Floor Statements

Mr. President, I support the confirmation of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. I think he is a truly outstanding individual and, most importantly, after all these years of waiting, I am pleased he is finally going to get an up-or-down vote on his nomination. I am pleased, in just a few hours, Bill Pryor will be confirmed as a Federal appellate judge. He more than deserves to be confirmed by the Senate. Bill Pryor is doing a great job now, and he will continue doing a great job in the future.

The problem is how we have gotten to where we are with the hangup and these judges not being voted on. I continue to be troubled by the road we have been going down in this judicial nomination process. Unfortunately for Bill Pryor, he has been one of the prime targets of the slash-and-burn program of the left-wing liberal interest groups. He and several other good candidates nominated by President Bush have been subject to off-base, trumped-up charges which just smear an individual's record without regard to the reality of that record.

We need to look at the merits of a candidate, and, on the merits, Bill Pryor is one of the more impressive nominees coming before the Senate.

William Pryor graduated magna cum laude from Tulane Law School, where he was editor in chief of the law review. He served as a law clerk to civil rights legend and champion Judge John Wisdom. He practiced law for several years before joining the attorney general's office in the State of Alabama. He also taught law as an adjunct professor at Cumberland Law School. So without a doubt, and going even beyond the good attributes I pointed out, Bill Pryor has the legal experience to serve on this Federal bench. But that is not all. William Pryor has the unwavering support of the people who knew him best--the citizens of his very own State of Alabama. His support among Alabama Republicans is near unanimous. But furthermore, and maybe more importantly, some of the most important members of the Alabama Democratic leadership are just as supportive of this Pryor nomination.

For example, the chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, which is the State Democratic Party's African-American caucus, said that Bill Pryor is a first-class public official who will be a credit to the judiciary and a guardian of justice.

Former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman described Bill Pryor as an incredibly talented, intellectually honest attorney general who calls the issues like they ought to be called.

These are just some of the comments made by Democrats, of which I am aware, who support this good man.

But that does not seem to stop some groups or people inside the beltway from upping that ante and spreading lies. The usual suspects are back in the saddle again, however, with a vengeance to mischaracterize this man's record and drag his good name through the mud.

But if one really takes a close look at Bill Pryor's record, one can only find that he is a man who embodies the characteristics that any Federal judge ought to have. The fact is that William Pryor is a man who puts law before politics. The role of a Federal judge, as all my colleagues know and as best stated by Chief Justice John Marshall, is to ``say what the law is.''

That is exactly upon which Bill Pryor has built a distinguished law career. The truth is, in the face of opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, Bill Pryor has steadfastly based his legal decisions on court rulings and not on his own political beliefs. Bill Pryor's actions are the only record that we need to look at to see that this is an individual who truly believes in the rule of law. He is the right man for the job, and we should keep this man on the Eleventh Circuit Court.

I have looked at Bill Pryor's record and some of the allegations made against him. Bill Pryor wins hands down, no contest.

I would like to refer to an article in the ``Mobile Press Register,'' ``Civil Rights Guardian, Outstanding Nominee.'' In this article, Willie Huntley took the opportunity to distinguish the views of Alabamians and most Americans from those shared by some inside-the-beltway, left-wing interest groups. Mr. Huntley is an African-American attorney. He is from Bill Pryor's hometown. He expressed why the people of Alabama should continue to trust in this man, Bill Pryor, rather than in the liberal special interest groups, such as People for the American Way, organizations that are so powerful here with some Members of Congress.

I would like to read some of what this article has to say about Bill Pryor, again, emphasizing Willie Huntley, an African-American attorney from Bill Pryor's hometown:

People for the American Way asserts that Pryor's

appointment would devastate civil rights. What its people

don't say is that after about 100 years of inaction by other

leaders, Bill Pryor led a coalition that included the NAACP

to rid the Alabama Constitution of its racist ban on

interracial marriage.

Bill Pryor then defended the repeal against a court

challenge by a so-called Confederate organization. Our

Attorney General also took the side of the NAACP in

successfully defending majority-minority voting districts--

all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--against challenges by

white Alabama Republicans.

Bill Pryor further opposed a white Republican redistricting

proposal that would have hurt African-American voters. He did

not back down to criticism from his own party--not one inch.

He then played a key role in the successful prosecution of

former Ku Klux Klansmen Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas

Blanton, Jr., for the 1963 bombings of the 16th Street

Baptist Church in Birmingham.

Pryor started a mentoring program for at-risk kids and

regularly goes to Montgomery public schools to teach African-

American kids to read.

Because Bill Pryor has a civil rights record that very few

can equal, it is no wonder that African-American leaders who

know and who have worked with him--like Artur Davis, Joe

Reed, Cleo Thomas, and Alvin Holmes--support his nomination

to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ignoring Pryor's defense of voting rights for African-

Americans, People for the American Way charges that he

opposes the landmark Voting Rights Act. The truth is, he has

dutifully enforced all of the Voting Rights Act every time a

case has come up.

The article goes on to conclude:

The truth and the record show that Bill Pryor has fought

for the civil rights and voting rights of African-Americans

in Alabama when People for the American Way were nowhere to

be found. Now that President Bush has nominated Pryor to a

Federal judgeship, People for the American Way assumes that

it can come here and attack him. . . .We who actually know

Bill Pryor support him 100 percent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the article from which I quoted so people can read it in its entirety.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will see through all the smoke and mirrors that have been kicked up by groups such as the People for the American Way. I hope my colleagues will take a very close look at the facts and reject those allegations that are not true, just as many Alabamians have so rejected because the people who know this man best ought to be the ones to whom we listen.

I hope that Bill Pryor's true record will shine through and that my colleagues will join me in supporting his nomination.

I close by, once again, telling my Senate colleagues that if the role of a Federal judge is to say, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, ``to say what the law is,'' then there are very few candidates as qualified as William Pryor.

Being a good judge is not about doing what is popular, and it is not for sure about giving in to liberal special interest groups, and it certainly is not about legislating the left-wing's agenda from the bench. Being a good judge is about fairly applying the law, fairly applying the law no matter who the person is, no matter how unpopular the cause or the argument being advocated is. It is not the role of a judge, nor should it ever be the role of a judge, to serve as a puppet to the popular position. That is what William Pryor has built his career on--the rule of law, enforcing the law, carrying out the law.

I know that is what William Pryor will continue to do when he is finally confirmed by this Senate for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise in honor of a fallen soldier who has paid the highest price in defense our freedom, SSG Russell J. Verdugo of the 767th Ordnance Company died on the 23rd of May, 2005 in Baghdad, Iraq when an improvised explosive device detonated as he was responding to a call to dismantle the bomb. I would like to take this moment to salute his patriotism and his sacrifice.

Russell Verdugo deserves the highest gratitude of this body and the entire Nation. His sacrifice reminds us that freedom is so precious because of its incredibly high cost. My prayers go out to his mother, Susan Stanley, and his wife, Kari, who grieve the loss of a son and a husband and to all of the family, friends, and neighbors who are touched by his passing. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Sergeant Verdugo. The love of country and the dedication to service shared by many of it citizens is the great strength of our Nation, and we can all be very proud of patriots such as Russell Verdugo.

Mr. President, I have notified Senate leadership of my intent to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Alice S. Fisher to the position of Assistant Attorney General. This action has nothing to do with Ms. Fisher or her qualifications for the position to which she has been nominated. I have taken this action because there are a number of outstanding issues regarding the activities and operation of the Justice Department that should be resolved before considering this nomination. I am hopeful that, with the cooperation of the Justice Department, these issues can be resolved shortly.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Stevens, to cosponsor the Clean Sports Act of 2005. While I regret that we have had to come to this point, it is clear that Major League Baseball and other professional leagues are more concerned with protecting their own collective bargaining rights than doing the right thing.

Unfortunately, the abuse of illegal steroids by professional athletes is something we can no longer ignore. Steroid use is now affecting the most impressionable and vulnerable among us. The most recent studies indicate that as many as 5 percent to 7 percent of students, even as young as middle school, have admitted to using illegal steroids. Clearly we must act to curb this growing problem.

Every day, millions of young people dream of one day playing in the big leagues. When superstar athletes, with their multimillion-dollar contracts and lucrative endorsements are seen using steroids to improve their performance, it should not be surprising that many young athletes would want to use steroids to improve their own performance.

Professional athletes must be held to a higher standard when it comes to illegal substances such as steroids. Like it or not, young people look up to professional athletes as role models. The Clean Sports Act will require all professional sports leagues to adopt a unified standard for testing as well as tougher penalties for an athlete found in violation of these standards. Unlike testing today, this act will require athletes to test during the off-season and frequently during their season of play. Athletes will face severe penalties for a positive test: 2-year ban for the first offense and a lifetime ban for the second.

I have little doubt that this will go a long way to rid professional sports of these dangerous substances and bring integrity back to the game. We must send a strong message to professional athletes. If you choose to cheat and use illegal steroids, you risk ending your career. In turn, our young people will hopefully get the message that using steroids to improve athletic performance is absolutely the wrong way to go.

While this bill specifically addresses professional athletics, the importance of stopping steroid abuse extends well beyond the track, baseball diamond, or football field. We must continue to focus on the health and future of our children. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation to set the standard for fair competition.

Mr. President, today I rise to commend and thank Mr. Richard Price of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, for his many years of outstanding service to the U.S. Congress. In June, Mr. Price is retiring from CRS after 32 years of service. For over three decades at CRS, Mr. Price has played a significant role in providing assistance to Congress in analyzing major health care legislation. In his position at CRS, he has been an invaluable asset not only through his own work analyzing health care legislation, but also in his tireless efforts to guide others in the Health Care and Medicine unit at CRS which he managed.

Over the past three decades, Mr. Price has worked on health care legislation across a wide array of health care policy and programs. Mr. Price is a recognized expert on the major U.S. health care financing programs--Medicare and Medicaid; his particular areas of expertise span most aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement policy, long-term care, Medicaid eligibility, nursing home reform, managed care, hospice care, skilled nursing home services, end stage renal disease, home health care services, and public health service programs, among many others. His contributions to the development of legislation in these areas have been substantial. Over his long career at CRS, he has helped hundreds of staff understand the effect of the legislative proposals being considered through thoughtful analyses, balanced presentations, and clear explanations. I wish to especially thank him for his work with the Senate Finance Committee and its staff.

In addition to his own analytic work on legislative analysis, Mr. Price has been responsible for management of a staff of CRS analysts who assist Congress across a wide spectrum of health care issues, including those related to Medicare, Medicaid, the Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Veterans Administration. Mr. Price was instrumental in building the health care staff of CRS to a large team of senior analysts. In addition, Mr. Price has been involved in innumerable projects to develop the capacity of CRS analysts to evaluate and analyze health care data, including models to estimate the effect of various legislative changes in Medicare and other health care programs.

Other organizations that analyze issues related to health care policy have acknowledged Mr. Price's accomplishments and knowledge of U.S. health care policy. For example, Mr. Price is a member of the steering committee of the National Health Policy Forum, a nonpartisan organization that provides research to senior level health policy makers in Washington. Mr. Price is also a member of the prestigious National Academy on Social Insurance, NASI.

Mr. Price's service to Congress in the analysis and development of policy alternatives across a wide array of health care programs, his ability to conceptualize complex public policy issues, as well as his leadership of staff who work on many varied and complex health care issues, set the highest standards for assistance provided by CRS in service to the Congress. He will be missed, both here in Congress and across the street at the Library of Congress.

Mr. President, I was very sad to learn that Colonel Hackworth had died on May 4, 2005, in Tijuana, Mexico.

Tijuana is the place where Colonel Hackworth chose to make his last stand. He went there to fight one last battle. He had a particularly deadly form of cancer that spread. He went to Mexico, hoping for a miracle with an experimental drug treatment program.

Just before leaving his home in Connecticut for the last time in January 2005, he sent me one final message:

Give Senator Grassley my best. Have run out of conventional

options re my cancer. Got until March to find a solution. Off

to Mexico to see if we can't out Gee this monster. I am not

sweating my final orders from Headquarters. It has been a fun

ride. Plan on being planted in Arlington.

``Out-Geeing the G'' was one of Colonel Hackworth's favorite expressions.

He invented the term while leading troops in combat during the Vietnam war. He told his troops that they could beat the Viet Cong by using the guerrillas' own mobile, hit-and-run tactics. ``We are going to do what they do but just do it better,'' he said. `` We out-gee the

Mr. President, recently, the problem of steroid abuse has been getting a great deal of media attention. While this publicity has helped to raise public awareness about the dangers of illegal steroids, recent studies indicate that more and more young people are taking these drugs to improve their performance, appearance, or self image. In fact, some recent studies indicate that as many as 5 percent to 7 percent of students, even as young as middle school, admit to using illegal steroids.

Even more widespread among adolescents, however, is the use of over- the-counter supplements. Many young people are turning to ``supplements'' as an alternative to illegal steroids, mistakenly believing that because they are sold over the counter, they must be safe. However, many of these over the counter ``supplements'' actually produce the same dangerous effects on the body as illegal steroids. Some, even become steroids in the bloodstream.

Last year, the President signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added 18 anabolic steroid precursors to the list of anabolic steroids that are classified as controlled substances. Yet as I speak, on the shelves of health stores across the country, sits one anabolic steroid that can be bought by anyone, at any age, without the need of a doctor's prescription.

Dehydroepiandrosterone, or DHEA, is an anabolic steroid that once ingested, the body turns into testosterone. DHEA like all other steroids, may cause a number of long term physical and psychological effects, including: heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver damage, severe acne, baldness, dramatic mood swings, aggression etc. In fact, DHEA is already banned by the Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and Minor League Baseball, yet it actually enjoys special protections under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act.

In an effort to keep all potentially dangerous steroids out of the hands of unsuspecting consumers and children, I am pleased to introduce legislation

today that would add DHEA to the list of controlled substances under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act. This legislation will eliminate the special exemption granted to DHEA, thereby treating it as every other substance in the steroid family.

With the dramatic rise in the use of steroids among our nation's youth, now is the time to act to curb this increasingly growing problem. Just like all other anabolic steroids, DHEA should not be available over the counter, but only under a doctor's supervision. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, recently, the problem of steroid abuse has been getting a great deal of media attention. While this publicity has helped to raise public awareness about the dangers of illegal steroids, recent studies indicate that more and more young people are taking these drugs to improve their performance, appearance, or self image. In fact, some recent studies indicate that as many as 5 percent to 7 percent of students, even as young as middle school, admit to using illegal steroids.

Even more widespread among adolescents, however, is the use of over- the-counter supplements. Many young people are turning to ``supplements'' as an alternative to illegal steroids, mistakenly believing that because they are sold over the counter, they must be safe. However, many of these over the counter ``supplements'' actually produce the same dangerous effects on the body as illegal steroids. Some, even become steroids in the bloodstream.

Last year, the President signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added 18 anabolic steroid precursors to the list of anabolic steroids that are classified as controlled substances. Yet as I speak, on the shelves of health stores across the country, sits one anabolic steroid that can be bought by anyone, at any age, without the need of a doctor's prescription.

Dehydroepiandrosterone, or DHEA, is an anabolic steroid that once ingested, the body turns into testosterone. DHEA like all other steroids, may cause a number of long term physical and psychological effects, including: heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver damage, severe acne, baldness, dramatic mood swings, aggression etc. In fact, DHEA is already banned by the Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and Minor League Baseball, yet it actually enjoys special protections under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act.

In an effort to keep all potentially dangerous steroids out of the hands of unsuspecting consumers and children, I am pleased to introduce legislation

today that would add DHEA to the list of controlled substances under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act. This legislation will eliminate the special exemption granted to DHEA, thereby treating it as every other substance in the steroid family.

With the dramatic rise in the use of steroids among our nation's youth, now is the time to act to curb this increasingly growing problem. Just like all other anabolic steroids, DHEA should not be available over the counter, but only under a doctor's supervision. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, over the past three decades, prescription medicines have assumed a central and critical role in treating health care conditions. Every year, researchers make new discoveries that help patients cope with illnesses and improve their quality of life. Ensuring access to prescription drugs--to treatments that can help people maintain their health and avoid costly hospitalizations, for example--is a fundamental responsibility of our Federal health programs. We would not have worked as hard as we did to establish the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit if we did not believe this to be true. At the same time, we have a tremendous responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. I, for one, take that responsibility very seriously.

In 2004, our nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care. Medicare spending accounted for 17 percent of that amount. In 2005, Medicaid spending is expected to reach $321 billion. The Federal government offers me and other Federal employees health coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The Department of Defense has TRICARE for military personnel, and the Veterans' Administration provides an important source of health care access to those who proudly served our country. Year after year, the costs of these and other Federal health care programs continue to rise. Year after year, we are forced to make difficult decisions to find ways to save money under these programs with the goal of sustaining them well into the future.

In contrast to those decisions, the bill that I am introducing today was not difficult for me at all. By eliminating all Federal payments for certain ``lifestyle'' drugs, the legislation restores the fundamental concept of stewardship to prescription drug coverage under Federal programs. It is a pretty simple piece of legislation--no payment for drugs prescribed for sexual or erectile dysfunction under any Federal program, period. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Medicare and Medicaid alone will spend $2 billion on these drugs between 2006 and 2015. In my opinion, those dollars could be spent more wisely.

When we crafted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, our bipartisan agreement sought to strike the most reasonable balance for Medicare beneficiaries and hard working taxpayers. We wanted to make sure that beneficiaries had access to life-saving and life-improving medicines. Now some certainly may argue that these ``lifestyle'' drugs can improve your life. I

appreciate that view. However, we live in a world of limited resources, and in that world of limited resources coverage of these ``lifestyle'' drugs under Medicare--or any other Federal program, in my opinion--is inconsistent with that goal of balance. I am pleased to join with Senators Lott, Santorum, and Ensign in working to rectify that situation today and urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, over the past three decades, prescription medicines have assumed a central and critical role in treating health care conditions. Every year, researchers make new discoveries that help patients cope with illnesses and improve their quality of life. Ensuring access to prescription drugs--to treatments that can help people maintain their health and avoid costly hospitalizations, for example--is a fundamental responsibility of our Federal health programs. We would not have worked as hard as we did to establish the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit if we did not believe this to be true. At the same time, we have a tremendous responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. I, for one, take that responsibility very seriously.

In 2004, our nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care. Medicare spending accounted for 17 percent of that amount. In 2005, Medicaid spending is expected to reach $321 billion. The Federal government offers me and other Federal employees health coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The Department of Defense has TRICARE for military personnel, and the Veterans' Administration provides an important source of health care access to those who proudly served our country. Year after year, the costs of these and other Federal health care programs continue to rise. Year after year, we are forced to make difficult decisions to find ways to save money under these programs with the goal of sustaining them well into the future.

In contrast to those decisions, the bill that I am introducing today was not difficult for me at all. By eliminating all Federal payments for certain ``lifestyle'' drugs, the legislation restores the fundamental concept of stewardship to prescription drug coverage under Federal programs. It is a pretty simple piece of legislation--no payment for drugs prescribed for sexual or erectile dysfunction under any Federal program, period. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Medicare and Medicaid alone will spend $2 billion on these drugs between 2006 and 2015. In my opinion, those dollars could be spent more wisely.

When we crafted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, our bipartisan agreement sought to strike the most reasonable balance for Medicare beneficiaries and hard working taxpayers. We wanted to make sure that beneficiaries had access to life-saving and life-improving medicines. Now some certainly may argue that these ``lifestyle'' drugs can improve your life. I

appreciate that view. However, we live in a world of limited resources, and in that world of limited resources coverage of these ``lifestyle'' drugs under Medicare--or any other Federal program, in my opinion--is inconsistent with that goal of balance. I am pleased to join with Senators Lott, Santorum, and Ensign in working to rectify that situation today and urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am going to speak on the judge issue that is before the Senate. I was wondering what the time constraints are.

That means I can speak until 1 o'clock; is that right?

Mr. President, for several days now, the Senate has been debating two nominees for the Federal bench, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. I come to the floor to express my support for these two highly qualified women, and I also do it to urge my colleagues to support an up-or-down vote so that these folks know whether a majority of the Senate is consenting to their nomination by the President of the United States, in other words, confirm these two highly qualified judges.

One of the most important roles that we Senators have is the responsibility of advising and consenting to individuals that the President has nominated to fill positions on the three levels of the Federal judiciary. But this responsibility has been threatened by actions of Democratic leadership. Of course, that has brought us to this extended debate, over several days now, about the role of the Senate as expressed in the Constitution about the handling of Federal judges nominated by the President.

It seems to me the Constitution is very clear on the role of the Senate in this judicial confirmation process. Judicial nominees are chosen by the President with the advice and consent of this body. Until President Bush was elected, no one ever interpreted this requirement to mean anything but a simple majority vote of those present and voting in the Senate. For over 200 years, no judicial nomination, with a clear majority support in the Senate, had ever been denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. This was the case regardless of whether a Republican or Democratic President was in office. This was the case, regardless of whether the Senate was controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

Recently, in the last Congress, the Democratic leadership decided it was going to change the ground rules. The Senate Democrats rejected a 200-year-old Senate tradition of giving judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. By doing this, the Democratic leadership has rejected the Constitution, rejected the traditions of the Senate, and it seems to me as a result of the last election, when approving judges was very much an issue to the American electorate, they are now rejecting the will of the American people.

The Democratic leadership targeted 16 of President Bush's 52 court of appeal nominees. They actually filibustered 10 and threatened to filibuster 6

more, a full 31 percent of President Bush's appellate court nominees being stymied. Because of this, President Bush has had the lowest percentage of his court nominees confirmed by any President in recent memory.

What is this debate all about? It is basically a debate about what the Constitution requires of the Senate. It is a debate about fairness to the individuals who do not have an opportunity to see whether a majority of the Senate supports them and approves their appointment.

And in the case of fairness to the individual nominees, they have been waiting for years to be confirmed. They have majority support in the Senate, but a minority of Senators is opposed to President Bush's appellate court nominees and, as a consequence, will not allow the Senate to give these individuals an up-or-down vote. The Democratic leadership will not allow the Senate to exercise its constitutional duty of advice and consent.

The Democratic leadership will not allow even this one Senator to exercise my constitutional responsibilities. In a sense, this Senator from Iowa and 99 others are being denied an opportunity to carry out their constitutional responsibility. That is simply not right. The Constitution demands an up-or-down vote. Fairness demands an up-or-down vote.

Some have claimed a rule change on this matter is a violation of Senators' free speech and minority rights. Let me make it very clear, we are not talking about changing rules in this process, we are talking about abiding by the practice of the Senate, until 2 years ago, over the 214-year history of the Senate. So no rule change, just doing what the Senate has always been doing, and no one has raised the issue before about a Senator's free speech and minority rights being violated. There is not anything out of the ordinary then about a majority wanting to exercise its right to keep Senate procedures the same as they have always been.

For example, we were faced with problems in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987, problems that were visualized by the Senate majority leader at that time as stopping the Senate from doing what is constitutionally necessary for the Senate to do. In those years, Senator Byrd led a Democratic Senate majority in setting precedents to restrict minority rights. The Republicans, who were the minority party, did not respond by threatening the shutdown of the Senate or the stalling of legislation.

On the other hand, the actions of the Senate Democrats now are an unprecedented obstruction, plain and simple. The Democratic leadership is not interested in additional debate on the nominees. This is not about minorities wanting to exercise speech and debate on the nomination as long as they might want. The Republican majority leader has offered the Democrats time and again as much time as they want for debate. Yet the Democratic leader indicated in so many words that the Democrats would not agree to any time agreement.

The Democratic leadership has taken the position that it will not even allow an up-or-down vote on these nominees. The minority leader has indicated there is no time long enough for Democrats to debate these nominations.

I clearly understand the importance of filibusters and would not want to see them done away with completely. However, it is also important to make a distinction between filibustering legislation and filibustering judicial nominations. The interests of the minority party are protected in the Senate. It is the only segment of our Government where minority points of view are protected. It has served a very good purpose over 200 years bringing about compromise. Filibusters are meant to allow insurance that the minority has a voice in crafting legislation.

When working on a bill, it is possible to make changes in compromises to legislative language until you get the 60 votes needed under Senate rules to bring debate to a close.

In the tradition of the filibuster on legislation, unlimited debate ensures that compromise can take place, protecting some of the desires of the minority. That minority might not be a partisan minority; that minority could be a bipartisan minority that wants to make sure certain changes are made in legislation.

Judicial nominees, however, are very different than legislation. An individual such as Judge Brown or Judge Owen cannot be compromised some way so the filibuster, the way it is used in legislation, can be used to bring about compromise of an individual because you cannot redraft a person like you can redraft legislation to get over a filibuster, to get to finality so a majority can rule. In a sense, the minority is saying it is possible to use the filibuster to cut off the left arm of one of these nominees and put on a new arm so they are compromised to get to finality. That is ridiculous. It just does not work.

But it also illustrates the rationale behind a filibuster applicable to legislation, not applicable to an individual.

For judicial nominations, it is the Senate's responsibility to determine whether nominees are qualified for a position they are nominated to, and to say so through an up-or-down vote. Let a majority of the Senate decide if they are qualified.

Throughout our Nation's history, it has only taken a majority of Senators to determine a nominee's qualification for the judge position they are appointed to. It seems to me after a 214-year history, that is history worth continuing.

The reality about the Democratic leadership's filibuster is that the minority wants to block filling appellate court judgeships by requiring 60 votes to proceed to the nomination. But no other President has been required to get 60 votes for his judicial nominees. No other judicial nominee needed to pass the 60-vote hurdle of a supermajority.

Many Federal judges on the bench today would have never made it, not with that sort of requirement. In fact, all Senators here got elected by a simple majority, 50 percent of the vote. If we had requirements for supermajority rule for Senators to be elected, a lot of Senators who are my colleagues might not be here today. Why are Senators now wanting to approve judges only if they get a 60-percent vote? The reality is no other Senate majority has been excluded from judicial confirmation process in 214 years. We need to restore tradition and the law of judicial process. We need to give these nominees the up-or-down vote the Constitution requires. We need to stop a systematic denial of our advice and consent responsibilities which have been shuttered by the use of the filibuster.

I have been a Member of the Senate since 1981. Before I got to the Senate I served in the other body since 1974. I love the Senate. I have worked hard to be a very productive Senator. I want to do what is best for the Senate, for my constituents, and for my country. That is not different than the other 99 Senators most of the time. That is what we were all elected to do. The Republican majority leader is also trying to do what he thinks is the best thing for this country by moving to reestablish the over 200-year Senate tradition by giving judicial nominees the up-or-down vote.

This is not going to destroy the Senate. It is in the tradition of the Senate and it is within the tradition of the Constitution. The 214- year history of this Senate speaks louder than just the last 2 years, but the last 2 years will trump the first 214 years if we do not take action to keep the advice and consent confirmation process within the tradition of the Senate.

It is just plain hogwash to say that moving to make sure the rule is to give judicial nominees an up-or-down vote will hurt our ability to reestablish fairness in the judicial nominating process. It is not going to hurt minority rights. It establishes what we call regular order as it has been for 214 years. It will be fair both to Republicans and Democrats alike. All the majority leader wants to do is to have a chance to vote these nominees up or down. If these individuals do not have 51 votes, they will be rejected and should be rejected. But if these individuals do have 51 votes, then they should be confirmed. That is according to the Constitution.

If a Senator disapproves of any one of these individuals, vote against the nomination. I have done that in the past. But do not deprive the people the right to support a nominee through their elected Senator.

Some claim many judicial nominees were filibustered by Republicans, particularly when President Clinton was in office. That isn't accurate and that is a nice way for me to say it. Very few people either inside or outside this Chamber have been as involved in the issue of judicial nominations and the use of the filibuster as I have. As a long-time chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Federal Courts, I have a unique perspective on the debate and the use of filibusters.

First, when the Democrats were in a majority in the Senate under President Reagan--and this goes back to my starting in the Senate in 1981--they blocked 30 of President Reagan's nominees and 58 of President Bush Senior's nominees. They did that in the Judiciary Committee.

Now, that is not equivalent to a filibuster. I do not want to mislead anybody. Then, in the last few years of President Clinton's administration, many Republicans became disillusioned with the number of nominees the administration had sent to the Senate, and we felt our own Republican leadership was allowing out-of-the-mainstream nominees to be confirmed. This all came to a head with the nominations of Ninth Circuit Judges Paez and Berzon. Now, understand these people are serving as judges now. They were nominated to that position by President Clinton.

Going back to this time of Judges Paez and Berzon, at that time we had a Democratic President and a Republican-controlled Senate. There was serious talk of filibustering these nominees. I have heard some Democrats and ill-informed pundits try to make the case that Paez and Berzon were filibustered. Well, they were not.

The reality is, the Republican leadership, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, argued that there had never been a filibuster of an appellate court nominee. The Republican leadership argued Republicans should not cross that Rubicon and set the precedent because then it would be used against Republicans in the future when we had a Republican administration. So it was decided at that time there would not be a filibuster and we would not set that precedent. There would be a cloture vote, yes, but everyone knew that cloture vote would prevail and the nominee would be confirmed by a majority vote.

So the Members who wanted to filibuster decided to go along with the leadership's wise counsel even though these Members never trusted that the Democratic leadership would follow our example. I voted for cloture. I voted to get over 60 votes so we could move on with what we knew should have been done by the Senate. But I want you to know that I voted against these two nominees, Judges Paez and Berzon. And I was not alone. Other Republican Senators did the same thing. But in the end, unfortunately, those Members were right not to trust Democratic leadership because Democratic leadership has now crossed the filibuster Rubicon.

We are not only being denied the ability to perform our constitutional duty in the judicial selection process, the move to filibuster is upsetting the checks and balances and the separation of powers principle our Nation is founded upon. The Democrats are the ones who are upsetting the checks and balances. They want to grind the judicial process to a halt for appellate court nominees so they can fill the bench with individuals who have been rubberstamped by leftwing extreme groups.

Let me say something about the nominees, then, because these are the folks whom we are debating, these are the folks whose professional future, personal future is at stake by what we do here of allowing 51 votes when they will be approved or 60 votes when they will not be approved.

Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown are both highly qualified individuals, with exceptional legal abilities. They are talented women, respected women, true pioneers. But they have been drawn into the web of the far leftwing special interest groups. These women have been called outside the mainstream by their opponents. They have been called unworthy for the Federal bench.

They have been labeled, among other things, as ``activist,'' ``anticivil rights,'' and ``anticonsumer.'' These claims are not true. And the claims charged against other of President Bush's judicial nominees are just as false. All these outrageous claims have consequences.

The travesty is Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown have been waiting for years to be confirmed. The travesty is other worthy nominees such as Miguel Estrada got tired of putting up with the antics of the Senate, a Senate untraditional of its first 214-year history, and just said: I am not going to fight it anymore. So Miguel Estrada withdrew his nomination. The travesty is that a nominee like Judge Pickering is trashed. The travesty is that the good name of a nominee like William Pryor is dragged through the mud.

Ripping to shreds the reputation of these individuals with unfounded allegations is unacceptable. This tactic sends a clear message to good people who want to serve their country that they will have to endure outlandish and baseless attacks on their record and character if they ever want to be a Federal judge. The Democrats are doing this because they are using a far left litmus test to satisfy their leftwing--their leftwing that is out of the mainstream--special groups. So when the Democratic leadership says these nominees are outside the mainstream, they are basically saying these individuals have not been approved by their allies, the far left special interest groups.

But judicial nominees should not be subject to a litmus test. They should not be subject to an ideology litmus test. A nominee should not be opposed, as Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown are being opposed right now, because they will strictly follow the law, be constitutionalists, rather than legislating from the bench some leftwing agenda.

Moreover, history has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority, not a supermajority, in the Senate. That process ensures balance on the courts between judges placed on the bench by Republican Presidents and those placed on the bench by Democratic Presidents.

The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up-or- down vote. It is high time to make sure all judges receive fair up-or- down votes on the Senate floor, up-or-down votes for judicial nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents alike in the tradition of the Senate for 214 years, until 2 years ago.

In my town meetings across Iowa, I hear from people all the time, Why aren't the judges being confirmed? If we do not take care of this issue this week, I am going to hear it in my 22 town meetings across northwest Iowa next week when we are not in session. I think most people understand the process is being politicized to the point that good men and women are being demonized and their records distorted at an unprecedented level.

I hear from Iowans all the time that they want to see these nominees treated in a fair manner, and they want to see an up-or-down vote. The Democratic leadership likes to say the Republicans are the ones who are changing the rules. But that is not true. The Democrats are the ones who have engaged in extreme behavior and tactics, pulling out all the stops to defeat well-qualified nominees who would have majority support in the Senate if they were given an up-or-down vote. They are the ones who have distorted the rules to the point that the Senate is being denied its ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibility. And if Senator Frist has to do it, what he is doing is leaving the rules practiced exactly the way they were for 214 years.

Filibustering judicial nominees may be touted as standing firm on principle. On the contrary, what it boils down to is an obstruction of justice. Let's do the American people a favor. Let's stop the theatrics and get back to the people's business. All the rallies and political spin doctoring are not clearing any court dockets, and they are not impressing the American public either.

Let's debate the nominees and give our advice and consent. It is a simple ``yea'' or ``nay,'' when called to the altar to vote. Filibustering a nominee into oblivion is misguided warfare and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage influence in the Senate. Threatening to grind legislative activity to a standstill if they do not get

their way is like being a bully on the school yard playground. Let's do our jobs.

Nothing is nuclear about asking the full Senate to take an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. It is the way the Senate has operated for 214 years. The reality here is the Democrats are the ones who are turning Senate tradition on its head by installing a filibuster against the President's judicial nominees.

The Senate has a choice. We can live up to our constitutional duties to advise and consent to President Bush's judicial nominees or we can surrender our constitutional duty to the leftwing special interest groups who apparently control the Democratic Party. This Senator chooses to follow the Constitution.

We need to return to a respectable and fair process. We need to return to the law and the Constitution. We need to return to the Senate's longstanding tradition. We need an up-or-down vote for these judicial nominees.

In case there are some people sincerely led to believe that somehow appointing certain people with a strict constitutionalism to the courts is something to worry about, I would simply ask them to look at how history works in bringing balance to our judiciary throughout the history of our country. Think in terms of 8 years of a Republican President appointing maybe people who are strict constitutionalists to the judgeships--and not all of them are; but just say that they might all be--then you have 8 years of a Democratic president with people of an opposite point of view being appointed to the judgeships. That brings balance.

But also think in terms of how it is difficult to predict down the road 25 years how judges are going to rule. Think of two of the foremost liberal people on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens. Who do you think appointed these most liberal members to the Supreme Court? Republican Presidents did. And then balance that with the two other most liberal members on the Supreme Court, Breyer and Ginsburg. Who appointed them? A Democratic President. You could make an argument that Republican Presidents have brought more balance to the Supreme Court than Democratic Presidents have.

Then the other thing is, look at somewhere you thought they were going to be predictable where they would end up, and you have Justice Kennedy and you have Justice O'Connor, who were supposed to be very strict constructionists when they were appointed to the Supreme Court, but they go back and forth between the conservative wing of the Court and the liberal wing of the Court.

So whatever worries the Democratic Senators of today, I wish they would take a look at history. Time answers a lot of these problems. Elections answer a lot of these problems. And we have a great constitutional system that has worked for so long over such a long period of time that in the final analysis everything is going to work out OK.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

One of the things that the public at large can get confused about is that we are going to eliminate the use of the filibuster entirely. I have seen some of the ``527'' commercials advising constituents to get hold of their Congressman because minority rights are going to be trampled.

I, obviously, find that ludicrous. I know this debate is not about changing anything dealing with legislation. It is just maintaining the system we have had in the Senate on judges for 214 years. I wonder if the Senator would clear up that we are talking just about judicial nominees, and not even all judicial nominees, and nothing to change the filibuster on legislation.

So when we just came back into the majority, after the 1994 election, there was an effort by Democrats to eliminate the filibuster?

For everything, including legislation.

We were the new majority.

And we would have benefited very much from that. It would have given us an opportunity to get anything done that we could get 51 votes for doing, with no impediment, and we voted against that?

So I think that ought to make it clear we are just talking about the unprecedented use of the filibuster within the last 2 years. We are not talking about changing anything in regard to filibusters on legislation because we understand that is where you can work compromises. You cannot really work compromises when it comes to an individual--is it either up or down. But you can change words, you can change paragraphs, you can rewrite an entire bill to get to 60, to get to finality, on any piece of legislation.

And maintain the practice of the Senate as it has been for 214 years prior to 2 years ago.

I thank the Senator.

Yes, so long as the commercial airline fuel transaction takes place on one of the secure airports listed by the Treasury, then, that also is my understanding.

Mr. President, after great effort by many people, the Senate is ready to move us one step closer to enacting legislation with the potential to impact all Americans in every state. Crumbling infrastructure and poor transportation choices impede our ability to live and do business, and the Senate clearly recognizes that fact. Our transportation bill utilizes more than $295 billion to ensure all Americans have access to efficient and reliable transportation as they go about their professional and personal lives.

Among the many people whose hard work has made the difference, I must first thank the chairmen and ranking members of all the appropriating committees that have been involved in this process.

Credit must also go to all members of my staff, who spent many hours sifting through the nuts and bolts of this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Ed McClellan, Dean Zerbe, John O'Neill, Sherry Kuntz, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them.

As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was imperative. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth, Matt Jones, Jon Selib, Anita Horn Rizek, Judy Miller, Melissa Mueller, Ryan Abraham, Mary Baker, and Wendy Carey.

I also want to mention George K. Yin, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff, especially the fuel fraud team of Tom Barthold, Deirdre James, Roger Colinvaux, and Allen Littman, as well as the always invaluable assistance of Mark Mathiesen, Jim Fransen and Mark McGunagle of Senate Legislative Counsel.

This bill is infused with the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. Hopefully that spirit will survive the ongoing legislative process.

Mr. President, it should be quite obvious from America's increasing dependence on foreign sources of oil that it has now reached a very critical threshold which calls for immediate action. This bill before us is part of our immediate action, as it has some things in it to increase our availability of domestic supplies of energy. Global oil prices and supplies remain beyond our reach, just as surely as our own demand here at home will remain constant. Abroad, oil prices and supplies are at best in a state of flux, very unpredictable. At worst, you could say that things are beyond our control.

Our obvious goal in a lot of our energy legislation--some of it is part of this bill and part of the debate we had 2 years ago on the highway bill--is to get some of this under our control by having less dependence upon foreign sources of oil.

In China, for instance, the competition for oil is unprecedented. So determined is China to protect itself and its burgeoning growth against global uncertainty, they have recently secured supplies from both Canada and Venezuela and are actively seeking oil from producers upon whom the United States has traditionally relied. Some experts suggest that we have now reached our global supply limits, perhaps even that we have exceeded them.

If they are correct--and of course we hope they are not--we face more shortages and rising prices. The answer to these very real and vexing questions about the global security of supply and price for America's oil demands are far beyond this Senator and indeed even beyond this legislation before the Senate.

However, I believe, with this amendment as part of the managers' package, we will go a long way toward reducing our domestic dependence upon oil dedicated to our transportation sector. We are gulping vast amounts of imported oil in an increasingly futile attempt to quench our thirsty addiction to petroleum. Today, our transportation sector accounts for two-thirds of the total United States demand. This forces us to import a whopping 60 percent of our petroleum needs.

I remember a time when we thought it was inconceivable America would ever exceed even 50-percent reliance upon foreign oil. Yet, we have, and then we exceeded even that, until here we are today at more than 60 percent. What can we do now to alleviate the problem? How can we do so here at home?

The President pointed something out when he spoke last week about the pressing needs to develop and implement comprehensive national energy policy, and I think it bears repeating if only through paraphrasing. President Bush indicated that technology would provide our Nation with the means to reduce our demand for petroleum-based fuel, thus reducing the high price of gasoline. The President also stressed we must embrace domestic alternative fuels as a critical midstep on the pathway toward hydrogen, which may well prove to be our ultimate fix. But the simple fact remains that a sustainable, affordable hydrogen program is still decades away. Transitioning America away from our entrenched dependency on foreign petroleum fuels to cleaner, cheaper domestic alternatives is occurring right now here at home. We should not be oblivious to it. I agree with the President that these domestic alternatives need to be embraced and encouraged. To that end, therefore, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I have developed a proposal entitled the ``Volumetric Excise Tax Credit for Alternative Fuels.'' It would be just like VEETC for ethanol and biodiesel that we passed last year, only extended to alternative fuels. This proposal would help significantly accomplish that goal of being less dependent upon foreign sources of energy.

The VEETC proposal would provide for the expansion and modification of the Volumetric Excise Tax Credit for Alternative Fuels. Our proposal will expand last year's excise tax formula, as it relates to ethanol, to include an excise tax credit for all domestic alternative fuels which would displace imported petroleum. This is how it would work. Some fuels, such as natural gas, presently pay a partially reduced rate of excise tax into the highway trust fund.

However, because these motor vehicles exact the same amount of damage to our roads and highways, my amendment would have them pay an increased rate of Federal excise tax into the highway trust fund. With this mechanism, the President's objective of displacing as much imported oil as possible is met. As importantly, the increased excise tax payments would go a long way toward increasing revenue into the highway trust fund for the near term and well into the foreseeable future.

This is not a new concept. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, a similar provision last year providing the same treatment for ethanol and biodiesel. In an effort to further encourage other domestic alternative fuels, this new VEETC amendment that we will be taking up which enjoys broad bipartisan support, it constitutes a simple expansion on the part of the framers to include other alternative fuels which displace imported petroleum-based fuels. Adoption of the VEETC for alternative fuels would constitute a win-win. It puts more money into the highway trust fund, while at the same time promoting domestic sources of motor fuel.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to respond to the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee. Yesterday afternoon, my colleague responded to my defense of the merits of the Finance Committee title in Chairman Inhofe's substitute.

Since Chairman Gregg's response came shortly before the session ended last night, I am responding this morning.

I respect Chairman Gregg's efforts in his initial year as chairman of the Budget Committee. I congratulate him now as I have in the past on his victory in achieving a budget resolution. I was proud to support him in committee, on the floor, and in conference on the resolution.

As a senior member of the Budget Committee, I take its role seriously. I respect the Budget Act and the importance of the tools of fiscal discipline that points of order and other enforcement devices bring to the legislative process. I also respect the key role of the Budget Committee chairman and his staff under the Budget Act.

A careful and fair review of my statement will show that it is consistent with these long-held views. My statement did not claim that there was no valid Budget Act point of order against the Finance title of the Inhofe substitute. My statement did not question the authority of the Budget Committee chairman in raising the point order.

My statement responded to several very specific assertions against the Finance Committee title. One assertion, made quite passionately by Chairman Gregg, was that the Finance Committee amendment was a product of accounting gimmicks. Another assertion was that the amendment was not offset. I responded to the two main assertions ad relied on the Congress' official tax policy scorekeepter, the Joint Committee on Taxation. Chairman Gregg is right that, under the Budget Act, it is the Chairman Budget Committee chairman that the Senate parliamentarian looks to determine whether a point of order is well-founded. The Joint Committee on Taxation, however, determines the scoring of revenue measures.

I will not go into the other points of disagreement in our statements because the statements speak for themselves.

In sum and substance, my statement defended the Finance Committee title on its scoring by the Joint Committee. My statement did not dispute that the amendment spending level was above those contemplated by the Budget Resolution or the spending level agreed to by the administration and congressional Republican leadership. Of course, Finance Committee jurisdiction extends only to the cash flow of the Highway Trust Fund. The Finance Committee title added additional cash inflow, trust fund receipts, and additional cash outflow, trust fund outlays. The Finance Committee title balances additional trust fund receipts and outlays. That was the job we were asked to do and we did it in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. President, can I have the attention of the Senator from West Virginia, please. The Senator from West Virginia does not need to respond to this, but I just want to make sure. First, I rise because about 6 o'clock yesterday afternoon, I promised the Senator from West Virginia that I would get back with him and hopefully have Senator Baucus with me to discuss whether we could go along with his amendment.

I got the amendment over to my staff, as I promised I would, about that time, but it was 9:30 this morning before I was able to get the two staffs together. I never did get together with Senator Baucus so I could come over and visit with the Senator personally about it.

We have found a cost argument, not an argument against the Senator's point of view on the substance of his amendment, but it is my responsibility as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to find offset. Now, I do not say this to denigrate the Senator's efforts--the Senator does not have to worry about offsets; that is my job--but if I were going to go along with the amendment of the Senator, I would have the responsibility to find an offset.

So I apologize, first, for not getting back to the Senator as I promised I would last night. But based upon some of the arguments that Mr. Inhofe gave but more importantly related to the work of my committee--and I cannot speak for Senator Baucus, but I think there is an agreement among our staff, and I do not want to put a figure on it without having the Joint Tax Committee actually score something, but this is a tremendously expensive amendment, not that it is not justified.

I would have to come up with a fairly large figure that my staff tells me would be close to what we have already raised to bring more money into the transportation fund so that we can get more money for the Senator's State and my State, and more money even for the transit that is a basis for the Senator's argument because he does not have the mass transit--and we do not have the mass transit in Iowa as well, so Iowans would benefit from the Senator's amendment. But I just cannot find that money, and it would detract from all the money we previously had raised.

I do not know what the course of action is, but I would have to take the position of advising people not to vote for the Senator's amendment.

Yes.

Mr. President, I am not going to raise any more issues. I have expressed why I cannot support the amendment, and I will reserve any other action at the time we vote. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for being understanding of why I did not get back to him.