10:00 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Previous meeting:
The Senate convened at 9:00 a.m. and adjourned at 1:04 a.m. Three record votes were taken.
Morning OX,
Thanks for the thread.
Have I ever told you that you are the only good thing in FLA,(kidding, of course there are three others).
We love you martyrs.
Thanks for the thread.
Senate is back today..
Monday, July 11, 2005
1:00 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
2:00 p.m.: Begin consideration of H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
Senate
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
9:45 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
9:30 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
Previous meeting:
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 6:09 p.m. Three record votes were taken.
Collins Amdt. No. 1142; To provide for homeland security grant coordination and simplification, and for other purposes. ~ Agreed to
Murray Amdt. No. 1129; To provide emergency supplemental funds for medical services provided by the Veterans Health Administration for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005. ~ Agreed to
Thursday, July 14, 2005
9:30 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
Previous meeting:
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Two record votes were taken.
9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
10:00 a.m.: Begin consideration of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
Previous meeting:
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Eleven record votes were taken.
Monday, July 18, 2005
2:30 p.m.: Convene and resume consideration of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
Previous meeting:
Friday, July 15, 2005
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 1:36 p.m. No record votes were taken.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
11:00 a.m.: Convene and begin consideration of H.J. Res. 52, the Burma Trade Resolution.
2:15 p.m.: Resume consideration of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
Previous meeting:
Monday, July 17, 2005
The Senate convened at 2:30 p.m. and adjourned at 7:20 p.m. One record vote was taken.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - July 30, 2002)
nomination of D. Brooks Smith
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will say a word about the nomination of D. Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit. For me, my concerns with Judge Smith are not about ethics but about ideology. My questions are about his record. My worries are about what kind of judge he has been at the trial level and what kind of judge he will be at the appellate level.
Time and time again, the President says he is going to nominate conservatives in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Every indication is that he is following through with that promise.
At least by my standards, that is not OK. I certainly want legal excellence at the highest order. Diversity ought to be at the highest courts. We ought not have a bench of all like men. But I also want moderation and ideological balance. Unfortunately, as they nominate judge after judge, hard right, out of the mainstream, far further to the right than President Clinton's nominees were to the left, it is clear that this administration is committed to imbalance on the courts. Frankly, that is a strategy I cannot get behind.
When it comes to D. Brooks Smith, there are some red flags raised. As a city district court judge, he gave a speech in which he criticized the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act, something I am pretty proud of because I was the author, along with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in the House of Representatives. Senator Biden did a great job here in the Senate. Now, this was years before the Supreme Court had addressed the Violence Against Women Act and when there was still a possibility it would come before him as a judge. That is some very unjudge-like behavior.
I asked him some simple, written questions about his views on the law. I asked him about his views on the right to privacy. I asked him to reconcile his views on VAWA with his views on other Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act. The response I got, I regret to say, was inadequate.
Judge Smith told me what the precedence said, not what he personally believes.
That might be OK if you are a nominee to the district court where you do
[Page: S7564]
not have as much of a chance to make law. These days when you are nominated to an appellate court, when the Supreme Court takes virtually 75 cases a year, that argument does not fly. So I wrote back to Judge Smith, and again I asked him about his views. I made it clear I wanted to know about his personal views, not what the law was, but what his personal views were because we all know that influences a judge greatly when they make decisions.
This idea that judges are part of an ideological system and read the law in the same way is poppycock.
Why is it judges nominated by Democratic nominees read the law differently than judges nominated by Republican nominees? We know ideology plays a role. There is nothing wrong with that. But we ought to let it into our decisionmaking.
Judge Smith dodged again.
I think I am entitled to know what a nominee thinks. I am not going to go about blindly confirming nominees to lifetime seats on the Federal courts without those answers. I am not going to vote to give the judge a lifetime appointment, tremendous power, the most unaccountable power that our Founding Fathers gave to any single person. I am not going to
give that judge the power to invalidate the laws passed in this legislative, duly elected body; laws that protect privacy, laws that protect working people, laws that protect women, the environment. I am not going to give a judge the power to validate those laws unless I know what they think of our power, the Congress's power as a coequal branch of Government, when it comes to these important issues.
I have an obligation on behalf of the 19 million New Yorkers I represent to learn those views. They want to know if the judge is too far left or too far right. They want to know about things that affect their lives: How much money they are going to make; safety in the workplace; how the environment is going to be treated; and if they are a member of a minority group, how the judge regards civil rights. They want to know this. I want to know.
I am not going to make the mistake that this body made with Clarence Thomas, who came before this body. I was not here then. I was in the House. We don't, of course, vote on judges. He said he had no views on Roe v. Wade. I am not making that mistake again. I don't think any Member should. We all know Judge Thomas had strong views on Roe v. Wade, but he came here and said he had none, he had never discussed it.
If D. Brooks Smith had given me legitimate answers to my questions, I might have supported him. But his answers were not answers at all.
Now, I understand we cannot ask judges to precommit themselves on issues that come before them, even though that is what Judge Smith did in his VAWA speech. I don't want to put nominees in that position. When it comes to issues already decided, when it comes to discussing their judicial philosophy, when it comes to Supreme Court cases that will never come before this judge, I don't get why we shouldn't know what that judge thinks.
Every semester, first year law students are asked to critique Supreme Court opinions. But someone up for a Federal judgeship will not tell us what they think about the seminal Supreme Court cases?
On the latest nominee for whom we had a hearing, Judge Owen, I asked her views. She said she doesn't think that way. She was asked to write papers in law school. She was asked to make opinions this way. She did not want to tell us.
There is a trend here. There is a trend. They don't want us to know what they think because they are so far out of the mainstream that they never could get picked if they told us their real views. They would never get supported by this body. They will not be honest about their views regarding Brown v. Board of Education or Korematus v. United States or Miranda v. Arizona or Roe v. Wade?
Judge Smith says what he thinks about the constitutionality of a statute the Supreme Court has yet to rule on, but he will not say what he thinks about Supreme Court opinions that have already been issued? Something is wrong with that. This nominee has it all turned around and it doesn't make sense.
The fact is, we are in the midst of a conservative judicial revolution. The very same people who decried the liberal activists, who took too many things too far--I am very critical of some of those opinions--are now doing the same thing themselves. When the hard right members of the conservative movement in the 1980s realized they could only get so much of their agenda implemented through elected branches because they were too far over for the American people, they turned their focus to the courts. They started a campaign that ran through the Reagan administration, through the first Bush administration, and continues through this administration. President Bush would like to portray himself as a moderate to the American people. Maybe he is. When I talk to him he sounds that way to me, one-on-one.
But if you look at who he nominates, there is hardly a moderate among them, particularly at the appellate court level. The nominees are committed to an ideological agenda which turns the clock back to maybe the 1930s, maybe the 1890s. They hate the Government and its power, by and large. They think the Federal Government has far too much power, which, let me tell you, in our post-September 11 world makes no sense.
So for the better part of the last decade, the commerce clause has been under assault and a whole host of laws protecting women, senior citizens, the disabled, and the environment have been invalidated. Now they turn their attention to the spending clause. To the average person, this sounds like mine-numbing stuff. But unfortunately, it has real impact on real people and it has to stop.
D. Brooks Smith is going to become a judge. We all know he has the vote. Tomorrow morning he will join a long line of judges, confirmed by the Senate, who appear to be intent on curtailing congressional power to protect the people who elect us.
At some point this Senate needs to wake up to the fact that our President and his Department of Justice are playing by different rules when it comes to nominating judges. They are using ideology as litmus tests, and then, when we want to ask about ideology, they say no, that is off the table. They are doing it to the detriment of the courts and the people the courts are supposed to protect.
I yield the floor.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - May 08, 2003)
[Page: S5928] GPO's PDF
---
NOMINATION OF JOHN G. ROBERTS , JR., OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of John Roberts , to be a circuit judge for the DC Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the nomination of John Roberts , who has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Mr. Roberts was first nominated to this post by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. He has been nominated for this post by two different Presidents on three separate occasions, and has waited more than 11 years for his confirmation, so I am glad to see that this day has finally come when we can expect a vote by the full Senate on his nomination.
Mr. Roberts has exceptional experience as a Supreme Court and appellate advocate. He has argued an astounding 39 cases before the Supreme Court and has argued in every Federal circuit court of appeals. His Supreme Court practice consists of seeking and opposing Supreme Court review, preparing amicus curiae briefs, and helping to prepare other counsel to argue before the Court. His clients have included large and small corporations, trade organizations, nonprofit organizations, States, and individuals.
Mr. Roberts is one of the most accomplished and brilliant legal minds that I have seen in my 27 years as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not surprisingly, the ABA awarded him its highest possible rating of unanimously well-qualified. He is widely regarded as one of the best appellate attorneys of his generation. After reviewing his legal accomplishments it is easy to see why his colleagues have such respect and admiration for him. I would like to read excerpts from a few of the many letters his colleagues have sent the committee discussing his professionalism, character, and open-mindedness.
The first letter is from 156 members of the Bar of the District of Columbia, including such legal powerhouses as Boyden Gray, who was counsel to the first President Bush, and Lloyd Cutler, who was counsel to President Carter and Clinton. The letter states:
Although, as individuals, we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding federal court of appeals judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate. He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness. In short, John Roberts represents the best of the bar and, we have no doubt, would be a superb federal court of appeals judge.
The committee also received a letter signed by 13 of his former colleagues at the Office of the Solicitor General. The letter states:
Although we are of diverse political parties and persuasions, each of us is firmly convinced that Mr. Roberts would be a truly superb addition to the federal court of appeals. As the Committee will doubtless hear from many quarters, John is an incomparable appellate lawyer. Indeed, it is fair to say that he is one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the country....... The Office then, as now, comprised lawyers of every political affiliation--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Mr. Roberts was attentive to and respectful of all views, and he represented the United States zealously but fairly. He had the deepest respect for legal principles and legal precedent--instincts that will serve him well as a court of appeals judge.
Now I would like to make a few comments about Mr. Roberts's impressive background. He entered Harvard College with sophomore standing, where he earned a bachelor's degree in history, summa cum laude, then a law degree, magna cum laude. While in law school, he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Following graduation, Mr. Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and for then-Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. His public service career included terms as Associate Counsel to President Reagan and Principal Deputy Solicitor General. He currently heads the appellate practice
group for the prestigious DC law firm Hogan and Hartson, where his practice has focused on Federal appellate litigation.
Mr. Roberts has been involved with a variety of high-profile and significant legal cases. He has argued on different sides of a variety of different issues, firmly establishing his reputation as a lawyer's lawyer.
Beyond being considered by many to be one of the premier Supreme Court litigators of his generation, the record of John Roberts establishes that he is undeniably mainstream and fair. In fact, while in private practice Mr. Roberts has repeatedly been hired by Democratic public officials and has repeatedly argued what many consider to be the so-called liberal side of cases.
In protecting the environment during the 2002 case of Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Mr. Roberts successfully argued in the U.S. Supreme Court, on behalf of a State regulatory agency, in favor of limits on property development and in support of protection of the pristine Lake Tahoe Basin area. Environmental groups hailed the majority decision, saying it would help protect America's countryside from suburban sprawl.
In supporting consumer rights during the 2001 landmark Microsoft antitrust case, Mr. Roberts argued on behalf of the Clinton Department of Justice and a group of primarily Democratic State attorneys general that Microsoft's business practices violated the Sherman Act.
In addition, Mr. Roberts has devoted much of his time to pro bono work. For instance, he represented a class of District of Columbia residents receiving welfare benefits, arguing that a particular change in eligibility standards that resulted in a termination of welfare benefits without an individual hearing denied class members procedural due process.
In another pro bono case, United States v. Halper, Mr. Roberts was invited by the Supreme Court to represent Mr. Halper, who had been previously convicted under Federal criminal law for filing false Medicaid claims.
[Page: S5929] GPO's PDF
He successfully argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the imposition of civil penalties under Federal law against an individual who had been convicted and punished under criminal law for the same conduct.
Mr. Roberts also participates extensively in the pro bono program of his firm, assisting his colleagues prepare pro bono appeals on matters such as termination of parental rights, minority voting rights, noise pollution at the Grand Canyon, and environmental protection of Glacier Bay.
I have every confidence that Mr. Roberts will make a great addition to the DC Circuit. He is an exceptionally well-qualified jurist who has distinguished himself as one of the best in the legal profession. I am confident that Mr. Roberts will serve with distinction on the DC Circuit, and I ask for my colleagues' full support of his nomination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:
THE JUDICIARY
John G. Roberts , Jr., of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that this judge has waited about 10 years. He has been nominated several times.
Mr. HATCH. He has waited 12 years, through three nominations, by two different Presidents.
Mr. REID. He is the 124th judge we have approved for the Bush administration. The record is 124 to 2.
Mr. HATCH. Keep in mind, as of tomorrow, those two will be waiting for 2 solid years. We need to get them done, too. I call on my colleagues on the other side to get rid of their wicked and evil ways and allow these people to have votes up and down.
Mrs. BOXER. I object.
Mr. HATCH. I heard an objection from the other side.
I yield the floor.
SENATE
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter: Resume consideration of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
Previous meeting:
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
The Senate convened at 11:00 a.m. and adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Four record votes were taken.
[Helen Thomas] Q Why does Karl Rove still have security clearance and access to classified documents when he has been revealed as a leaker of a secret agent, according to Time magazine's correspondent?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there is an investigation that continues, and I think the President has made it clear that we're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation.
Q You already have the truth.
MR. McCLELLAN: We're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation through --
Q Does he have access to security documents?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- through media reports. And these questions came up over the last week --
Q Did he leak the name of a CIA agent?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I was trying to tell you, these questions have been answered.
Q No, they haven't.
Q Let me ask --
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David [Gregory].
Q And they most certainly haven't. I think Helen is right, and the people watching us know that. And related to that, there are now --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me correct the record. We've said for quite some time that this was an ongoing investigation, and that we weren't going to comment on it, so let me just correct the record.
Q If you want to make the record clear, then you also did make comments when a criminal investigation was underway, you saw fit to provide Karl Rove with a blanket statement of absolution. And that turned out to be no longer accurate --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and there were preferences expressed by those overseeing the investigation that we refrain from commenting on it while they're continuing to look at -- investigate it.
Q White House officials have been very clear through their attorneys or through other leaks to make it known that it was essentially journalists who educated them about who Valerie Plame was, what she did, and her role in sending her husband to Niger. It has now come to light that in fact White House officials were aware, or at least had access to a State Department memo that the President's own Secretary of State at the time had with him when he was traveling on Air Force One to Africa, which indicated both who she was, what she did, and her role in the Niger trip. So did the White House, in fact, know about her through this memo, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: I thank you for wanting to proceed ahead with the investigation from this room, but I think that the appropriate place for that to happen is through those who are overseeing the investigation. The President directed us to cooperate fully, and that's exactly what we have been doing and continue to do.
Q But you don't deny that attorneys for Rove and others in the White House are speaking about these matters, creating a lot of these questions, right, that you say you can't speak to?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, we're not getting into talking about an ongoing investigation. That's what the President indicated, as well.
Senate Floor Schedule
Friday, July 22, 2005
10:00 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S.1042, the Defense Authorization bill.
Previous meeting:
Thursday, July 21, 2005
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Three record votes were taken.
Gen. Myers LIVE on c-span2 right now.
How many ways can you say waste of taxpayer money?
Senate Floor Schedule
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
9:45 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S.1042, the Defense Authorization bill.
Senate Floor Schedule
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
9:30 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 397, the Gun Liability bill.
2:00 p.m.: Vote on the motion to proceed to S. 397.