[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 19997-19998]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee, as we know, 
has started hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to be the Chief 
Justice of the United States. I am confident that Chairman Specter, 
Ranking Member Leahy, and the other committee members will do a good 
job exploring the nominee's qualifications for the job and thoroughly 
explore his judicial philosophy.
  There is much at stake in these hearings. If confirmed, Judge Roberts 
will serve as Chief Justice for the next several decades. He will be 
the head of the third branch of the Federal Government and the most 
prominent judge in the world.
  The Senate's duty to render advice and consent, with respect to his 
nomination, is one of the most critical tasks we will face in this 
Congress. I am very happy that no Democrat has prejudged the Roberts 
nomination. Not a single Democratic Senator has stated how they will 
vote on this nomination. Some may be leaning toward supporting him; 
others may be leaning against him. But every Democrat knows that we 
need to wait for these hearings, the questions and answers, the 
statements by Mr. Roberts and the independent witnesses before making a 
final decision. That is the responsible way to approach a nomination 
such as this.
  I look forward to hearings, hearings that I know will be respectful, 
dignified, and thorough. I, personally, have encouraged Judge Roberts 
to answer questions fully and forthrightly. I, for one, am enormously 
impressed with Judge Roberts career and his obvious legal skills. I met 
him in my office right across the hall.
  I said: How many trials have you had, Judge?
  He said: None.
  This man is an appellate advocate. He has argued nearly two score 
cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and many others at various 
appellate levels. I enjoyed meeting with him. It was soon after he was 
nominated. I saw him last week at the funeral for Justice Rehnquist. 
The only thing that I am troubled about, and I am troubled, is some of 
the memos he wrote during the Reagan administration regarding women's 
rights and other civil rights issues. In more recent years, he appears 
to have been a thoughtful, mainstream judge on the DC Circuit. I want 
to give Judge Roberts an opportunity to convince the Senate, the 
American people and myself that, as a Supreme Court Justice, he could 
continue to be a fair, evenhanded judge and not revert to his 
ideological roots that we saw during the Reagan years. If he can meet 
that test, I can support him. If he doesn't, if he is not persuasive on 
that point, I cannot support him. The burden is on John Roberts.
  The Supreme Court hearings are likely to dominate the news today, but 
let's all remember, these hearings are about whether one man is 
qualified to fill one job. While we carefully weigh that important 
decision, I remind all my colleagues that, as we speak, there are 
hundreds of thousands of Americans without jobs, without homes, and 
they are losing hope as a result of our inaction. These are the people 
in the Gulf Coast region. We must get our priorities in line. It has 
been nearly 2 weeks since flood waters poured into Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama, and the terrible windstorms hit them. That is 
2 weeks. Thousands of families have gone without shelter, schools for 
their kids, health care for their injuries and the resources they need 
to pick up and move on with their lives.
  In the Senate, we passed two supplemental appropriations bills. That 
is good. It is a start, but it is not nearly enough. Along with Senator 
Landrieu, my colleagues and I introduced the Katrina Emergency Relief 
Act last week. The act would make changes in law that we need to give 
survivors health care, housing, education, and personal financial 
relief. We are trying to add these provisions to the Commerce, Justice, 
and Science appropriations bill. We had hoped the Senate would act on 
these items promptly, but it appears the majority will use procedural 
devices to prevent them from passing or even allowing votes on them. 
That is unfortunate. Thousands of survivors still are living on cots in 
the Astrodome and other places, makeshift shelters all across the 
country. These victims do not care about Senate procedures. They know 
that they need help now, not more redtape.
  I believe America can do better, and we Democrats will continue to 
press for action on these items in the days ahead. The Government 
turned its backs on Katrina's victims once. We can't let it happen 
again.
  In addition to votes on the four amendments to the Commerce 
appropriations bill that we want, we should help victims and help our 
troops by bringing to this floor the Defense authorization bill. Unlike 
the Commerce bill, the Defense bill is an amendable vehicle. Through 
this bill, the Senate would be able to get legislation here now and act 
on it. The Katrina relief emergency matter could be brought before the 
Senate and we could vote on it to help Katrina victims now.
  But just as importantly, we need to act on the Defense authorization 
bill so we can get to our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
their families the resources and support they deserve. The Defense bill 
delivers a better quality of life, state-of-the-art equipment, new 
housing for our troops, and relief for their families. This bill 
provides critical health care benefits for guardsmen and veterans. It 
also increases the end strength of the reservists, Army and Marine 
Corps, so we can begin to take steps to relieve the stress of these 
overstretched Active military personnel.
  This bill should be at the top of our Senate agenda, but I am sorry 
to say it is not. It is hard to comprehend that since May this bill has 
been literally languishing. It was reported out of the Armed Services 
Committee in May. We worked for a couple of days on it here on the 
floor. The Senate was not permitted to complete action on this 
important measure. We were working on this bill for a short time in 
July before the leader decided to set it aside in favor of the gun 
liability legislation. The gun liability legislation is the law. It has 
been signed by the President. The Defense authorization bill should be 
the law so our troops who are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan can 
get the help they need and give the families of the approximately 2,000 
men and women who have been killed in Iraq the knowledge that we are 
doing something to help the people on the ground

[[Page 19998]]

and to help the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been spawned 
as a result of this war. This doesn't take into consideration the tens 
of thousands who have been injured and wounded in this war. Those 
fighting in Iraq deserve it. Those fighting in Afghanistan deserve it. 
Our veterans deserve it.
  Americans can do better than this. The Defense bill should be taken 
off the back burner and placed on the front burner right now.
  Our troops--I repeat--and the victims of Katrina are literally crying 
for our help. In the days ahead, we will owe the victims of Katrina and 
all the American people something in addition to relief. We will owe 
them answers. Four years after 9/11, the Government was supposed to be 
prepared for a crisis such as Katrina. Yet, as we all saw, the Federal 
Government was not, and we owe it to the American people to find out 
why.
  Today on public radio, they had a number of pieces on Katrina, but 
the one that stands out in my mind was the story of St. Bernard Parish 
President Henry ``Junior'' Rodriquez who told of how it took 5 days 
before anybody came to help his parish of some 80,000 people. And the 
fifth day, did we see FEMA coming to help them, or American troops? No. 
His first sign of help was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 
``Junior'' Rodriguez deserves to know why it took so long to get his 
parish help. All Americans should know.
  Americans can do better. When we searched for answers following 9/11, 
Democrats and Republicans came together and established an independent 
blue ribbon commission that was a great success. Too bad we didn't 
follow all the recommendations. But Democrats, Republicans and, most 
importantly, the American people embraced its answers. Senator Clinton 
has proposed that we need another independent commission, and we need 
it now.
  I close by reminding everyone that times have changed. Times are 
different today than they were 2 weeks ago. We now have different 
priorities after Katrina, and our actions in the weeks ahead should 
reflect these new priorities. It is not business as usual for the 
families along the Gulf, and it should not be business as usual for us 
here.
  Nowhere is this more clear than in the budget that is before this 
body. I spoke about that budget the night it came before us. I read a 
letter written to me by the mainline Protestant churches in America. 
They said please tell everyone this budget which you are about to pass 
is immoral. This is certainly worse than it was then.
  I point out to everyone the results of the recent Census Bureau 
report which show that poverty rose for the fourth year in a row. 
Incomes dropped again, and more Americans are going without health care 
than the year before--almost a million more than the past year without 
health care.
  Combine these facts and figures with the images of Katrina--images of 
the poorest and neediest among us bearing the brunt of a national 
tragedy--and ask yourself this question: Should we proceed with this 
budget that was immoral the night it was passed and even more so now, 
that cuts taxes for the rich and cuts Medicaid by $10 billion, cuts 
food stamps, student loans, and other programs for the neediest among 
us? The answer, of course, is no. We must revisit these priorities in 
the budget resolution.
  America can do better. We can't change the past, but we can change 
the future. We can put the Senate's priorities in line with the 
American people, and there is no excuse not to do that.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business. The 
previous order provided morning business between 2 and 3 equally 
between the majority and minority. The minority has consumed 30 minutes 
in morning business. So the Senator, if he wishes to speak, would have 
to ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak on the majority's time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for 10 minutes in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________