Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act of 2003

Mr. President, I apologize to those listening in and to my colleagues for having laryngitis.

Your voice is not much better than mine, from what I can hear.

Whenever you are losing an argument, you try to bring up something that might help you to win. This argument about jobs is very important, but I remember all last Monday being wasted by our colleagues on the other side. I can list all of the obstructions that have occurred this year, time after time, when we tried to do something that might be good in that area. This phony chart of 168 to 4, it doesn't take any brains to realize that is totally false.

Tomorrow, we are going to have two cloture votes on two more, so there are at least six. If you go through all those they really do plan to filibuster, you get up around 15, 16, or 17. This is the first time in history this has happened.

I rise to speak about the judicial nominees being filibustered by a minority of Senators. I have served in the Senate for 27 years, and I can honestly say President Bush's nominees are among the best I have ever seen. They are experienced, intelligent, ethical, hard working, respected in their communities, and they have given their lives to public service. We honor these great men and women for volunteering to serve their country. They have put forward their good names for evaluation by the Senate and they deserve a simple up-or-down vote-- just the dignity of the vote. Our priority is to vote on these nominees. We owe them no less.

By June of this year, we had two well-qualified nominees blocked by filibusters. These filibusters were the first two in the history of this body. By the end of July, we again made history, adding a third filibustered nominee. By October, we had four nominees filibustered, another record. Shortly, we will have two more filibustered nominees, yet another record. The number continues to rise.

Those who are watching this, don't believe this phony chart. That has never happened before. Like you say, it is one thing to say we gave the 168 a trial. Most of them are district court judges now. So we gave 168 a trial, but we only lynched 4 of them--6 of them now, or 8 probably next week. It will be up to 17 before long.

I promise not to talk about the color of somebody's tie or my favorite fast food. I want to talk more about numbers tonight. I want to talk about President Bush's nominees to the Federal court. Ambrose Bierce defined nominee as a ``modest gentleman [or gentlewoman] shrinking from the distinction of private life and diligently seeking the honorable obscurity of public office.'' That may or may not be the case, but I want to highlight several of the distinguished and respected judicial nominees who are currently being filibustered by the Democratic Party members, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Justice Priscilla Owen, and Judge Carolyn Kuhl. We can talk in terms of numbers, but I prefer to talk about why these three distinguished judges deserve a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, and why they deserve to be confirmed as Federal judges.

We started hearing from the other side that, according to my colleagues, these nominees have despicable views, or are wildly out of the mainstream, or from the hard right, are mean people, have embarrassing records, are far out and off the charts, are unqualified, are activist, are extremists, or rightwingers who would like to take the country back to the 1890s, are deeply hostile to and actively seeking to undermine civil rights, women's rights, and workers rights-- gee--seek to turn back the clock on constitutional rights, have records of not really helping women, seem to have little regard for the rights of women, and represent the ``worst of the worst,'' as one colleague on the other side put it the other day. Those were the nice things they have said.

Actually, Judiciary Committee hearings often remind me of an old Far Side cartoon showing three cowboys on Main Street in the Old West. One cowboy lies sprawled on the dusty street, with a revolver lying next to his arm. The cowboy on the left stands with a smoking gun, staring at the fallen man, and saying: ``OK, stranger . . . What's the circumference of the Earth? . . . Who wrote the `Odyssey' and the `Iliad'? . . . What's the average rainfall of the Amazon Basin?'' The cowboy on the right stands stunned, with his hands to his face, saying, ``Bart, you fool! You can't shoot first and ask questions later!'' In a similar vein, Ambrose Bierce wrote that to nominate someone was to ``designate for the heaviest political assessment. To put forward a suitable person to incur the mudglobbing and deadcatting of the opposition.'' I often fear we do not give

our judicial nominees a fair chance before shooting them down.

The other side, before they heard one word out of Janice Rogers Brown's mouth, was already shooting her down; they didn't give her a chance.

I hope we can move past applying labels to the fine men and women who have volunteered to serve their country through judicial service. Our duty under the Constitution is to determine whether judicial nominees possess the experience, intelligence, and temperament needed for judicial service. Our constitutional responsibility is to judge whether judicial nominees are willing and able to place the rule of law above all other concerns in rendering justice. The Senate cannot fulfill its constitutional duty when a minority of Senators refuses to allow an up- or-down vote for the President's nominees. As it stands, a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators stand ready to vote on and confirm each of these excellent nominees.

Yes, I am happy to.

That is true. Remember, all throughout the Clinton administration, on all their nominees, our friends on the other side were saying if the ABA approves them with a qualified rating, then they deserve to have an up-or-down vote. When they have a well-qualified rating, the highest rating you can possibly have, then there is no question they deserve an up-or-down vote. Like the three cowboys in the street I talked about, they shoot them down before they even get a chance to have that vote up or down.

Absolutely true.

Yes. I might add Justice Owen, to get back to her, had 84 percent of the vote in the year 2000. That is the highest support of any State supreme court justice that year. Most every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. Our colleagues on the other side say she is out of the mainstream. Give me a break.

In the case of Justice Brown, she won 76 percent of the vote. I think there were four, if I recall correctly, supreme court justices up for election. She won the highest vote of all of them in a State not known for conservative politics. Yet they have tried to paint her like she is some sort of a rightwing nut. Well, just look at NBC News. They made it pretty clear she is no rightwing nut. She is a very good person.

Yes, of both Democrats and Republicans. She is one of the most highly rated judges in California. She is outstanding. Frankly, these are Democrats saying she made one of the best judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Well, I suppose the overwhelming majority in the most populated State, in the case of California, is out of the mainstream. I guess the overwhelming majority in one of the largest States in the Union, Texas, is out of the mainstream. You know, I suppose having the support of her fellow judges, in the case of Carolyn Kuhl, across the board, Democrats and Republicans, is out of the mainstream. According to these people over here--I will tell you who is out of the mainstream, it is these people over here who are filibustering judges for the first time in history and really endangering this process. It is ridiculous. It is wrong. I think the American people have to rise up and let them know it is wrong.

I have been on the Judiciary Committee for 27 years. I have to say I have not seen any better nominees in that whole time. As far as ethics, the only one the Democrats demanded an answer to every question--questions about future cases that will come before them--not the only one, but the main one, was Bill Pryor. The other one was Miguel Estrada. To make a long story short, it has been a very unfair process for these people. We have more than made the case that Miguel Estrada was treated completely different from John Roberts. Both of them served in the Solicitor General's Office. They asked these stupid questions about documents that are the most highly privileged documents in the Government today, and seven former Solicitors General said these cannot be given, and they used that as a phony excuse to shoot down Miguel Estrada, who is well qualified by the American Bar Association. When Bill Pryor answered all the questions, they said you answered too many questions. You are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It is pretty clear, they just wanted to shoot these people down right from the beginning. To come out here and make such a fuss about jobs when they have been obstructive all year long is so phony that I have to admit, it almost brings tears to my eyes. Maybe it does bring some tears to my eyes because phony things tend to do that.

I do. Sometimes the district courts are involved and that is why we need the circuit court of appeals. Yet this President is treated different than prior Presidents, including President Clinton. About two-thirds of the circuit court nominees haven't even had a vote. Usually by this time in a President's career about 90 percent have had a vote.

I am delighted to.

I was hoping somebody would ask that. We have a chart prepared. They put it up. Filibuster comes from a Spanish word ``filibustero,'' meaning a pirating or hijacking, one word for obstruction. That is what it is. Look, I have no problem with filibusters on the legislative calendar because the Senate can set its own rules. But when it comes to the Executive Calendar, that calendar depends on your exercising restraint by advising and consenting, which means a simple majority vote up and down.

In the Clinton years, every Clinton nominee who came to the floor got a vote up or down. We did have a few who wanted to filibuster Clinton nominees. I personally stopped that because I recognized it would be disastrous for the Senate if we went down that road. As you can see, it is disastrous. We are in the middle of going down that road. We have already gone down it because our colleagues on the other side just don't seem to understand how important it is for them not to filibuster Federal judicial nominees. But I thank my colleague for bringing it up.

I will be happy to.

As the Senator will recall, right in the middle of a couple of very controversial nominees, Judge Paez, now Judge Berzon, there were some on our side who legitimately felt they should filibuster both of those----

Maybe I can bring it down here. Maybe it will work better here. I have it too close to my mouth. I am glad the Senator corrected that.

Judge Paez had been an activist judge in the eyes of many of our colleagues on the district courts out there in California. Marsha Berzon was one of the leading labor lawyers in the country. We had some who wanted to filibuster them. I stood up in caucus and said that is not going to happen. To his credit, the then majority leader Trent Lott stood up and said that is not going to happen.

We are both leading conservatives, but we knew that was a disastrous thing to do in this body because it would lead to animosities you could never quite--that would remain. It would lead to partisanship. It would violate the Constitution, it would violate the very advice and consent clause, the great power we have been given by the Founding Fathers.

Frankly, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, I stood up and said that is not going to happen and it did not.

Did we have some cloture votes? Yes. But the cloture votes were to get to the nominee so we could vote. Every Clinton nominee who came to the floor, who was brought to the floor, got a vote up or down. Only one was defeated and that was Ronnie White, on a straight vote up or down. But every other one, all 377 of them, the second highest total in history, passed.

Did I agree with all those judges? You bet your life I didn't. But they were qualified. The fact I didn't agree with them ideologically was irrelevant. What is relevant is, Are they qualified? I certainly would not take away the opportunity of serving in the Federal Government for an otherwise qualified person just because I disagreed with that person on abortion or on any other issue, for that matter.

Yes, I yield.

Virtually every Democrat said it, took the position a filibuster should never take place. All they asked for was an up-or- down vote. That is all they wanted, if we would just be decent enough to give them an up-or-down vote. We did. We were decent enough.

What does that imply about what is going on on the other side? I will let the public draw their own conclusions. But we were decent. We did what was right. We gave them up-or-down votes. Frankly, what is going on here is just appalling.

No, it has not, because a filibuster is inappropriate when it comes to judicial or even executive nominees, especially judicial nominees. Our ability to give advice and consent means if you don't like the nominee, vote against him or her. If you do, vote for them. But, above all, don't obstruct, which is exactly what they are doing here, obstruction, from the Spanish word, ``filibustero,'' meaning a pirating or hijacking. Just one more objection. Now we have six more objections, as of tomorrow--actually they require cloture votes to be filed on Janice Brown, and of course Carolyn Kuhl, so we now have six. I could name up to 17 they have threatened to filibuster and probably will.

To keep bringing that phony chart up here is an insult to everybody on this floor. It is an insult to everybody watching. It just shows they are void of any real arguments. To now try to change the nature of the debate to jobs, when they have obstructed all year long, is an insult.

It has not changed. But their positions have changed.

No question. They were very forthright and very strong that there should never be filibusters of judicial nominees. Now all of a sudden when it is to their advantage, they think--I think it is to their great disadvantage. They lost the 2000 election in part because of the way they are treating judgeship nominees. I think they are going to lose a lot of standing in this country. The way they are treating southern nominees is abysmal, like Bill Pryor. Like Charles Pickering.

It doesn't take any brains at all to realize they just don't think these two able people are worthy of being on the bench when in fact they are more worthy than many of the nominees we approved for them in the 8 years of the Clinton administration.

She was born a sharecropper's daughter. This woman had it rough all the days of her life. She put herself through college and law school as a single mother. She has worked in State government now for I think it is 26 years. And they are trying to say she is against government? My gosh, she has worked there and been supportive for I think 26 years. She is one of the best nominees I have ever seen.

If we had done to three woman nominees what they are doing to these three--Priscilla Owen, who broke through the glass ceiling, getting women a right to be partners in law firms; Carolyn Kuhl has the support of 100 of her fellow judges out there, Democrats and Republicans; Janice Rogers Brown, sharecropper's daughter, has risen to the top of the heap, who has fought her way all her life--if we had done this to any of their nominees they would be screaming about it right up to today. It is unbelievable they are trying to do this on these three women nominees. They want a regimented liberal approach to everything, and if it is not there, then they are out of the mainstream, according to them.

I think most people in this country are in the middle and, I think, the middle or moderate conservative. But, be that as it may, these are competent, qualified, well-qualified women, and they are treating them like dirt. I don't understand it, myself.

I will be delighted to.

Yes, the distinguished Senator makes a good point. She was elected by 76 percent of the vote. I would have to say, she wrote a majority of the majority opinions, and joined in some 73, if I recall correctly, unanimous opinions. In other words, she is not only in the mainstream, she is one of the best justices, State justices in the country. They are treating her like dirt. I don't understand that kind of treatment.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? It will only take a few seconds.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

I ask unanimous consent at 8:30 a.m. on Friday the Senate begin an hour of debate equally divided prior to the first cloture vote; further, that the last 20 minutes be equally divided, the first 10 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the last 10 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I appreciate our colleague's comments about the necessity of jobs. I agree with him. We are debating the third branch of Government, without which there wouldn't be any jobs for anybody, without which the Constitution wouldn't be alive today, without which we wouldn't have the freedoms we have.

In all this talk about jobs, I haven't heard any real ideas as to how we get more jobs. It is as though they think Republicans aren't concerned about jobs. Of course, we are. We are debating something that is equally important; in fact, over the long run, much more important than almost anything else we can debate. That is, are we going to have an honest, decent judiciary to uphold the Constitution?

I have seen this body and the other body pass unconstitutional legislation many times in my 27 years. I have seen Presidents act unconstitutionally a number of times in my 27 years, and before that. It has been the judiciary that has saved the Constitution. It has been the judiciary that has corrected matters. It has been the judiciary that has helped small business, where the jobs are. It has been the judiciary that has given justice to this country, that has protected Americans from criminals, that has done so much good for this country. That doesn't mean all judges are perfect or right. But by and large, it has worked very well. That is why we make these positions lifetime appointments, so they don't owe anything to anybody but the law.

Here we have a distortion for the first time in history, filibustering judges and phony, untrue charts of 168 to 4. Let me tell you, they wouldn't have allowed the 168 to go through had we not been fighting as hard as we could and forcing them to allow those judgeships to be brought up. We would have nowhere near 168.

With regard to the four, we are already up to six. We were there last night. We were there months ago when they indicated they were going to filibuster Janice Rogers Brown and Kuhl, in addition to the other four who have been mentioned. Then there are probably at least 13 others who I can name. There will be more, because there is an arrogance here, it seems to me, that goes beyond doing what is right for this country.

Very few things rise to the dignity of the importance of judges and getting a good Federal judiciary. I am for jobs like everybody else, but because they don't have any other arguments, that is why they are doing that.

I would be happy to listen to my colleagues on any suggestions they have with regard to jobs. Usually it is another big Federal program that literally doesn't create any jobs. It just creates another burden for taxpayers. That is what they think creates jobs.

I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Well, of course, she is subject to the same advice-and- consent rule of article II, section 2 of the Constitution, as are all of these Federal judges. But she deserves the dignity of an up-or-down vote.

The senior Senator has brought out she is an African-American woman who has come from nowhere, in a sense, a sharecropper's daughter, to being a justice on the California Supreme Court.

That is right.

I appreciate my dear colleague. But we will find out tomorrow that the other side is going to vote against cloture. They are filibustering this terrific African-American woman justice who has made it on her own throughout life, who wrote most of the majority opinions in the California State Supreme Court while joining unanimously with others in over seven cases just last year.

They have tried to paint her as though she is out of the mainstream. I would like to suggest who is out of the mainstream. It is a high percentage of those on the other side of the aisle who think that only the left has any ideas in this country. Because she is a conservative black woman and she is not monolithically in step with what they think black people ought to be, they are against her. If we did that to one of their nominees, the whole world would come down on us.

I do, too. I hope the Senator is right. But from what I have seen here, she is going to be filibustered right along with the rest of them.

I recognize the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and then I will come to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

That is my understanding.

Well, the Senator raises a good point. But not according to that side. It is out of the mainstream. Just think about it. The Senator is correct. Eighty-two percent of the people are for parental notification laws. Challenging the reasonableness of parental notification statutes lies somewhere between hard and impossible. That is why an overwhelming majority of Americans support those laws, including the parents of Holly Patterson. Holly was a young girl who died 7 days after taking RU-486, the abortion drug.

Her father learned about her abortion just hours before her tragic death. If there was a parental notification statute, Holly might still be alive today.

Parents do have some rights here. Most people acknowledge that. But that is one of the big reasons why our friends on the other side are against all three of these women nominees, I suppose. If there had been a parental notification statute, young Holly would be alive today.

It is ridiculous to criticize these two fine nominees for their opinions upholding parental notification statutes. Justice Brown's opinion on the parental consent statute is well within the legal mainstream. The U.S. Supreme Court has routinely found notification statutes constitutional.

So the Senator has raised a very important point. But that is considered out of the mainstream by our colleagues. Again, we know who is out of the mainstream. It certainly isn't Janice Rogers Brown.

I will just point to the side that is out of the mainstream. Yet they are trying to make everybody march in unison, in accordance with their liberal plan for America. That is not right. I turn to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

I would be delighted.

Absolutely true. By the way, one of the arguments that the side across the aisle from us is out of the mainstream again is over parental consent, a dissent that she had written, upholding the finder of fact in the lower court. The majority just ignored those facts and overruled the right of parents to consult with their daughter before the daughter had an abortion.

She is not out of the mainstream. Guess who is out of the mainstream? I thank the Senator.

That is correct. These are people who know her or who have worked with Justice Owen on the Texas Supreme Court. They are all Democrats. They are all partisan Democrats, by the way. They think she would make a fine judge on the circuit court of appeals.

Victor Schwartz is one of the law professors who wrote the book on torts. He is one of the most distinguished legal thinkers in the country. In fact, Professor Schwartz wrote:

Any characterization of Justice Owens as pro-plaintiff or

pro-defendant is untrue.

But we are getting used to that. The reason they are all talking about jobs, it is a political reason, of course. They are trying to get people to not pay attention to this debate. But the reason they are talking about jobs is because they don't have a good argument against Priscilla Owen, nor do they have one against Janice Rogers Brown, nor do they have a good argument

against Carolyn Kuhl. And three outstanding women who, if we treated three of their women justices like that or nominees like that, all hell would break loose.

In all honesty, Professor Schwartz said that just isn't true.

Not yet, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

The distinguished Senator from Texas knows that is true. That is not easy in the State of Texas. There are some very liberal newspapers down there that scrutinized every aspect of her life.

No question about it. She is a terrific person.

That is true. In fact, all three of them do.

Well, I think it is because she is not a liberal. That seems to be the only mainstream the other side is interested in. I cannot say she is all that conservative either. But the fact of the matter is, she is not a liberal Democrat. Here is a woman who has every credential in the world, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, who broke through the glass ceiling for women so women can now become partners in law firms, when that was tough to do. Here is a woman who has fought every day of her life to excel, who has excelled. Yet look how she is being treated, like she is ``outside of the mainstream.''

Since they don't have any real legal arguments, any real philosophical arguments--they don't have any real arguments, and that is why we are getting a filibuster on one of the best nominees I have seen. By the way, she got the highest rating from the not-conservative American Bar Association, which during the Clinton years was called the gold standard. If you got a ``qualified'' from the ABA and you were a Clinton nominee, that meant you were OK, you were in the mainstream.

Here is a woman with a ``well qualified,'' the highest rating from the ABA, and they are trying to say she is outside of the mainstream. That is just another misuse of terms because they don't have a real argument against her.

I cannot see a good reason. It is a mystery to me why our Democratic colleagues refuse an up-or-down vote. Like the distinguished Senator from Texas said--and I really admire the Senator from Texas, who is a lawyer, from the University of Texas, and the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Dole, who is a lawyer, who graduated from Harvard Law School. I think the other side ought to be listening to the two of you, especially with regard to an eminent woman jurist named Priscilla Owen, and another jurist named Janice Rogers Brown, and another one named Carolyn Kuhl.

To make a long story short, if they don't like these nominees, then vote them down. The reason they are stopping them is because all three of them have a majority of the Senate willing to vote for them. They are flying in the face of the advise and consent clause, refusing to give them the dignity of an up-or-down vote. I think women across this country ought to be outraged by it--liberal women, moderate women, and conservative women. It is a slap in the face to every one of them, the way these three women are being treated by the other side. I have heard for 27 years how much greater they are for women. Don't believe it. If they were, they would not be arguing against these wonderful women nominees. Don't believe that for one second. It is all politics.

The only reason they are talking about jobs, in all honesty, is because they don't have the arguments against these eminent women lawyers and judges. It is pathetic.

How much time is left?

I surely will.

No question about it. That 168 to 4 doesn't even begin to tell the story, because if it had been up to our colleagues on the other side, there would not be 168. We had to fight for every one of those people, and we had to fight hard fights. We had to force them to vote. They cannot vote against everybody. So there is not just four. We have already got six. We had to file cloture on Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown, which will be up tomorrow. I can name probably another 11 they are going to filibuster. So that is a blatant, outright lie.

Not one. Our side would not permit that because of the detriment to the Senate, the detriment to the Federal judiciary, the detriment to the Constitution, the detriment to just good reasoning. We didn't filibuster one.

That is right. Once they hit the floor, they have had a vote up or down. And 377 Clinton judges are serving in the Federal judiciary today because we had the decency to give them the dignity of votes up or down--something not being accorded our nominees.

It is 2,372.

That is right. Actually, it is more than that. We have two more tomorrow. That gets us up to six. Then probably there are another 11 I can name. I won't take the time to do that now. There hasn't been one filibuster by us. There have been cloture votes, but they were used for time management purposes to get us to a vote. In every case, the Clinton nominee got voted up, except for one.

I thank my colleague. The real number, for the past 11 Presidents of judicial nominees confirmed versus the filibustering they are doing, is 2,372 that were confirmed. None were filibustered, until President Bush became President. He is being treated wrongfully. It is unfair to him, unfair to these nominees. I like what the Senator said earlier. I think he said we gave a fair trial to 2,372--actually 168. We gave a fair trial to them and with regard to the four, we just hung them. That kind of shows in that one sense it is great to give a fair trial, but we are not giving a fair trial to these four. They are arguing it is all right for four because it is only four. Well, it is not all right if people are hung without a fair trial. They are certainly not getting a fair trial.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Let me just say that it is true.

I don't recognize the number. However, I do recognize the argument.

Let me answer the question, if I may.

May I please finish?

Will the Senator yield?

I have a question.

I object to that, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it has been a good debate. But I have noticed the folks on the other side of the aisle want to shut down the debate on judges because they don't have an argument. Jobs is where it seems their only argument is, and more Federal Government programs. In fact, they don't even have very good arguments there. It is ``increase the minimum wage.'' I am not sure it will create jobs. And ``re-up insurance,'' which certainly doesn't create more jobs.

On the other hand, I am not saying they are not compassionate. They are decent people wanting to do those things. But when you do not have any arguments against the judges we are talking about, then you change the subject. That is exactly what they have done.

If the distinguished Senator from Louisiana were here, I would ask her why she took the number 129 because, of course, that is a number of confirmed judges that were left off her chart. We have had distortions of the facts. We have had distortions of the statistics. You can prove anything with statistics if you want to manipulate them. There are 129 judges left off that chart she was showing. We confirmed 377 Clinton judges--not 248. If you want to be factual, be factual. Don't distort the facts.

I was a little surprised that now at the 29th hour of debate an awful lot of Democrats come on the floor without any arguments that are really valid against these nominees we are talking about. They are changing the subject because their arguments don't hold water.

As for Democrat claims that they have been blocking only the most extreme Bush judicial nominees, let us look at the facts.

Priscilla Owen won 84 percent of the vote in her last election for the Texas Supreme Court. Bill Pryor won 58 percent in his last election for the Alabama attorney general's position. Janice Rogers Brown won 76 percent in her last election for the California Supreme Court. And Charles Pickering was confirmed to the Federal district court in 1998 by this body by unanimous vote. Yet he has been treated like dirt. You wonder why people in the South are getting sick of it.

By the way, the unanimous consent vote included the support of 24 of the Democrats currently in the Senate, 23 of whom now refuse to give him the dignity of an up-or-down vote. Why? Because they know he would be confirmed.

These nominees are hardly extremists as painted by the other side who claim that is what they are talking about. Give me a break.

Let us look at this a little differently. What is more extreme? Receiving 84 percent of the votes in Texas, the second most populous State in the Nation, as Judge Priscilla Owen did in her last election? They are filibustering a qualified nominee for the Fifth Circuit for the first time in American history. That is what they are doing, without any real arguments against her. They don't have any. They do not have the facts on their side so they change the subject.

I think jobs are important. I will tell you, there will not be any jobs in this country if we lose our freedoms because we don't have the Federal courts staffed by competent and decent judges.

Reserving my right to object, my colleague, I appreciate the time, but in order for us to stay on schedule and given the fact I have been waiting here at this point, I would appreciate his wrapping it up. If he would like to take 1 minute to wrap up, I would not object to that.

Mr. President, as I said before on the floor, all the statements that are being made, and all the time we spend in relation to our values and our priorities, I also believe we get things done when we work together, when we work in a bipartisan way. That is what our constituents expect us to do.

I see the esteemed chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the floor. I thank him publicly for working with the senior Senator from Michigan as we work through difficult issues that relate to Michigan. I appreciate his willingness to do that. That is how we get things done-- when we work together.

When we look first at the record of legislation taken up on this floor, I think it shows we work together. I think when we have worked together to confirm 168 judges, most of those I have voted for overwhelmingly, and when we see that we have only had a disagreement on 4, I think that shows bipartisan cooperation. I think that shows what the people of this country, and certainly the people of Michigan, want to see done. There is no question in my mind that this demonstrates our willingness to roll up our sleeves, to be fairminded, to look at the facts, to look at the nominees, and to work together.

It also shows, though, that we are willing to make a critique, that we are not a rubberstamp for this administration, nor should we be for any administration of either party. It shows we are willing to make a judgment. When the nominees go too far, we say no. That is what happened four times.

What I am most concerned about now, though, in this 30 hours--which now, instead of ending at midnight, is going to go until 9 in the morning--is that we are saying our values and priorities are spending time talking about four people who already have jobs and want to get a promotion that will last a lifetime. These are lifetime appointments.

My concern is that we need to be spending time on this floor not only talking but doing something about the 3 million people who have lost their jobs in the last 2\1/2\ years--3 million people. They do not have a lifetime job. They would just like to know they have a job tomorrow for their families. They would like to know that the job probably carries health care with it and will be there so they can put food on the table and they can pay the mortgage, the car payment, send their kids to college, and know they can have a good life in America that they assume if they work hard they will be able to achieve.

That is the debate I have said a number of times that we need to be having. One-hundred and sixty-thousand-plus of these 3 million are people who have lost their jobs in Michigan; people who have lost good- paying jobs, good-paying jobs with health care and pensions. They find themselves in very difficult circumstances and they are asking us to help them.

I am very proud of the fact that Michigan is the first in the production of automobiles. Thirty-one percent of all the automobiles in this country are produced in the State of Michigan.

My dad and my grandfather owned a Cadillac dealership in Claire, MI. We have been proud to be a part of supporting the Michigan automakers.

We also are first in the production of trucks, producing l7 percent of trucks. We have the three leading office furniture manufacturers in Michigan and produce nearly half of the office furniture.

Why do I say this? Because we have a crisis in manufacturing in this country that we need to be addressing in this Senate. Jobs can't all be in the service industry. We need to make things and we need to grow things. That is what we do in Michigan. We make things and we do it well. We will compete with anybody any time. Just give us a level playing field. We also grow things. We are willing to compete with anybody any time. Just give us a level playing field. We don't have that right now. We don't have that level playing field. We are not addressing that.

We are not addressing what is happening with the fact that China is violating the WTO or that China and Japan basically have put a tax on American goods and services sold in this country by manipulating their currency. We are not doing anything about that.

As a member of the Banking Committee, I sit and listen to the Treasury Secretary basically acknowledging that something is not right but not wanting to step up and take the tough action on behalf of American manufacturers and American workers.

We need to be talking on this floor and taking action on behalf of the men and women who have been the backbone of this country in manufacturing and have created the middle class that separates us from other countries around the world.

Why aren't we having that debate? Not a debate about 4 people who already have jobs, who want to get promoted. Three million people do not have a job and are now struggling with their families.

I want to share a few comments that I have heard. Earlier today I shared some headlines from newspapers in Michigan about what is going on. I want to share one of those this evening with my colleagues. It is from the Ludington Daily News, in northwest Michigan. It says: ``Tough Loss, Straits Steel closing sad news for plant's 180 employees.'' Then it starts out by saying:

Despite the looming possibility over the past few months

that their plant might close, workers at Straits Steel & Wire

Co. kept their production quality high and their attitudes

positive, said General Manager Tyndall.

But on Friday, Tyndall was forced to tell his co-workers

and friends that corporate officials decided to close the

Ludington plant, 56 years after it began operations in 1947.

Making the announcement twice--to the first shift in the

morning, then the second shift in the afternoon--was not easy

for Tyndall, who joined workers on the floor of the

production plant as he shared the bad news with the group.

``People are down,'' he said Friday afternoon. But he

stressed the plant's closing is not related to performance.

``When we walk out, we can hold our heads high and go chest

to chest with anyone on the street and say we did our jobs

well.''

They did their jobs well. But because of what is happening and the unfair competition around the world and the stress and struggle as it relates to cost, the plant closed.

Why aren't we dealing with issues that will help this Straits Steel and Wire Company in Ludington, MI? Those are the jobs I want to be talking about. Those are the jobs people in my State want us to be trying to fill.

Let me mention a few letters I have been receiving from people in Michigan that say it better than I can. First from a gentleman who says: I am writing you regarding the health of my business. I have a high tech business servicing industrial lasers, much like the ones that are no doubt cutting metal subassemblies for our armed services use as well as civilian businesses. My business has the flu. It is feverish and sluggish almost to the point of no business at all. Our country was initially built on small businesses providing services and employment. Our government encourages small business growth yet at the same time small businesses are being destroyed one by one because our economy is in such dire straits that business orders are essentially flat, which in turn is causing my business to fail. Occasionally I call the few customers I have left and ask questions about how they feel about the economy and what they think will happen in the near future. They say they are very concerned about the future. Some are laying off personnel. Others take pay cuts to keep their jobs. Still others feel they are sinking with no relief in sight. My business is now on the verge of collapsing and the only reason is the economy. I find it extremely difficult to believe that because of a few positive economic reports showing up here and there that our economy is getting better. The only real indicator of an improving, recovering economy, in my opinion, are reports coming in of companies rehiring people and putting them back to work. No other indicators, in my opinion, mean a thing until people start going back to work.

I agree with that. It is about putting people to work and having businesses recover from the flu.

Also from a Michigan resident: I am a tool die maker for over 40 years. I now find myself out of a job and unable to find one in my field. I have no health insurance. Why has America farmed most of our manufacturing jobs out to other countries? I think America has got to be not only the greatest thinking country in the world but we have to also regain our status as the greatest producing country in the world, as we did in World War II. That is, as you remember, the reason we won.

From Bridgman, MI: I would like to say I have worked in manufacturing for 20 years. This is the first time in my career that my hours have been reduced. I have a house payment, utility bills, children to feed and clothe, doctor bills, car payment, insurance, school lunches and preschool. This is just a few of my expenses. We are hanging on by a thread, day by day living. This is not the way Americans should have to live, especially in this day and age.

I agree. If people work hard, they get up in the morning and they go to work and they work all day, they ought to be able to know they are going to be paid a good wage, that they can count on that job being there, that we want them to be able to have health care. We want them to be able to put money aside for a pension, and we want them to know they will have the security of being able to take care of their families and plan for the future as part of the great middle class of America.

Our manufacturing economy has given us that. We are losing that. We

are losing that. We need to pay attention. We need to talk for 30 hours on the floor about jobs and how to help our manufacturing sector. We need to talk for 60 hours or 90 hours. More importantly, we need to act to do something so we can level the playing field. As I have said before, I will put our workers and our businesses up against anybody, if it is a level playing field. Just make it fair and we will compete. We need to address issues of health care. We know one of the biggest challenges right now for our manufacturers is the explosion in the prices of health care. I also know from talking to our automakers about half of that is because of prescription drug prices, the lack of competition, and the explosion in prices. We ought to be doing something about that.

We have bills in front of us right now in the Medicare conference where we could do something, if we wanted to, about that to lower prices. I would love to have a 30-hour debate on that because there is nothing right now more challenging to businesses and workers than the issues of health care. Workers are finding they are being asked to pay more in premiums and deductibles or their salary is capped in order to pay for health care increases or, worse yet, they are losing their jobs because of the increases. That is a debate worth having. That is a debate that would result in our focusing on something that means something very important to the people of this country. I would look forward to that debate.

Let me read a couple more letters: I've worked in manufacturing for 23 years, and this is the first time in my career I have had my hours reduced. I am worried about losing my job. My family is suffering because of my reduced income and planning for the future of my trade. I am a mold maker, and this has always been a solid trade. My trade is faltering, not only because of the economy but also because of foreign competition. How can we compete with countries that pay drastically reduced wages with no benefits?

We have to address that, not by saying you have to work for less, Michigan workers. You have to work for less and you have to take no health care and no benefits. We have to be fighting for our middle class and creating a way to raise the standards of living around the world instead of lowering ours, which is exactly what is happening right now. It is probably the most serious threat to our future in terms of maintaining our economy and our middle class. That is worthy of a 30-hour debate.

There are many more letters I could read that are the same. So where are we, when we are talking about 3 million jobs lost and counting just in the last 2\1/2\ years, a little less than 3 years. What is the response from the administration to this number? Are we pulling everybody together to figure out what we can do to lower health care costs? Are we figuring out what we can do to level the playing field and stop China and Japan from using advantages and manipulating their currency and creating a situation that is unfair to us? Are we looking for ways to stop the small manufacturers from going and moving their plants overseas? No.

What is the response from the administration? The first thing is to propose to cut people's overtime pay, people who already are working. We are going to cut their overtime pay. That is one of the major points the administration is fighting for right now in the appropriations process. They fight every effort to extend unemployment for the people who are currently unemployed. In the past, on a bipartisan basis, every President from Nixon and Carter and Reagan and Clinton, every President we have during times of recession, we have extended unemployment compensation for those who are unemployed. We have to fight now at every turn on behalf of the unemployed. I have mentioned earlier the administration has not been willing to get tough with China, has not been willing to deal with what is happening in Japan as well, that has so affected our automobile industry and our manufacturing economy.

We need leadership to step up and do more than just words to get tough on them, to create a level playing field. We have seen the administration not be willing to address the high cost of health insurance and do those things that will bring prices down. Earlier today I offered a unanimous consent request to increase the minimum wage $1.50 an hour so 7 million people, a large share of them women with children who are working for the minimum wage and trying to make it and don't have health insurance, paying their child care every day, trying to make it, trying to do what we are asking them to do in this country, could get a raise. It was objected to by colleagues. So we are seeing the people who earn the least can't get a raise. The administration won't support 7 million folks getting a raise. They want to take overtime away from the folks who are already working, not wanting to deal with those who are out of work with unemployment, not wanting to level the playing field so we can keep our manufacturers here and keep those good-paying jobs.

Over and over again, we see efforts that block what we need to turn this number around of 3 million jobs lost and counting.

That is the reality of what is happening. Frankly, I am disappointed we are not willing to spend time. If we are going to ask people to stay up all night and the staff to be here and so on, let's address something that affects them and their families and everyone who is listening and watching, and that is how we move this economy forward, how we protect manufacturing, how we support our businesses large and small, and our workers working harder and harder every day just to make ends meet, so we can make sure the quality of life and standard of living we want for our families is maintained in this country.

We are the greatest country in the world. But we are truly in crisis, I believe, as it relates to what is happening in our economy and with our manufacturing sector.

Let me take an opportunity to read a few more of the letters I get every day, unfortunately, from the people of Michigan. A letter that says: I have never written to a Michigan Senator before, but for me, now is the time. You see, I am one of the discouraged unemployed in Michigan. After over a year of fruitless searching for a nonexistent job in my field as a CAD designer, I have given up. It breaks my heart to leave the field I love. I must just ask you this: Where are all the automotive engineering jobs? Is it true that we in Michigan have lost much of our employment base as it relates to engineering through outsourcing? I know many colleagues who are also out of work and many who have left the field altogether, as I am contemplating. I just want you to know how one of your constituents is feeling about the employment situation here in Michigan.

Of the 3 million jobs that have been lost, over 2.5 million of them are in manufacturing. These are jobs that pay well, that bring health care with them, that bring a pension, that create middle-class America, those folks who can buy the houses and the cars--we want them to all buy them American made--who buy the boats and the snowmobiles and the cottage up north, who send the kids to college and believe in the American dream: that if you work hard, you can be successful in this country and you will have the opportunity to have the dignity of work.

From Union City, MI: I am writing this letter because there seems to be some confusion about our economy. Our government seems to think that a tax cut will help but I don't think so. Since the year 2000, there has been over 3 million manufacturing jobs that have been lost, gone to China. My wife and I own a small machine shop in Union City, Michigan. At one time we had 7 employees. Now my wife, my son and myself are all that is left. Most of the time we don't even have enough work for ourselves. I have watched as many of my friends and competitors have gone out of business and just closed their doors or filed bankruptcy. While we fight the war on terrorism, if we are not careful, we will lose a much bigger war to the rest of the world without a shot being fired.

From Clyde, MI: My husband, a 25-year mechanical engineer, designer of automotive special machines, has been laid off for seven months. The company he worked for was bought by Fiat and within two years, began outsourcing the engineering to countries such as Bosnia where engineers will work for $6 an hour. Our workers can't compete with that obviously. The engineering department is now closed completely,

everything is outsourced. He is 55, laid off, 2\1/2\ weeks short of his retirement, vesting at 100 percent, can't draw Social Security, and has been unable to find work. The market is flooded with engineers because outsourcing is happening all over. I work two jobs and a third when I can get the work. If we want to maintain the quality of our environment and keep our families fed, we need legislation to address the inequities in manufacturing standards globally, balancing tariffs, something. Our workers can't compete with the salaries outsourcing provides from other countries but for which foreign workers can maintain their own standard of living.

Again, I have received letter after letter after letter saying the same kinds of things. I also receive letters from furniture makers. I have had the opportunity to be in Grand Rapids, MI, and talk with furniture makers who have lost their contracts to Chinese contractors or subcontracting has moved over to China. They say: Well, it is because they can't compete. It is just the way the economy works.

Well, no, it is not. China manipulates their currency and it amounts to about a 40 percent tax on goods and services we send to China. They are not playing by the rules. They don't play by the rules. Why aren't we standing up for us? My constituents are saying: What about us? What about our jobs? We appreciate the fact that four people who wanted to be promoted as judges have not had the opportunity to do that. One hundred sixty-eight, yes; four, no.

But I hear from people representing this 3 million people saying: What about us? What about a marathon for us? What about spending time on the floor debating solutions that will create jobs for the people in this country that represent the majority who believe in this country, who work hard every day, who want to work hard, who want the dignity and respect of work? They don't want a handout. They want to work. They are finding their jobs are leaving, and they need our help.

Our manufacturers, large and small, and the people who work for them, need our help. They are asking us to work on a bipartisan basis. These folks are not Democrats or Republicans. They are Americans. They are Michigan citizens. They are asking us to turn our focus to those families, those people in our country who need our help. What we do is always about values and priorities--always. It is always about values and priorities.

I believe this debate is about misplaced priorities and we need to return to what is most important in the precious hours we have here and the time we have to get something done for the American people, because there is a lot at stake, including the quality of our way of life as a country. We cannot afford to lose our manufacturing base. We cannot afford to lose the middle class of this country, which has made us strong. If we are not careful, that is exactly what is going to happen.

I call on my colleagues to spend this time on how we move forward and take this number of 3 million jobs down to 2 million and to 1 million and get it down to zero, because that is the number that truly counts for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for this bill and to be joined by the chair and ranking Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental in developing the wide range of support for this bill, and I appreciate their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable coastal and marine resources.

In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly increased since the act was originally authorized.

Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea-ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals.

This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this act, coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development.

As voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives.

The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value- added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the economy.

The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating 1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to realize the returns.

Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although the States are currently taking action to

address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 encourages, but does not require, them to take additional steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program.

This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific nonpoint source pollution problems. The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in nonpoint source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool I am proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is looking forward to this new opportunity to do more.

The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It increases Federal and State support of Local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical.

The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2004, $141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach their full potential.

Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 increases authorization for the National Estaurine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership.

Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. They provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in these ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves.

I wish to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant Program, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and the population of each State.

However, sine 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a $2 million dollar cap per State on administrative grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating States. Over the past 8 years, appropriations for administrative grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population.

It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger States have stagnated.

In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each State. It further requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase.

I thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the states are treated fairly.

The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of the coastal States due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years.

I thank Senator Kerry, the ranking Democrat of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation.

This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development.

I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. This bill continues and builds upon the research efforts established in 1998 by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act.

I am very pleased to continue working with my friend and co-sponsor Senator Breaux on this important issue. He and I represent coastal States that are directly affected by harmful algal bloom outbreaks and hypoxia, and we see the ecological and economic damage, as well as the risks to human health, that are caused by these events.

In Maine, for example, harmful algal blooms lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning, a potentially fatal neurological disorder. When humans eat shellfish that have fed on algae in the genus Alexandrium, they are exposed to the toxins that have accumulated in the fish as a result of the algae. Along with human, fish and marine mammals suffer and die from this exposure. This phenomenon, which occurs along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline, has increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years.

Although we have learned a great deal about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in recent years, we still have a long way to go in understanding, predicting, and mitigating these events. Massive fish kills still occur along our coastlines on almost a regular basis, leading to extensive impacts on fish and shellfish populations and fishing industries. Beach-goers and anglers are still being warned of ``no swimming'' and ``no fishing'' alerts when conditions pose a threat to human health. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in a 2000 study, estimated the annual economic impact from harmful algae to be $49 million, in lost tourism, fishing, and health costs. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the U.S. approximately $1 billion could be lost in the next decade due to harmful algae.

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia present enormous challenges to marine resource managers. For example, consider what happens in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-one States drain into the Mississippi River, and the runoff from this massive watershed is carried into the gulf. When the waters heat up in the summer, the heavy loads of nutrients in this runoff likely contribute to massive algal blooms. When these algae die and decompose they are consumed by bacteria, which depletes oxygen from the water. If the algal blooms are extensive enough, they will essentially remove all oxygen from the water. No sea life can live under these conditions, which creates a massive area in the water column known as the

``dead zone.'' At that point, all we can really do is wait it out. Clearly, we need to equip our coastal and ocean managers with better tools for predicting, minimizing, and mitigating these outbreaks.

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are just as much of a problem now as they were in 1998, when we passed the original bill. It is clear that these problems have not gone away. Algal blooms are still prevalent around the country, the dead zone still occurs each summer in the Gulf of Mexico, and the management and mitigation measures we set the framework for in our 1998 bill still need to be realized.

Our 1998 bill authorized a cross-section of research and monitoring activities on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. These activities were to encompass basic and applied sciences, looking at the distribution and frequency of outbreaks, as well as how they may be better mitigated and managed. This research, however, was never fully funded at the authorized amounts for research and monitoring, so many of these research activities still need to occur, and many on-going projects need to continue. These amendments would authorize the funding that will reignite these scientific activities.

Our 1998 bill also codified an Interagency Task Force, chaired by the Department of Commerce. Through this group, experts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services, and numerous other appropriate Federal agencies were able to start the long process of collectively understanding and seeking solutions to many aspects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. This Task Force spearheaded a technical assessment of the causes and consequences of the northern Gulf of Mexico dead zone, an action plan to eliminate this dead zone, a national assessment of harmful algal blooms, and a national assessment of hypoxia. I would like to express my appreciation for the hard work and accomplishments of this group, yet I realize--as do they--that much more needs to be done.

The 1998 bill allowed the President to disestablish the Task Force after submission of their reports. Considering the great challenges that lay before us and this Task Force, we need to keep this group intact so that they can follow through on their previous recommendations and continue much of their ongoing collaborative efforts. This bill would repeal the Task Force disestablishment clause in the 1998 bill.

This reauthorization continues to seek the valuable contributions of Task Force members on a response and prediction action plan to protect environmental and public health from impacts of harmful algal blooms. This plan would review prediction techniques, develop innovative response measures, and include incentive-based partnership approaches. The Task Force would contribute to this plan, as would coastal zone management experts from State and local governments, Indian tribes, industries, universities, and non-governmental organizations. In developing this process, we mirrored the process used for the dead zone action plan, one of the products of the Task Force from the 1998 bill, to ensure widespread public participation and involvement of the coastal governors.

The dead zone action plan recommended a national framework for reducing nutrients entering the Mississippi River as well as regional plans to implement any needed measures. While a national framework is essential for facilitating the widespread changes that are needed, it is at the local and regional level that solutions must be developed and implemented. The regional plans will help avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, since local and regional variations in the types of land use, landscape geology, and community input should be taken into account when carrying out nutrient reduction and outbreak mitigation measures of this magnitude. By tailoring mitigation and management measures to each location, the overall approach can be more effective.

Local and regional assessments are a key component of this reauthorization as well. Coastal states, Indian tribes, and local governments would be able to request these local and regional assessments of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, so they can better understand the causes, impacts, and mitigation alternatives for these outbreaks. By having the Commerce Department and the Task Force provide and assist in these assessments, local and regional communities can be more empowered to take action on reducing the magnitude and impacts of these outbreaks.

This bill would authorize $26 million in FY04, and $26.5 million in FY05, and $27 million in FY06. These funding levels reflect modest increases in some of the research and monitoring programs authorized in the 1998 bill and provide funding for the new assessments and implementation of their recommendations.

This reauthorization enables collaborative, science-based research efforts that can help us to better understand how to predict and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events. It facilitates action at the local and regional levels, which is a key element for effectively addressing and minimizing the adverse ecological, economic, and health impacts of these outbreaks. I wish to thank Senator Breaux for his continued vigilance and important contributions on this matter, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, first, I wish to concentrate a little bit on some of the comments I heard during the 3\1/2\ hours I chaired last night.

A lot has been made of this number, 168 to 4. But you cannot compare district court judges with circuit court nominations. Instead, you should look at the situation for what it is, an attempt to obstruct the confirmation of circuit court judges.

Since January 2003, President Bush has nominated a total of 29 circuit court judges. Of those judges, only 12, or 41 percent, have been confirmed. Of the remaining 17, my colleagues across the aisle have obstructed or threatened to obstruct 11 qualified and talented judges. In other words, almost 50 percent of the circuit judges ready to come to the floor for confirmation have been held up by the Democratic side for political purposes.

Last night I heard this 98-percent factor, and I heard it said that if my child came home with a test and he got 98 percent, I should congratulate him and work hard to get the other 2 percent.

I will tell you what ought to happen if your kid comes home with only 50 percent, and that is what we are talking about when we are talking about circuit court judges, we are talking about failure of the system, a total breakdown of the system.

You have to look at the concentration that there is on the circuit court. That is because those circuit court folks could become Supreme Court Justices. And Lordy, we don't want to pass any who might make it to that.

Every day the Senate is in session we begin with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are firmly committed to this country, and that as we say the words of the pledge, like me, they mean every word of it and they honestly pledge their alliance to the flag and to this Nation. But I have to wonder if they haven't forgotten the meaning of all of the words in the pledge, especially when I hear them put forward the argument that we do not need to vote on all the judicial nominees because we have already voted on most of them.

The last six words in the Pledge of Allegiance, ``with liberty and justice for all,'' mean we do not preserve justice or liberty for just a few people or for most of the people and leave a few or even an individual behind. It means we have justice for all, for everyone. That is 100 percent. We pledge that and we don't make exceptions because we have a high percentage of success.

In fact, this is one of the situations that the courts were created to protect: the rights of the individual. I think it is a little ironic that there are those in the Senate who would be willing to withhold justice and rights from some, in this case four highly qualified individuals, and the cases they could be hearing, if they were confirmed.

That is justice being denied as well. That is justice only for a few, or maybe most, but not all--just because the individuals don't have the same political philosophy as those across the aisle.

While it may be true--the percentage of judges we have voted on--when you are the one who is left out and are not allowed justice, that is 100 percent of your life--the one who is being affected, and 100 percent of justice that is being denied as an individual.

I think this is wrong. I sincerely hope we move off this obstructionism and have an up-or-down vote on the highly qualified individuals with talent, experience, and integrity, and who could be considered as the ideal we want in all judges.

I think everybody knows about the qualifications.

The comments made last night are what we are seeing here for the first time--a change in the way we do judges. The problem with it is it probably will continue and at some point there will be a reversal of roles. We will spiral down and down until we are not approving judges. It won't be 2 percent counting all of the district judges and not doing the true statistics on just the circuit court judges. It will not be approving a majority of them.

I have to tell you, I have been through that spiral once before. When I first got here, there was a judge nominated. She would only sentence a person to 90 days in jail who had raped a minor because she didn't like the rehabilitation system of the prisons in her State. I was appalled by it. In our State, there are a lot of people who would think that maybe he should have been shot. He raped a minor.

I put a hold on that person so we could have a debate instead of a unanimous consent. I eventually got the debate.

I had an unrelated piece of property that some people had been paying taxes on for 70 years which they had bought from the BLM but the title had never changed. It took an act of Congress to change the title. Because I put that hold on, it took me 3 years to get that piece of property transferred to the people. Do you know what those people said? They appreciated what I had done on that judge.

But I have to tell you that unless an up-or-down vote happens on that judge, that is the way it is supposed to be.

It was exactly 200 years ago, in 1803, that the Supreme Court and our Nation's judicial system went through its first and most dramatic change since it was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. This change occurred when then Chief Justice John Marshall issued his decision in the landmark case, Marbury vs. Madison. In that decision

Marshall established the responsibility of the Federal court to review the constitutionality of congressional actions. His action brought the courts out of almost obscurity, seen as the weakest and most timid of the three branches of government, and gave it a prominence and power that is not equaled by any other court system in the history of the world.

Before Justice Marshall was appointed to the court in 1801 the court seemed to lack direction. There was no clear idea of purpose or vision about whether or not the court could consider itself to be an important entity. The very first Supreme Court Session was held in New York City in 1790. It was almost postponed when only three of the original six justices arrived for the court's opening session. The court had to wait and put off doing business until a fourth justice arrived and they had enough judges to constitute a quorum.

Justice Marshall himself did not initially consider the court to be a prominent institution. At the time of his appointment to the court, he was also serving as Secretary of State for President John Adams and he had turned down an earlier appointment to the court in order to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. After President Adams finally talked him into serving as Chief Justice of the court, Justice Marshall served as both Chief Justice and Secretary of State for 2 months because he felt it wasn't worth giving up the position of Secretary of State to serve on the Supreme Court.

Over the next 34 years Justice Marshall reinvented the court and provided the leadership it needed to assume the prominent role it plays in our court system today.

One has to wonder what Justice Marshall would think about what is going on in the Senate today. Would he agree with my colleagues across the aisle that it is all right to put partisan politics and partisan bickering ahead of the rights of judicial nominees if those impacted are just a small fraction of society. Would he agree with them that justice denied for a few was acceptable? Or would he hold true to the basic tenets of the Constitution that all men are created equal and that everyone has the right to their day in court?

A lot has been made about the numbers 168 to 4. You really can't compare district court judges with circuit court nominations. Instead we should look at this situation for what it really is, an attempt to obstruct the confirmation of circuit court judges. Since January 2003 President Bush has nominated a total of 29 circuit court judges. Of those judges only 12 or 41 percent have been confirmed. Of the remaining 17, my colleagues across the aisle have obstructed or threatened to obstruct 11 qualified and talented judges, or in other words, almost 50 percent of the circuit court judges ready to come to the floor for confirmation have been held up by the Democrats for political purposes.

Every day that the Senate is in session we begin with a word of prayer and with the Pledge of Allegiance. I know that my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, are firmly committed to this country and that, as they say the words of the Pledge, like me, they mean every word of it and that they honestly pledge their allegiance to the flag and to this Nation. But I have to wonder if they haven't forgotten the meaning of all the words in the pledge, especially when I hear them put forward the argument that we do not need to vote on all of our judicial nominees because we have already voted on some or most of them. The last six words in the Pledge of Allegiance, ``with liberty and justice for all,'' mean that we do not preserve justice or liberty for a few people, or for most of the people, and leave a few, or even an individual, behind. It means we have justice for all, for everyone, 100 percent and that we don't make exceptions because we have a high percentage of success.

In fact, this is one of the situations that the courts were created to protect, the rights of the individual. I think it is a little ironic that there are those here in the Senate that would be willing to withhold justice and rights from some, in this case four highly qualified individuals, and would not extend justice to all, just because those individuals don't have the same political philosophy.

While it may be true that the percentages of judges that have been voted on is high, when you are the one that is left out and are not allowed justice, that is 100 percent of your life that is being affected and 100 percent of justice that is being denied you as an individual.

I think this is wrong, and I sincerely hope we move off this obstructionism and have an up or down vote on these highly qualified individuals, whose talents, experience and integrity can easily be considered the ideal for what we want in judges.

We often talk about the ideal in our debates in the Senate. We hold up a picture of what things should look like and how things should be done in the hopes that someday, we can move our Nation forward to the point where the ideal is, more often than not, reality. One of those ideals that has been presented is a world where our judges and our courts are more representative of America. Our courts have often been accused of being elitist. The Bush Administration has been working hard to change that image by making sure our judges are more diverse. By nominating people like Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Charles Pickering, President Bush has set an example of the ideal by selecting people from different backgrounds, with different styles, who share the same passion and enthusiasm for the law.

The list of judges that is before the Senate represents a group of candidates who are well educated, fully talented, and well qualified for the posts for which they have been nominated. Unfortunately, for some, this list also represents the unfairness of the system--a system which, in theory, guarantees each nominee a vote--but--in practice, can be used to deny a nominee a vote.

So here we are, well down the road, holding a list of candidates that still haven't received a vote. In spite of all their qualifications and the personal integrity they have shown throughout the process, these judges have been forced to wait as the Senate decides whether or not we can simply hold an up or down vote on them. Why? It's pretty clear to just about everyone. Because these are good nominees and in a fair and just world, they'd win the vote hands down. Therefore, the only way to avoid having these candidates confirmed is to deny them their constitutional right to an up or down vote.

What is most tragic about this situation is that these delays have not come without cost. These nominees aren't the only ones who are being denied their rights. Let's not forget the other victims in this situation who have been denied their right to a fair and impartial judicial process because there are not enough judges to hear all their cases. The real victims of these delays are not the nominees, or the Bush administration, or even the Republican Party. No, the real victims are the people whose rights have been denied to accommodate some increased partisan bickering.

There is a saying ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' We make people with very real needs and very real issues wait while we try to score a few points in the game of politics. We drag out their court costs, their attorney's fees, and delay their restitution and damage payments all because we want to get one up on the other party.

We have a crisis in our courts that we can solve today. I urge my colleagues to step up to the plate and become a part of the solution. I urge them not to accept the belief that justice for some is sufficient. I urge them to allow the Senate to conduct its constitutional duty and hold an up or down vote on these judges. If you don't agree with them, or feel they are not qualified, then vote against them. That is your prerogative and duty as a Senator. But do not continue to deny justice for the nominees or the courts any longer.

Then I ask for 1 additional minute on our side.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for what he said. He has a distinguished record in the other body, as Governor and now here. We listened to him in this Chamber. I wish they would listen to him on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue

because the person who makes the nominations is the President. I have been here with six Presidents. I have never known a time when a President is less willing to engage the Senate in advise and consent. President Ford did, President Carter did, President Reagan did, former President Bush did, and President Clinton did. I hope this White House would begin to do that also.

Interestingly enough, today I was given a petition signed by 310,000 Americans from all over the country. This petition supports a filibuster of extreme judicial nominees of the President. In fact, in the last 72 hours, 172,000 Americans signed these petitions. I went through them, thanks to the ability to search electronically, and picked out some from my State of Vermont.

In Moretown, VT, someone wrote:

It is a disgrace how this administration is attempting to

pack our Federal courts with right-wing extremist judges that

seek to undermine the hard-fought pillars of legal precedent

that reflect the values of a vast majority of Americans. I

wholeheartedly support the efforts of the Senate Judiciary

Committee Democrats to oppose this blatant abuse of the

majority power. . . . The Senate GOP leadership should be

ashamed of wasting precious legislative time to engage in

what amounts to a publicity stunt. . . ..

Shame on them. They don't deserve the seats that the people

have entrusted in them.

Moretown, VT, is a little town a few miles away from where I live. It is straight down the valley; you can look straight down the valley from the front lawn of my home. We used to go to mass there on Sunday. It is where one of my grandmothers was born. So I was pleased to see that.

I received this petition from West Townshend, VT:

Thank you very much for all your hard work and valuable

work. We appreciate it.

West Townshend is a very small town in Vermont. People are very independent there.

This one is from South Burlington, VT:

I support any measure to prevent Bush's extreme judicial

appointments. Keep up the good work.

This is from Barre, VT:

Please be strong and stand against the Republicans.

Ashcroft has already taken away too many of our civil

liberties; we cannot have judges doing the same.

Barre, VT, is considered the granite center of the world,

with the largest granite quarries in the world. My

grandfather, Patrick J. Leahy, was a stonecutter in Barre,

VT. My father was born in Barre, VT. The people of Barre, VT,

are as strong and independent as the beautiful granite in

their quarry.

I have one from South Ryegate, VT:

You must protect the cherished rights of women to control

their own bodies. Do not approve judges whose records show

that they do not believe in women's rights.

South Ryegate, VT, is a beautiful little town on the eastern side of Vermont. I know it well. When my maternal grandparents immigrated to this country from Italy, not speaking a word of English, they came to South Ryegate, VT, where my Italian grandfather was also a stonecutter. My mother, a first-generation American, was born there, her first language was Italian, but she learned English at school. I remember my grandfather, so proud of the judicial and constitutional system of this country, and so proud of taking the oath of citizenship. My father, in Barre, VT, was so proud of the separation of powers in this country-- the legislative branch, an independent branch of Government, equal to the other two; the executive branch, independent and equal to the other two; and the judicial branch, independent and equal to the other two.

I remember him sitting in the gallery when I was first sworn in as a Senator, knowing I was part of that triumvirate of powers in this country, which is why our democracy has lasted this long. But throughout it all, it was so important that one branch was outside of politics, that one was independent of either of the political parties, and that is the judiciary. It should not be a Democratic judiciary or a Republican judiciary.

The battle we are having now is because this White House does not want it to be an independent judiciary. They want it to be the most extreme possible. They want it to be an arm of the Republican Party.

One hundred sixty-eight to four. We have confirmed 168 of President Bush's nominees. We stopped four of the most extreme. Lordy, the crocodile tears that have been shed here, at great cost to the American taxpayers, over the last 24 hours--the crocodile tears that have been shed for that.

I do not remember one single Republican standing on the floor and saying how terrible it was when the Republicans blocked 63 of President Clinton's nominees, but, oh, my, it is like Niagara Falls, the crocodile tears, when we blocked four of theirs.

I received another one from Burlington, VT:

The courts need to represent all Americans. Keep extremists

out. Thank you for fighting for representation of all

Americans by blocking the extremist judge nominees. Shame on

President Bush.

I mention Burlington because I was married there 41 years ago. I still vote there. My children were raised there. I know the people in Burlington, VT. They are independent, good people--people who care for an independent, not a political, judiciary.

Little Hardwick, VT, stands at that junction between Montpelier and St. Johns and Barre. They say:

Stay awake. Stay vigilant. Protect civil rights, a woman's

right to choose, public education and worker's rights. We

stand with you.

Hardwick, VT, let me tell you, I stand with you, and I will stay awake and be vigilant. The people on this side of the aisle will stay vigilant and we will protect an independent judiciary. We will not allow the judiciary to be an arm of any political party.

The President said that he wanted to be a uniter and not a divider. Oh, how much I wish he were. If there was ever a time that this country needs a uniter, not a divider, it is right now. But, instead, in deference to groups on the far right, the President has nominated judicial activists about whom one cannot help but raise questions regarding their ability to act impartially, with justice for all. We need an independent judiciary.

We are fortunate in Vermont because we have the most independent Federal judges you can imagine--people with total integrity, who will treat whoever comes into their court with impartiality regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat or independent. That is what all courts should do.

Time and time again, Democratic Senators have acted in good faith to fill vacancies Republicans kept vacant by blocking a Democratic President's judicial nominees. After Republicans blocked 63 of President Clinton's nominees, when a Republican President came in, they said: Look at all these vacancies. My God, we have to move as fast as we can to fill them. This is terrible. This is a crisis in the judiciary. How could this possibly have happened? How could this possibly have happened; there are 63 vacancies here. My Lord, the sky is falling down.

Where did those vacancies come from? They came from one person, one Republican, holding an anonymous filibuster. If one Republican said, I don't want this judge of President Clinton's, the nominee went no further. Notwithstanding that, some of them had the highest qualifications this country has seen. Notwithstanding that, some of them were the most brilliant judges. Notwithstanding that, they were Hispanics, women, African Americans, people of faith, and people of great conscience. They were not allowed to go forward because one member of the Republican Party said he or she did not want them to go forward. But notwithstanding that the Republicans created all those vacancies, notwithstanding that, the Democrats said, we will help you fill them.

Notwithstanding the arrogance and the one-person filibusters on the other side, the Democrats started filling those vacancies with President Bush's nominees. We have filled 168 vacancies. We stopped four of the most extreme nominees. And now, lordy, lordy, lordy, the Niagara Falls of tears comes from the other side--crocodile tears, hypocritical tears, from those who said not a word, not a word when they blocked 63. Not a word. Not a word. They blocked 63. Not a word. We stopped four of the most extreme, and you would think the world was coming to an end.

What Democrats have done is that we have stood up for our principles and for the independence of the Senate in its constitutional role in the judicial confirmation process. The Republican leadership has decided to spend, I am

told, upwards of a quarter of a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to have this debate. I apologize for that. I am not the one who wanted to do this. I apologize to all the staff--the police officers, who should be home with their families, the doorkeepers, those who keep the journal of these proceedings--who are some of the finest men and women I have worked with in nearly 30 years here.

But that quarter of a million dollars the Republican leadership is spending on this charade of crocodile tears could almost be worth it if one thing comes out of it. If the President would realize that this whole process begins with him, not with the Senate. The President has an absolute right to nominate anybody he wants. The Senate has an absolute right to advise and consent, to determine whether nominees are confirmed, especially to lifetime jobs.

I ask him once again, work with the Senate. Every President through history has sought the Senate's advice and consent. In those instances when they did not, they did not get their way. There was another President named George, the greatest President in this Nation's history, George Washington. He was the most popular man in America in the time he lived and probably the most popular person America has ever had. He was a man who brought us together as a country, who set the precedent to make this a great democracy. But George Washington nominated judges the Senate felt he should not have. The Senate exercised its constitutional authority, and not all of George Washington's judicial or executive branch nominees were confirmed. President Washington knew he had to come back and seek the Senate's advice and consent before his nominees would go through.

A great hero of mine, not just because I am a Democrat but because I remember what he meant to people like my parents, who owned a small business in Montpelier, VT, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, also one of the greatest Presidents to ever serve this country. He kept this country together, kept the world together at the time of naziism and fascism, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He brought us out of a recession, and he did this even though he was physically crippled. He worked so hard for this country, it finally killed him. But even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he tried to pack the court and change the independence of our Federal judiciary, a Democratic-controlled Senate said he could not do that. In fact, not only did Franklin Delano Roosevelt not get every one of his judges confirmed, but his court packing plan was filibustered.

No matter how partisan anybody is here, I don't think anybody is going to suggest the problems began here. The Senate said no to Washington. The Senate said no to Franklin Roosevelt. The Senate can say no to George Bush. Tradition is there. The Constitution is there. Our rights are there.

Basically, we have taken all this time spending a quarter of a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to talk about this because we don't want to vote on minimum wage, or workman's compensation, child programs, or the appropriations bills that, by law, we are required to have voted on by September 30. We still haven't. We don't want to vote on veterans benefits even though the administration seems hellbent on cutting veterans benefits.

We don't want to do any of those things. We will spend a quarter of a million tax dollars on the Republican's charade. I say the same thing today that the Senate said to George Washington and said to Franklin Roosevelt: We are going to ask for advice and consent. The Senate is going to stand up for its rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me say this. Again, I have been here with six Presidents, Republican and Democrat. Presidents have always sought advice and consent. They have not always liked what they have heard. Five of the six Presidents have been willing to work with us on judicial nominations: Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, former President Bush, and President Clinton. I urge the current President to follow their example. Things will go far more smoothly. I do yield the remainder of my time.