able to fund any of the new 
initiatives proposed in the fiscal year 2005 budget request, including 
resources for the new office of intelligence counterterrorism 
investigations, counterintelligence, and fighting cyber crime.
  Another casualty of a full-year continuing resolution would be 
programs to combat HIV/AIDS, particularly in eastern Europe and Asia 
where the epidemic is spreading out of control. Only one in five people 
worldwide have access to HIV/AIDS prevention programs. Yet a continuing 
resolution would reduce funding for those programs by almost half a 
billion. That means there would be hundreds of thousands of new 
infections of the deadly virus--infections that could have been 
prevented, lives that could have been saved.
  The list goes on and on and, like Tennyson's book, goes on. Members 
of this Congress have a duty and a responsibility to the American 
people. They do not want us to approve massive omnibus spending bills 
that no one has bothered to read. They do not want us to pass mindless 
continuing resolutions that put the Government on automatic pilot and 
their safety on the line. They do not want us to cash our own paychecks 
without doing the work we were sent here to do.
  We are paid to debate legislation. We are paid to make careful 
choices on behalf of the people. The elections are coming, and if we 
are not going to do our work, then we should not claim the title of 
Senator. Just like Donald Trump, come November, the American people 
might decide to send us a very straightforward message: You're fired.
  Last week, the Republican leadership jammed into the defense 
conference report a provision ``deeming'' the level of spending for 
fiscal year 2005 at the level in the budget resolution conference 
report. It seems now we are ``deeming'' our way through budget debates. 
``Deeming''--this provision was not contained in the Senate or House 
version of the Defense bill. It was not debated here on the Senate 
floor. Yet this innocuous-sounding ``deeming'' provision will have far-
reaching consequences. That provision will result in appropriations 
bills that inadequately fund homeland security, education, veterans, 
transportation, and other programs to meet domestic needs. And the 
consequences are not just on paper. The American public is being 
cheated year after year by the steady erosion of money available to 
fund the public's priorities. They are being ``deemed'' down the river.
  This year, even while the directors of Homeland Security, the FBI, 
and the CIA are warning us of al-Qaida in our midst, we still are 
unaccountably and stubbornly sitting on the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill as if in total defiance of the dangers to our 
country and to the people's safety.
  None of this is the fault of our able Appropriations Committee 
chairman, Senator Ted Stevens. Early on, I encouraged Chairman Stevens 
to move 13 freestanding, fiscally responsible appropriations bills 
through the committee and on to the Senate floor. Senator Stevens 
instructed his 13 subcommittee chairmen to produce balanced and 
bipartisan bills; however, the Senate Republican leadership has refused 
to free up floor time for the appropriations bills.
  I will not be a party to such chicanery, and I implore the leadership 
of this body to stop the games and stop the politics. And I ask the 
majority leadership to set aside the pending business and proceed to 
the consideration of Calendar Order No. 588, H.R. 4567, the fiscal year 
2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I echo the comments of Senator Byrd, 
the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. While I do not have 
the perspective of his years of service in the Senate and on the 
Appropriations Committee, I share his concern about the breakdown we 
are seeing in this year's appropriations process.
  There are only 2 days left before the Senate leaves for an extended 
August recess. Yet the Appropriations Committee has reported out only 4 
of the 13 appropriations bills we must pass this year. The Senate has 
passed only one Appropriations bill--the Defense Appropriations bill. 
This is a dereliction of our primary duty in the Senate, funding the 
functions of Government.
  The blame for this situation does not go, in my view, to the 
Appropriations Committee. In the limited work the committee has done 
this year, it has operated in an efficient, bipartisan manner. But we 
all know that the committee has been hampered by the failure to enact a 
budget resolution.
  A budget is a clear articulation of priorities. We are having these 
problems because of a failure to prioritize, or because of skewed 
priorities. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Office is 
projecting a $477 billion deficit in fiscal year 2004.
  But some in the Congress continue to believe that more tax cuts 
should be the priority in this Congress. And they refuse to subject 
these tax cuts to the discipline of pay-as-you-go rules, which would 
require offsetting revenue increases, or spending cuts.
  They insist that we can balance the books by ``controlling'' 
nondefense, nonhomeland security, discretionary spending. Yet, no one 
has shown any inclination to significantly cut discretionary spending. 
Just the opposite. As Bill Young, the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee notes:

       No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a 
     result of austere non-defense discretionary spending limits. 
     The numbers simply do not add up.

  The notion of balancing the budget, while further reducing revenue, 
is simply wrong-headed. Or, as Chairman Young succinctly puts it, ``the 
numbers simply do not add up.''
  The Senate is scheduled for 19 legislative days after August. It does 
not appear that there is much hope for completing our appropriations 
work in that time. Indications in the media from the chairman and from 
the Republican leadership are that we will be faced with moving an 
omnibus appropriations bill when we return, possibly with some bills 
held over for a lameduck session of Congress. That is a terrible way to 
do business, and I sincerely hope it does not come to that.
  In the remaining 2 days before we recess, I am hopeful that we can at 
least take up my subcommittee's bill, the military construction bill. 
The subcommittee chairman, Senator Hutchison, and I have worked well 
together to craft a good bill with the support of Senators Stevens and 
Byrd. I believe that it deserves the support of the full Senate.
  And when the Senate reconvenes, in September, I hope that we on the 
Appropriations Committee will work efficiently, and on a bipartisan 
basis, to report freestanding bills to the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
413 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  (Mr. CORNYN assumed the Chair.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express deep 
disappointment about what is taking place on the Senate floor in the 
cloture vote scheduled for tomorrow. For the past 3\1/2\ years, Senator 
Levin and I have been urging the Bush administration to work with us to 
develop a bipartisan solution regarding the Michigan nominees to the 
Sixth Circuit Court. We have met on several occasions with Judge 
Gonzales, the current White House counsel, and other White House staff, 
but the White House has rejected all of our efforts at a compromise. We 
also had numerous meetings with Chairman Hatch and testified before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee several times on the need for a bipartisan 
solution.
  Chairman Hatch had expressed a willingness to work with us and to 
work with Senator Leahy on a bipartisan solution to this impasse, but 
it seems these efforts have been abandoned by Republican leadership in

[[Page S8531]]

favor of scoring political points before the party conventions.
  I still believe the best way to end this impasse is to forge a 
compromise. I hope the Bush administration and the Republican 
leadership will not continue down this road of what appears to be 
politically motivated and partisan cloture votes instead of working 
with us to develop a fair solution. A ``nay'' vote on cloture will 
preserve potential negotiations toward the bipartisan compromise we 
have been seeking. A ``yea'' vote will destroy these efforts and, 
unfortunately, be a vote for preconvention politics.
  Let me start by saying a few words about Judge Saad's nomination. 
Judge Saad is before us now. After listening to people in Michigan who 
have shared serious concerns with both Senator Levin and I, and having 
had an opportunity to review the FBI background materials, I have to 
say that I have serious concerns about Judge Saad's temperament and 
appropriateness for serving on this important bench. While I cannot go 
into specifics, I urge my colleagues to review the Judiciary 
Committee's FBI background materials for themselves.
  Judge Saad's lack of fitness for this appointment is also evidenced 
in the record he has put together as it relates to his work on the 
Michigan Court of Appeals. Most troubling, perhaps, are his decisions 
and reversals in cases involving the application of the law in civil 
rights cases--particularly in sexual harassment cases.
  His decisions also demonstrate hostility to the rights of 
whistleblowers. We know in this day and age, as we have learned through 
those who were courageous and came forward in the Enron and Halliburton 
cases, and others where employees have come forward, how important it 
is to be able to protect the rights of employees who see that something 
is wrong and they step forward. They are what we call whistleblowers.
  His decisions also have been hostile to the rights of people who are 
injured. For example, in Coleman v. State, Judge Saad joined in 
deciding against the plaintiff in a sexual harassment case, which was 
later reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court. Coleman, a State prison 
employee, was subjected to comments by her supervisor about her 
allegedly provocative dress and to daily inspections of her clothing, 
after she was the victim of an attempted assault and rape by an armed 
prison inmate. She was the one who was questioned, as too often we hear 
as it relates to women who are told it was their fault, because of the 
way they dress, and that is why they were assaulted. The Michigan 
Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that there was sufficient 
evidence for the victim to go to trial.
  In Haberl v. Rose, Judge Saad dissented from the court of appeals' 
reinstatement of a jury verdict for the plaintiff who was injured by a 
Government worker who was doing Government work but driving her own 
automobile.
  In the complicated case, the majority found that Michigan's sovereign 
immunity statute was not applicable, since a more specific civil 
liability statute said that car owners are not immune from liability. 
Car owners have liability in these kinds of cases.
  The dissenting Judge Saad stated that the sovereign immunity statute 
applied but the civil liability statute did not and, thus, the injured 
plaintiff could not recover.
  Judge Saad was harshly criticized for his dissent by the majority of 
the judges, who essentially called him a judicial activist:

       Indeed, it is the dissent that urges ``rewriting'' the 
     statutes in question and advocates overstepping the bounds of 
     proper judicial authority.

  Based on these concerns, I do not believe Judge Saad has the 
necessary judicial temperament to serve a lifetime appointment--a 
lifetime appointment--on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. President, I wish to speak more broadly now about the process of 
bringing the Sixth Circuit nominees to the floor of the Senate. Senator 
Levin has spoken eloquently about the history of the Sixth Circuit 
nominees prior to my serving in the Senate. He has explained how two 
extremely well-qualified women--Judge Helene White and Kathleen McCree 
Lewis--failed to get a hearing before the Judiciary Committee for more 
than 4 years and 1\1/2\ years, respectively, during the previous 
administration.

  In fact, if she had been confirmed, Kathleen McCree Lewis would have 
been the first African-American woman on the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  Senator Levin and I are not alone in the view we hold that what 
occurred with respect to these nominees was fundamentally unfair.
  On more than one occasion, Judge Gonzales, the current White House 
counsel, has acknowledged that it was wrong for the Republican-led 
Senate to delay action on judicial nominees for partisan reasons, at 
one point even calling the treatment of some nominees during the 
Clinton administration ``inexcusable.''
  Senator Levin and I have repeatedly proposed to settle this 
longstanding conflict by appointing a bipartisan commission to make 
recommendations to the White House on judicial nominations.
  Our proposal would be based on the commission that is set up and 
working just across Lake Michigan in Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin 
commission has produced bipartisan nominees for both district and 
circuit courts since its inception under the Carter administration.
  In fact, just recently, the Senate confirmed Judge Diane Sykes for a 
vacancy on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sykes, a Bush 
administration nominee, was recommended by the bipartisan Wisconsin 
commission and had the support of both of her Democratic home State 
Senators.
  This process works. The Wisconsin commission includes representatives 
from the Wisconsin Bar Association, the deans of the State's law 
schools, as well as members appointed by both Republicans and 
Democrats. They only recommend qualified candidates who have the 
support of the majority of the commission. The President then looks to 
the recommendations of the commission when making his nominations.
  The Wisconsin commission's recommendations have always been followed 
by the President, regardless of political party. Again, this system has 
worked.
  This type of commission preserves the constitutional prerogatives of 
both the President and the Senate. It allows the President to pick one 
of the recommended nominees and protects the Senate's advise and 
consent role.
  Wisconsin is not the only State where this type of bipartisan 
commission works. In a similar form, it has worked in several other 
States, including Washington, California, and Vermont.
  Unfortunately, the White House continues to reject this proposal from 
Michigan, despite having agreed to similar commissions in other States 
with other Democratic Senators.
  Senator Levin and I are interested in finding a real bipartisan 
solution to this problem. We have stated on numerous occasions that we 
are willing to accept the commission's recommended nominees, even if 
they do not include Helene White and Kathleen Lewis, or any other 
person we would choose if it were up to us.
  Instead of divisive cloture votes, let's look to the future and 
restore civility to this process. It is time to do that with the Sixth 
Circuit.
  I hope we can still accomplish this and that the Bush administration 
and Chairman Hatch will work with us to develop a fair compromise to 
this longstanding problem.
  Let me take a moment to reiterate this is not about being unwilling 
to fill vacancies. As other colleagues have indicated, we have, in 
fact, confirmed 198 judicial nominees of this President, and I have 
voted for the overwhelming majority of those nominees. This is more 
judicial nominees than were confirmed for President Reagan in all 4 
years of his first term, more nominees than were confirmed for first 
President Bush during his 4-year Presidency, and for President Clinton 
in all 4 years of his second term. Mr. President, 100 judges were 
confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority.
  So under Democratic control, we confirmed 100 judges, and we were 
only in the majority for 17 months of the last almost 4 years. Now, 98 
more judges have been confirmed in the 25 months of Republican 
leadership. In other words, the Democrats were in the majority less 
time and confirmed more

[[Page S8532]]

judges for this President during the last 3\1/2\ years. So this is not 
about being unwilling to support filling judgeships, but it is about a 
very specific concern about what has been happening in Michigan and the 
lack of willingness of the administration to work with both Senators to 
fulfill our equal responsibilities of being able to pick the best 
people to serve our great State for a lifetime appointment.
  These are not Cabinet appointments of this President. They are 
lifetime appointments. The reason the Framers of the Constitution 
divided the responsibility--half with the President and half with the 
Senate, as we know--is because this is a third branch of Government 
with lifetime appointments, and it is very important there be the 
maximum amount of input, balance, and thoughtfulness brought to this 
process.
  Unfortunately, regarding the Sixth Circuit, until we have a fair 
solution, I believe I have no other option than to oppose this cloture 
vote and to urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. What is the 
business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nomination of Henry Saad to the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals is the pending business.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.