Washington, D.C. – In a speech last night on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) stressed her disappointment that the Senate interrupted Wednesday’s debate on the Veterans and Housing spending bill to begin a 39-hour debate on judicial nominees.

The Senate was attempting to pass the Fiscal Year 2004 Veterans, Housing, and Independent Agencies (VA-HUD) Appropriations bill Wednesday evening when the debate began at 6:00 p.m. Senator Mikulski, the Ranking Democratic member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, estimated that the Senate was only two hours away from passing the legislation. No date has been set yet for the Senate to resume consideration of the Veterans and Housing spending bill.

To hear Senator Mikulski’s statement or for radio broadcast, please call 1-800-511-0763 and, when prompted, enter actuality number 5479.To watch a video of Senator Mikulski's speech today, please go to http://www.mikulski.senate.gov/audio.html.

Here I am, on the floor again, exactly 24 hours and 30 minutes from when I was gaveled out from trying to complete the VA-HUD bill. I was on the floor 24 hours and 30 minutes ago, standing up for veterans, trying to protect the environment, and working very closely and enthusiastically on a bipartisan basis with the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for veterans, housing, the environment, and other independent agencies. We were only two hours and about five or six amendments from being able to come to closure on the bill.

As I was gaveled down, I was just heart-sick that we couldn't take two more hours to finish the bill. Instead, this went on for 30 hours. I'm puzzled at what's been accomplished by it. But I know what wasn't accomplished by it.

Because we didn't finish the appropriations bill yesterday, we essentially said to millions of American veterans, ‘We're going to put you on hold.’ We had to say to those thousands of faith-based organizations that build housing for the elderly, ‘Oh no, we've got to worry about a filibuster for judges. We can't move the bill.’ For those people that are trying to bring criminal prosecutions on polluters of the environment, we said, ‘Well, we can't really fund that, even though you don't have the right computers and enough staff. We've got to talk about four judges.’

Millions of veterans, housing to be built for the elderly, the environment to be protected, getting our astronauts back to space safely, investing in science and in technology at the National Science Foundation: that is the work of the VA-HUD subcommittee. That's why I'm so passionate about it. It's one of the greatest subcommittees in appropriations because it meets compelling human needs and yet it gets America ready for the future.

But oh no. We couldn't finish it yesterday. Oh no, we couldn't take two hours. Oh no, we had to go talk about four judges and a process.

Well, I'm very disappointed in that, and I have to express my gratitude to the way Senator Byrd pushed for the completion of the bill, and I also want to express my gratitude to Senator Ted Stevens, who has worked something out so tomorrow we can come back and attempt to finish the VA-HUD bill.

But this could have been done in a spirit of comity. We had a momentum going on here yesterday. It's the way the Senate ought to work. We had a bipartisan bill. We were forging bipartisan compromises. When it comes to standing up for Veterans, we can’t be Democrats and Republicans; we’ve got to be the Red, White, and Blue Party.

Today I was out at Walter Reed Medical Center talking to a Marylander who will forever bear the permanent wound of war. These young men have not only put themselves on the line, but have now lost a limb. And you see their families. I said hi to a young lady who is the mother of one of those young soldiers who is getting wonderful treatment at Walter Reed. She says, ‘Meet my mother.’ You have a 22 year-old mother and 42-year old mother with their children to say hello to the men they love, so they can get better and get back on their feet.

They're doing a fabulous job at Walter Reed and we're going to do all we can to support them. Those men and women look so young, so fragile, but they're so brave. They can't wait to get back on their feet. Some want to get back to their unit. But they're all going to come back to the VA. We cannot abandon these soldiers that are coming back, these sailors and marines coming back from Iraq, either bearing the permanent wound of war or the permanent impressions of war on them.

This is why we need to move our legislation expeditiously on a bipartisan basis. I know working with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, we can do this. But, oh no, we couldn't do it last night. We had to put it aside. I didn't tell the guys at Walter Reed that we didn't fund veterans’ health care last night. It would have broken my heart to tell them we were going back to the Senate to argue about a filibuster. We were going back to the Senate to argue about four people of questionable qualifications to sit on the federal bench. I didn't say that to them.

But I say this to you: we've got to get serious about the agenda for the United States of America. We've got to have the right priorities. Do we need a good judiciary? You bet we do. This is why we’ve already passed 168 judges. But these four have qualifications that are so thin and troubling.

Fortunately, again, because of Senator Byrd and the cooperation of Senator Stevens, we're going to be on the floor tomorrow and we do have priorities. I spoke about veterans health care. We also know that we have really significant issues in housing, and our communities need help. We're ready to move funds like the Community Development Block Grant. This is money that goes into local communities, whether it is a big city like New York or the small communities of Alaska, providing help to build child-care centers, and the rehabilitation of debilitated properties.

Community Development Block Grants created over 100,000 jobs last year. So when we ask for two hours, we were standing up for that. When we look at housing for the elderly, most of it is built by faith-based organizations, like Associated Jewish Charities and Associated Catholic Charities. It’s just wonderful because they take small amounts of federal dollars and leverage it with philanthropy. They not only run programs, they run them with great compassion. These are the kind of things we should be spending hours on the floor advocating.

We also worked to have funds to protect the environment. I wanted to talk about the Chesapeake Bay. Last night I didn't talk about how we needed to protect the Bay because we were short of time. But people want to stand up for these four judges.

How about the National Science Foundation? That needed attention last night, too. This is the one that invests in groups like biotechnology and infotech and nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is this whole new field of inventing new, subatomic particles. I said this to the gentlelady from North Carolina yesterday when she was presiding. Our earrings, Madam President, will be the size of the Library of Congress 20 years from now.

That's what nanotechnology means. Taking one pill where you can monitor everything from your heart rate to your blood sugar. But also making a new metal that is ten times lighter than steel and ten times stronger. I just lost thousands of steel jobs -- thousands! And they're losing their pensions and their health care. Maybe with nanotechnology, we’ll have a new kind of metal mill and can bring manufacturing back to our country. Instead, we're sending our jobs on a fast track to Mexico and a slow boat to China.

We're slowing the Senate down with this 30-hour process, squandering time and not focusing on national priorities. But I don't want to diminish what we’re doing on judges. The judiciary is a separate and independent branch of government. This is why we need to have the best of the best. Our courts are charged with safeguarding the very principles that America stand for: justice, equality, individual liberty.

The courthouse door must always be open when someone walks through that door. They have to find an independent judiciary. I want to be sure that when somebody walks through the courthouse door, they not only get a fair trial and a fair hearing, but that they know that person on the bench is the best of the best. The Senate does have an important job in the advice and consent role. Well, we gave advice, but we don't give our consent on four individuals.

When I look at judges, I have three categories: judicial competence, integrity, and commitment to the core constitutional principles. My senior colleague and I have just supported three Republican judges from Maryland, and we did it with enthusiasm. One was Judge Titus, who the Senate confirmed just a few days ago. Judge Titus is a brilliant man, who is esteemed in the Maryland Bar. He could go on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another that we backed in committee and on the floor was Judge William Quarles, an African-American jurist who I predict will go far. He is a scholarly jurist with a touch of the people.

We also backed someone very unique, a man who chaired the Republican Party in Maryland, who actually ran against the Democratic Attorney General. Senator Sarbanes and I signed the blue slip and appeared before the committee. Why would we do that? Because Judge Robert Bennett is a fantastic person and an excellent judge. He was fabulous as the U.S attorney. We said bygones are bygones. He'd make a great judge and we're not going to stand on the party line. This is the kind of way Sarbanes and Mikulski have operated.

Then we get to the Court of Appeals. Well, what a process this has been. First they sent us a gentleman who wasn't even a member of the Maryland Bar. He lived in Maryland, but we don't think zip codes are the only qualifications. We think you have to be a member of the Maryland Bar and have participated in the Maryland legal community. So we rejected him. The next person they sent was on the staff of Judge Gonzalez. We felt that was an excellent job for him, but a little thin for the Court of Appeals. So guess what? Now we've been sent a Virginian. Is there anything wrong with a Virginian? No, as long as it is the Virginia seat.

It is by tradition that there are geographic seats on the Court of Appeals. We want ours. So Senator Sarbanes and I are going to fight that on the basis of geography. There are many other things about Mr. Allen that are troubling. But right now our battle will be because of the fact that this should be a Maryland seat.

I have voted for Republican judges. And I voted for Republican judges on the Court of Appeals in Maryland. There's Judge Niemeyer, who is an excellent judge. I supported him for the District Court and now the Court of Appeals. When Judge Diana Motz went to the Court of Appeals, I didn’t know what political party she was. Do you know what? I didn’t care.

Here we are. We're arguing over a process. We are squandering our time while pressing national needs are here. Let’s move on. Let's get back to the business that America wants us to focus on. We can't have food fights in the United States Senate. I have worked so hard with so many of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis that I would like to get the momentum back for that type of action. So tomorrow I get another chance to advance the VA-HUD bill. I look forward to returning to work in the United States Senate that tries to move bipartisan legislation.

When it comes to national security and the people who defend America, we put party aside and we are the Red, White, and Blue Party. Maybe we need to start acting like that in the United States Senate on every issue.