A resolution designating the week beginning November 16, 2003, as American Education Week.

Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the important events happening right now in the island nation of Cuba. Over the past several weeks, Fidel Castro has been rounding up democracy activists, independent journalists, librarians, and signers of the Varela Project and throwing them in jail.

Fidel Castro has used the world's focus on the war in Iraq to divert attention in order for him to brutally crack down and further oppress Cubans who yearn for freedom. It has been difficult to get the exact number, but we think it is approximately 80 Cubans who have been arrested. Yesterday, a number of those activists who had been arrested were sentenced to terms of 15 to 25 years--if you can believe that--on charges of ``undermining the socialist state.'' It is reported that at least 11 of those could get life sentences, and at least one could get the death penalty.

I take the floor of the Senate to call to its attention that last night the Senate passed S. Res. 97, a resolution introduced by this Senator from Florida and cosponsored by the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen. The resolution passed the Senate unanimously. It condemns these actions, and it calls for the release of the prisoners of conscience in Cuba.

Why did the Senate want to take a stand, and why do we want to bring further attention to this other than has already been in the Nation's newspapers, pointing out that under the cloak of the world's attention being diverted to Iraq, Fidel Castro has started this crackdown and these arrests and these sentences, even possibly a death sentence? Well, it goes back to the fact that the Cuban Government does not like the world's attention that has been brought to the courageous 11,000 people who signed the petition under the Cuban law--the Cuban Constitution--which said that if at least 10,000 people sign a petition, the issues in that petition are then brought to the national assembly for action. Not only did 10,000 brave, courageous Cuban souls sign that petition, but over 11,000 did. It called for actions that you and I take for granted.

It called for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, release of political prisoners, and a free enterprise economy. It called for them to be brought before the Cuban National Assembly.

The Varela Project embodies the principles upon which all the world agrees: the right of the Cuban people to petition their government for civil and human rights, including free and fair elections.

The leader of this project, Oswaldo Paya, has continued to advance this important project at great risk to himself, his family, and his associates.

In May of 2002, Oswaldo Paya led a group of Cuban citizens who delivered exactly 11,020 verified signatures to the Cuban National Assembly supporting that referendum on civil liberties and all of the issues I have mentioned.

These are basic rights to which anyone is entitled. Recent reports indicate that the Varela network has been especially targeted in this crackdown by Fidel Castro. I take us back to last year, realizing the courageous effort by Senor Paya and the signers of that petition.

I sponsored and this Senate adopted the resolution 87 to 0, with the help of other supporters of the resolution, Senator Dodd and Senator Helms. That resolution commended the Varela Project and Oswaldo Paya. It was an early step to providing international attention and support to Mr. Paya and those who signed on to the Varela Project.

The resolution that was adopted last year 87 to 0 was obviously bipartisan, and the resolution that was just adopted last night is similarly bipartisan and builds on that previous consensus and highlights that upon which we can all agree. What is that?

The resolution that was adopted last night condemns the recent arrest and other intimidation tactics against democracy activists by the Castro regime, and it calls on the Cuban Government to immediately release those imprisoned during the most recent crackdown for the acts that the Government of Cuba wrongly deems ``subversive, counter revolutionary, and provocative.''

The resolution adopted last night also reaffirms S. Res. 272, the Varela Project resolution, that the Senate unanimously agreed upon last year, which calls for, among other things, amnesty for all political prisoners. The resolution we adopted last night praises the bravery of those Cubans who, because they had simply practiced free speech and signed the Varela Project petition, have now been targeted in this most recent government crackdown.

The resolution we adopted last night urges the President to demand the immediate release of all the prisoners and to take all appropriate steps to secure their immediate release.

I wish to say this to those with whom we have contact from time to time representing the Cuban Government: We in the Senate are watching. We are not going to let Fidel Castro get away with these kinds of actions. And we are going to keep the glare of the public spotlight and the glare of world view in the international community on this kind of thuggery. We are going to call him to account in the name of human dignity and freedom because even in Cuba people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I specifically thank our Foreign Relations Committee which absolutely whizzed this resolution through the committee, our committee chairman, Senator Lugar, and our ranking member, Senator Biden. I thank the subcommittee chairman, Senator Coleman. I thank my cosponsor, Senator Allen. I thank our ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Senator Dodd. All of them gave the green light and speeded this process.

I am going to continue to seek common ground with my colleagues as we seek to support the Cuban people in their struggle for freedom. I hope with this resolution having just been adopted that the administration will pursue a similar resolution of condemnation in the United Nations, and that the administration will seek immediate international support to secure the release of these and all freedom-loving Cubans who have been wrongly jailed because it is only through the constant and sustained recognition of this issue that our chances will be improved of creating forces of change on that long-suffering island.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I wish to say how much I appreciate the comments of the Senator. Here is a great example of two Senators representing two different parts of the country, at the end of the day, we have the same conclusion--what we want is freedom for that island. That island is the jewel of the Caribbean. Once freedom comes to that island, it will economically blossom and prosper. That island has so much rich history and such a beautiful culture.

The Senator has pointed out that although we might have a difference of opinion about topics such as an economic embargo, at the end of the day what we earnestly want is change. We want the winds of change to blow, and blow very hard and rapidly so that freedom can come to Cuba.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to submit a resolution providing for a protocol for the nonpartisan confirmation of judicial nominees. We have come to a crisis situation in the Senate on the confirmation of Federal judges. This has been a highly controversial subject since the beginning of the Republic. There have been controversies from time to time, pitched debates in the Senate Chamber, nominees confirmed and some nominees rejected.

The current controversies focused significantly in the last 2 years of President Reagan's Presidency when the Democrats won control of the Senate in the 1986 elections. For the last 2 years of President Reagan's tenure, the Presidential appointments were slowed down. The same thing happened during the 4 years of President George Herbert Walker Bush. When President Clinton was elected, and we had a Democrat in the White House, when we Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections, President Clinton's nominations were slowed down. Pretty much a tit-for-tat situation.

Now that we have had both the Presidency and the Senate under Republican stewardship, the controversy has reached a new level where for the first time in the history of the Republic, court of appeals nominees have been filibustered. The responsibility of the President has been to use his constitutional authority for interim appointments. Those two interim appointments have been roundly criticized by the Democrats.

And the position has been stated on the other side of the aisle that there will be no more confirmations of Federal judges until there is a commitment, an indication, or some statement, or some understanding that the interim appointments will no longer be made.

My State of Pennsylvania is very severely impacted by this controversy. We have a nomination pending before the Senate of a distinguished Federal judge, Judge Van Antwerpen, who is ready for confirmation. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is badly understaffed. We have some five nominees for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania awaiting confirmation. There again, the courts are in need of the services of these prospective Federal judges.

The resolution, which I am submitting today, is a protocol which would call for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee 30 days after a President submits a nomination; 30 days later, a vote by the committee; 30 days after that, floor action in the Senate; 30 days after that, a decision on the outcome.

It is true there would not be the opportunity for filibuster, but the Republic has survived for more than 200 years before the filibuster was used. There was one illustration where there was a filibuster for a Supreme Court nominee, but that is really irrelevant to the kinds of controversies we have now, or the situation we are in at the present time.

Beyond my State of Pennsylvania, there are other States, other circuits, having judicial crises, and we ought to take the Federal judicial nominating confirmation process out of the politicization course, and we ought to try to work this through.

It may be that, in August, when there is some uncertainty as to who will occupy the White House and which party will control the Senate, that some accommodation can be reached. But right now litigants are being denied the prompt disposition of their cases. It is a well-known maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. It is my hope that we could find an accommodation somewhere here to do the people's business.

It is well known that partisanship is at a very high level in the Congress today--in the House of Representatives, where there is a narrow margin for the Republicans; and the partisanship here in the Senate, where there is a 51-49 majority for the Republicans.

But we ought to establish a protocol. We ought to establish a procedure. The protocol I am proposing is not in concrete. I am prepared to discuss it to find ways of working it out.

I had thought of putting in a provision that if it was a party line vote in the Judiciary Committee, even though there was not a majority in favor of sending a nominee to the floor, but a party line vote, that it come to the floor. I have decided to omit that.

I had thought about putting a provision in that if the Supreme Court nominee did not have a majority, the nominee would come to the floor in any event. And I have omitted that.

Twice in the past 14 years, nominees have come to the floor of the Senate for the Supreme Court of the United States without having a majority vote in the Judiciary Committee. But both times--one a 5-to-8 vote, the nominee came to the floor; another time, on a 7-7 tie, there was a 13-1 vote to send the nominee to the floor. And I have decided, in the interest of avoiding a controversy, to omit that.

But I ask my colleagues to review this resolution for a protocol and to see if we cannot find some way to confirm Federal judges without figuring out whose ox is being gored.

Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from Florida is still in the Chamber, I wish to thank him for his impassioned comments. I am going to be speaking later this week on this same subject. I am one who, for a number of reasons--geopolitically, strategically, and economically--have not supported the current embargo on Cuba. I am, however--and I feel proud--as Vermonters say, I bow to nobody on the question of human rights on this floor.

I met with Mr. Castro in Havana a couple years ago at a time when there was another crackdown of dissidents. I told him specifically what I felt about that in very strong words. He obviously disagreed with me, but I felt as an American in Cuba, it would be wrong for me not to express such a view.

I will follow with a speech later this week on Cuba, but I hope my good friend from Florida, who has been such an extraordinary leader in this area over the years, when he was in State government in Florida, when he was in the House of Representatives, and as a Senator--he has been such an extraordinary leader. I hope he knows, no matter how one might feel about our overall relations with Cuba, no American should find justifiable the silence of those who simply wish to speak to basic human freedoms, basic human rights--the right of speech, the right of religion. These are issues that, from the time of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and George Washington, we have enunciated in this country, but I do not know any country that can claim any form of democracy and freedom that would feel that way. I commend my friend. I hope others will listen to him. I hope 90 miles from his home State that it will be heard as strongly as it was heard on the floor of the Senate. I commend him.

Of course.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 328 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment from Senator Nelson of Florida, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 97 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the Nelson of Florida amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.