Floor Statements

Madam President, I am aware that an amendment has been offered to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 that would provide coverage through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to pregnant women.

The amendment is similar to a bill that passed out of the Finance Committee last July. The bill providing health care to low-income pregnant women was never enacted in the 107th Congress. I support caring for low-income mothers and their unborn children. It is sound health policy.

It is a new Congress, and unfortunately, I can't support this amendment. This policy has not been properly debated in the 108th Congress.

Policies that alter our Nation's safety net programs deserve the Senate's proper attention. We must address policy changes to the safety net through regular order. By accepting this amendment, we are not allowing for this process to work.

Earlier this year, I worked with Senator Nickles, Senator Snowe and others to setup a process to address the need to redistribute unspent S-CHIP funds. Together we have set up a solid process to address S-CHIP redistribution through regular order.

I assure my colleagues that, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I am willing to address pertinent S-CHIP issues in the near future and discuss the possibility of extending S-CHIP coverage to pregnant women.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today we offer a bipartisan energy tax incentives package for the 108th Congress. I have been joined in this introduction by not only Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, but also the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman as original sponsors of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003, which we are introducing today.

This bill is substantially similar to the Energy Tax Incentives Bill which won overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate last April. It continues to represent a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. As we move forward towards a Mark-up of an energy tax bill by the Finance Committee, this bill represents a starting point. We hope over the next few weeks to be able to incorporate some of the new and improved versions of some of the provisions that we developed over the many months of conference during the last Congress.

I remain committed to diverse sources of energy and electricity, to include the production of electricity for wind and agricultural waste nutrients. In addition this bill reflects my continued interest in biodiesel and provisions to support small ethanol producers. I look forward to working with the Sponsors to craft a responsive bipartisan energy tax package.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that today we offer a bipartisan energy tax incentives package for the 108th Congress. I have been joined in this introduction by not only Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, but also the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman as original sponsors of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003, which we are introducing today.

This bill is substantially similar to the Energy Tax Incentives Bill which won overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate last April. It continues to represent a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. As we move forward towards a Mark-up of an energy tax bill by the Finance Committee, this bill represents a starting point. We hope over the next few weeks to be able to incorporate some of the new and improved versions of some of the provisions that we developed over the many months of conference during the last Congress.

I remain committed to diverse sources of energy and electricity, to include the production of electricity for wind and agricultural waste nutrients. In addition this bill reflects my continued interest in biodiesel and provisions to support small ethanol producers. I look forward to working with the Sponsors to craft a responsive bipartisan energy tax package.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2003, a bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings. This legislation will provide Federal judges with the statutory authority to exercise their discretion to allow the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of federal court proceedings.

During the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported identical legislation favorably, by a vote of 12 to 7. It's my hope that the full Senate will have the opportunity to act on this bill as early as possible in the 108th Congress.

Sunshine bill will help the American people to become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help to produce a better judiciary. Increased public awareness and scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job.

Allowing cameras in the Federal courts is consistent with the intent of our Nation's Founders that trials should be held in front of as many people as choose to attend them. In my view, the First Amendment to the Constitution requires that court proceedings must be open to the public and, by extension, to the news media. As the Supreme Court has said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.''

Clearly, the basic American values of openness and education are served by allowing electronic media access to Federal courtrooms. There are many beneficial and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. Fifteen States have conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits that are derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributes to greater public understanding of the judicial system.

Moroever, the experience of the States with electronic media access to judicial proceedings demonstrate that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, all fifty States allow at least some degree of camera access to judicial proceedings under a wide variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa, for example, has operated successfully in this open manner for more than 20 years.

Furthermore, at the Federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 that studied the effects of allowing camera access to courtrooms. The study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in judicial proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.''

Based on the experience of the States, as well as state and Federal studies, Senator Schumer and I are introducing this bill with a well- founded confidence that it represents sound public policy. Nevertheless, in order to provide a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent, we have included a three-year sunset provision in our bill.

The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that there is a strong public interest in electronic media access to important court cases. At my urging and that of Senator Schumer, Chief Justice Rehnquist permitted the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the historic 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was a major step in the right direction.

It is important to emphasize, that this bill does not require any Federal judge in any Federal court to allow camera access to judicial proceedings. Rather, it simply gives Federal judges the discretion to allow cameras or other electronic media access if they see fit. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured.

This piece of sunshine legislation will bring greater openness and accountability to the Nation's Federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our Federal judiciary, which has tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by allowing judges to exercise their discretion in opening Federal courtrooms to public view through the broadcasting and televising of judicial proceedings. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2003, a bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings. This legislation will provide Federal judges with the statutory authority to exercise their discretion to allow the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of federal court proceedings.

During the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported identical legislation favorably, by a vote of 12 to 7. It's my hope that the full Senate will have the opportunity to act on this bill as early as possible in the 108th Congress.

Sunshine bill will help the American people to become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help to produce a better judiciary. Increased public awareness and scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job.

Allowing cameras in the Federal courts is consistent with the intent of our Nation's Founders that trials should be held in front of as many people as choose to attend them. In my view, the First Amendment to the Constitution requires that court proceedings must be open to the public and, by extension, to the news media. As the Supreme Court has said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.''

Clearly, the basic American values of openness and education are served by allowing electronic media access to Federal courtrooms. There are many beneficial and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. Fifteen States have conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits that are derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributes to greater public understanding of the judicial system.

Moroever, the experience of the States with electronic media access to judicial proceedings demonstrate that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, all fifty States allow at least some degree of camera access to judicial proceedings under a wide variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa, for example, has operated successfully in this open manner for more than 20 years.

Furthermore, at the Federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 that studied the effects of allowing camera access to courtrooms. The study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in judicial proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.''

Based on the experience of the States, as well as state and Federal studies, Senator Schumer and I are introducing this bill with a well- founded confidence that it represents sound public policy. Nevertheless, in order to provide a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent, we have included a three-year sunset provision in our bill.

The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that there is a strong public interest in electronic media access to important court cases. At my urging and that of Senator Schumer, Chief Justice Rehnquist permitted the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the historic 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was a major step in the right direction.

It is important to emphasize, that this bill does not require any Federal judge in any Federal court to allow camera access to judicial proceedings. Rather, it simply gives Federal judges the discretion to allow cameras or other electronic media access if they see fit. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured.

This piece of sunshine legislation will bring greater openness and accountability to the Nation's Federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our Federal judiciary, which has tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by allowing judges to exercise their discretion in opening Federal courtrooms to public view through the broadcasting and televising of judicial proceedings. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation intended to help states address the educational needs of gifted and talented students. There are approximately 3 million children in the United States who are considered gifted and talented. It is important to note that gifted and talented children are not simply the kids who do well in school and get good grades. In fact, not all gifted students get good grades and not all students who get straight A's are necessarily gifted learners. What makes a child gifted and talented is how he or she learns. Gifted and talented children actually look at the world differently and often have a different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented students have different educational needs than other students.

I am reminded of an example from my home state of Iowa. I have learned of a third grade student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was having trouble in school. He didn't always complete his assignments and he had trouble paying attention in class. He was also a bit of a loner and didn't interact much with his classmates. As a result, his teacher saw him as a problem student and struggled to get him to behave like the other children. Still, it was clear to Jose's parents that he had a hunger to learn. He loved to go to the library and was very inquisitive. Over the summer, Jose's parents had his IQ tested and he was found to have a high level of intelligence. As a result, when he started school again in the fall, his parents asked that he be identified as gifted and receive services. Jose now leaves his regular classroom a couple of times a week for what Iowa City schools call the ``extended learning program.'' As a result, he is finally receiving the stimulation he was lacking at school. Jose now enjoys school more, has made new friends, and is doing great with his regular school work.

Gifted and talented children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and talented children do not receive the educational programs and services they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor work habits. Some may abandon their education altogether and drop out of school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our society.

We hear a lot about how the United States has a shortage of individuals with the skills in math and science that are necessary for our Nation to continue to be competitive in today's global economy. Our security agencies are scrambling to find linguists who know or can quickly learn foreign languages. In fact, one of the findings included in my bill states, ``To meet the future economic and national security needs of the United States, it is important that more students achieve to higher levels, and that highly capable students receive an education that prepares them to perform the most highly innovative and creative work that is necessary to secure our Nation's position in the world.''

In times of national crisis or uncertainty, the United States has always turned to its best and brightest to solve whatever problems face us. The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union brought to national attention for the first time the need to develop the special gifts and talents of young Americans. Once again, we find ourselves in a time of uncertainty, facing new threats and challenges that we are struggling to understand. In order to ensure that our country is prepared to face whatever unforeseen problems will come our way in the future, we must invest now in this vital national resource, gifted students.

My legislation is not intended to make the education of gifted and talented students primarily a Federal responsibility. Education is, and should be, chiefly a State and local responsibility. Nevertheless, the Federal Government does have a role to play. The availability and quality of gifted and talented educational services currently varies widely from State to State. This situation has an especially adverse effect on disadvantaged gifted students whose parents cannot afford to pay for private programs or summer camps. Untimately, gifted and talented students in every public school should have access to specialized educational services that are designed to address their learning needs. Still, my bill would simply provide the seed money to help States begin to expand the availability of gifted education services.

My gifted and talented initiative would distribute grants, based on a State's student population, to each State education agency. States will then provide grants to local school districts on a competitive basis to be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. Rather than providing a steady Federal funding stream directly to the local level, on which schools might become dependent, the competitive subgrants will allow States to target school districts that need to jump-start their gifted and talented program. At the same time, the local competitive grant process will encourage State education agencies to more closely examine the needs of gifted children in their respective States.

At least 90 percent of the funds provided to a State must be subgranted to school districts and the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, States must make their own commitment to gifted and talented students by matching 10 percent of the Federal funds, either in cash or in kind. All of this is intended to help gifted and talents programs and services take root in each State and in local school districts so that they can grow and develop to fully address the unique educational needs of this special group of students.

I have intentionally included a broad range of authorized uses for the grants in my bill in order to allow States and local school districts the flexibility to address their specific needs. School districts can use these funds to provide professional development for personnel involved in the education of gifted and talented students, including gifted education teachers, general education teachers, and other school personnel like administrators and school counselors. The funds can also be used to provide direct educational services and materials. Or, school districts could use the funds to support items like innovative strategies for teaching gifted students, making materials available through regional centers, or providing high-level course work through distance learning technology.

The Federal involvement in gifted and talented education is not new. The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act has provided valuable information on strategies to meet the needs of gifted students since 1988 through the funding of demonstration grants and the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress expanded the Javits Act to authorize competitive grants to States to expand the capacity of States to meet the needs of gifted students. These new grants represent some potential to improve the ability of select States to address the needs of gifted and talented children, and I am pleased with the progress we have been able to make thus far. My legislation would build on the existing Javits Act to create a comprehensive approach to expanding the ability of States and school districts nationwide to meet the needs of gifted and talented students.

Congress has rightly placed a renewed emphasis on making sure all children are successful learners. In our efforts to leave no child behind, we must not forget gifted and talented students. I would remind my colleagues of the example I cited earlier. Jose is a success story because his parents saw his potential and pointed it out to school officials, and because he attended a school where quality gifted education services are available. There are many more students like Jose across the country who have either not been identified as gifted or who attend a school where gifted education services are not provided. I would urge my colleagues to join me in seeing that these exceptional young people across our great Nation have the support and services they need to be successful. I ask for your support for the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2003.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation intended to help states address the educational needs of gifted and talented students. There are approximately 3 million children in the United States who are considered gifted and talented. It is important to note that gifted and talented children are not simply the kids who do well in school and get good grades. In fact, not all gifted students get good grades and not all students who get straight A's are necessarily gifted learners. What makes a child gifted and talented is how he or she learns. Gifted and talented children actually look at the world differently and often have a different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented students have different educational needs than other students.

I am reminded of an example from my home state of Iowa. I have learned of a third grade student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was having trouble in school. He didn't always complete his assignments and he had trouble paying attention in class. He was also a bit of a loner and didn't interact much with his classmates. As a result, his teacher saw him as a problem student and struggled to get him to behave like the other children. Still, it was clear to Jose's parents that he had a hunger to learn. He loved to go to the library and was very inquisitive. Over the summer, Jose's parents had his IQ tested and he was found to have a high level of intelligence. As a result, when he started school again in the fall, his parents asked that he be identified as gifted and receive services. Jose now leaves his regular classroom a couple of times a week for what Iowa City schools call the ``extended learning program.'' As a result, he is finally receiving the stimulation he was lacking at school. Jose now enjoys school more, has made new friends, and is doing great with his regular school work.

Gifted and talented children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and talented children do not receive the educational programs and services they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor work habits. Some may abandon their education altogether and drop out of school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our society.

We hear a lot about how the United States has a shortage of individuals with the skills in math and science that are necessary for our Nation to continue to be competitive in today's global economy. Our security agencies are scrambling to find linguists who know or can quickly learn foreign languages. In fact, one of the findings included in my bill states, ``To meet the future economic and national security needs of the United States, it is important that more students achieve to higher levels, and that highly capable students receive an education that prepares them to perform the most highly innovative and creative work that is necessary to secure our Nation's position in the world.''

In times of national crisis or uncertainty, the United States has always turned to its best and brightest to solve whatever problems face us. The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union brought to national attention for the first time the need to develop the special gifts and talents of young Americans. Once again, we find ourselves in a time of uncertainty, facing new threats and challenges that we are struggling to understand. In order to ensure that our country is prepared to face whatever unforeseen problems will come our way in the future, we must invest now in this vital national resource, gifted students.

My legislation is not intended to make the education of gifted and talented students primarily a Federal responsibility. Education is, and should be, chiefly a State and local responsibility. Nevertheless, the Federal Government does have a role to play. The availability and quality of gifted and talented educational services currently varies widely from State to State. This situation has an especially adverse effect on disadvantaged gifted students whose parents cannot afford to pay for private programs or summer camps. Untimately, gifted and talented students in every public school should have access to specialized educational services that are designed to address their learning needs. Still, my bill would simply provide the seed money to help States begin to expand the availability of gifted education services.

My gifted and talented initiative would distribute grants, based on a State's student population, to each State education agency. States will then provide grants to local school districts on a competitive basis to be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. Rather than providing a steady Federal funding stream directly to the local level, on which schools might become dependent, the competitive subgrants will allow States to target school districts that need to jump-start their gifted and talented program. At the same time, the local competitive grant process will encourage State education agencies to more closely examine the needs of gifted children in their respective States.

At least 90 percent of the funds provided to a State must be subgranted to school districts and the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, States must make their own commitment to gifted and talented students by matching 10 percent of the Federal funds, either in cash or in kind. All of this is intended to help gifted and talents programs and services take root in each State and in local school districts so that they can grow and develop to fully address the unique educational needs of this special group of students.

I have intentionally included a broad range of authorized uses for the grants in my bill in order to allow States and local school districts the flexibility to address their specific needs. School districts can use these funds to provide professional development for personnel involved in the education of gifted and talented students, including gifted education teachers, general education teachers, and other school personnel like administrators and school counselors. The funds can also be used to provide direct educational services and materials. Or, school districts could use the funds to support items like innovative strategies for teaching gifted students, making materials available through regional centers, or providing high-level course work through distance learning technology.

The Federal involvement in gifted and talented education is not new. The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act has provided valuable information on strategies to meet the needs of gifted students since 1988 through the funding of demonstration grants and the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress expanded the Javits Act to authorize competitive grants to States to expand the capacity of States to meet the needs of gifted students. These new grants represent some potential to improve the ability of select States to address the needs of gifted and talented children, and I am pleased with the progress we have been able to make thus far. My legislation would build on the existing Javits Act to create a comprehensive approach to expanding the ability of States and school districts nationwide to meet the needs of gifted and talented students.

Congress has rightly placed a renewed emphasis on making sure all children are successful learners. In our efforts to leave no child behind, we must not forget gifted and talented students. I would remind my colleagues of the example I cited earlier. Jose is a success story because his parents saw his potential and pointed it out to school officials, and because he attended a school where quality gifted education services are available. There are many more students like Jose across the country who have either not been identified as gifted or who attend a school where gifted education services are not provided. I would urge my colleagues to join me in seeing that these exceptional young people across our great Nation have the support and services they need to be successful. I ask for your support for the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2003.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise once again to speak in support of the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, an exceptionally well qualified nominee who does not deserve to have his nomination obstructed by this filibuster. I have been a strong supporter of Mr. Estrada's since he came before the Judiciary Committee last year. At that time, I argued that his nomination should come up for a floor vote, but we were not allowed to vote on his nomination then. Here we are a year later, and I am still strongly supporting Mr. Estrada, and I am still arguing for a floor vote, and that vote is still being refused. I think it is shameful to continue holding up the vote on this very qualified judicial nominee, who, by the way, will make an excellent member of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

I know my colleagues heard Mr. Estrada's credentials many times last week. In fact, I am pretty sure that some of my colleagues could quote his credentials in their sleep. However, I think it is important that the Senate is reminded of how qualified this nominee is who is being filibustered. Not only is he regarded as one of the Nation's top appellate lawyers, having argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, but the American Bar Association, which I think Democrats consider the gold standard of determination of the person's qualifications to be a judicial nominee, has given him a unanimous rating of, in their words, ``well qualified.'' This happens to be the highest American Bar Association rating. It is a rating they would not give to just any lawyer who comes up the pike. According to the American Bar Association, quoting from their standard:

To merit a rating of well qualified, the nominee must be at

the top of the legal profession in his or her legal

community, having outstanding legal ability, breadth of

experience, the highest reputation for integrity and either

have demonstrated or exhibited the capacity for judicial

temperament.

We ought to demand that more qualified people like Miguel Estrada be appointed to the bench rather than fighting his nomination.

As my colleagues know, I am not a lawyer. There is nothing wrong with going to law school, but I did not. I have been on the Judiciary Committee my entire time in the Senate. I know some of the qualifications that are needed to be a Federal judge, particularly a Federal judge on this DC Circuit that handles so many appeals from administrative agencies and is often considered, by legal experts, to be the second highest court of our land.

Mr. Estrada's academic credentials are stellar. He graduated from Columbia University with his bachelor's degree magna cum laude and was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Then he earned his juris doctorate from Harvard University, also magna cum laude, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Estrada did not just attend Harvard Law School; he graduated with honors. He also served as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. To be selected as the editor of a law review is a feat that only the most exceptional of law students attain.

While Mr. Estrada certainly has the intellect required to be a Federal judge, his professional background also gives testament to his being qualified for a Federal Court of Appeals judgeship as opposed to just any judgeship.

After law school, Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, on the United States Supreme Court. Subsequently, he served as an Assistant US Attorney and deputy chief of the appellate section of the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York, and then as assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States of America.

Mr. Estrada has been in the private sector as well. He is a partner with the Washington, DC, office of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. In this exceptional career, Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He won nine of those cases. Mr. Estrada is not just an appellate lawyer; he is one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. So for a young lawyer, I think I can give my colleagues a person who can truly be labeled an American success story. In fact, instead of degrading his ability to serve as a circuit court judge, we should all be proud of Mr. Estrada's many accomplishments.

This is the nominee that the Democrats are filibustering. I fail to understand why a nominee of these outstanding qualifications, and who has been honored by the ABA with its highest rating, would be the object of such obstruction. In all my years on the Judiciary Committee--and that has been my entire tenure in the Senate-- Republicans never once filibustered a Democratic President's nominee to the Federal bench. There are many I may have wanted to filibuster, but I did not do it--we did not do it--because it is not right.

In fact, as I understand it, in the entire history of the Senate neither party has ever filibustered a judicial nominee. Going back over 200 years, Republicans and Democrats have resisted the urge to obstruct a nominee by filibustering. Good men of sound judgment have come to the conclusion that to use this tool of last resorts to obstruct a nomination is, at best, inappropriate, and, at worst, just down right wrong.

This nominee, like all nominees, deserves an up-or-down vote. Anything less is absolutely unfair. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider this filibuster. The Senate should not cross this Rubicon and establish new precedent for the confirmation process.

Over 40 newspapers from across the country have published editorials advocating that the Senate give Mr. Estrada a vote. Even the Washington Post, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism, published an editorial last week entitled, ``Just Vote.'' In that editorial, the Post correctly characterized the Democrats obstructionist efforts. With regard to the Democrat request for the internal memos Mr. Estrada drafted while he was in the Solicitor General's Office, the Post said

that this filibuster of Mr. Estrada goes beyond the normal political confirmation games, because,

Democrats demand, as a condition of a vote, answers to

questions that no nominee should be forced to address--and

that nominees have not previously been forced to address.

I agree with the Post:

It's long past time to stop these games and vote.

I make a unanimous consent request that this Washington Post editorial, ``Just Vote'' be printed in the Record after my statement.

Those denying the Senate an up-or-down vote on Mr. Estrada's nomination claim that he has not answered questions or produced documentation, and so he should not be confirmed to the Federal bench. I can think of a number of Democratic nominees who did not sufficiently answer question that I submitted to them, but that did not lead me to filibuster. As far as I know, Mr. Estrada has answered all questions posed to him by the Judiciary Committee members.

His opponents claim that he has refused to hand over certain in-house Justice Department memoranda. What actually is happening is that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have requested that the Department of Justice submit to the Committee, internal memoranda written by Miguel Estrada when he was an attorney in the Solicitor General's Office. These internal memos are attorney work product, specifically appeal, certiorari, and amicus memoranda, and the Justice Department has rightly refused to produce them.

The Department of Justice has never disclosed such sensitive information in the context of a Court of Appeals nomination. These memoranda should not be released, because they detail the appeal, certiorari and amicus recommendations and legal opinions of an assistant to the Solicitor General. This is not just the policy of this administration, the Bush administration, a Republican administration. This has also been the policy under Democratic Presidents.

The inappropriateness of this request prompted all seven living former Solicitors General to write a bipartisan letter to the Committee to express their concern regarding the Committee's request and to defend the need to keep such documents confidential. The letter was signed by Democrats Seth Waxman, Walter Dellinger, Drew Days III and Republicans Ken Starr, Charles Fried, Robert Bork and Archibald Cox. The letter notes that when each of the Solicitors General made important decisions regarding whether to seek Supreme Court review of adverse appellate decisions and whether to participate as amicus curiae in other high profile cases, they:

relied on frank, honest and thorough advice from [their]

staff attorneys like Mr. Estrada . . .

and that the open exchange of ideas which must occur in such a context

Simply cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear

that their private recommendations are not private at all,

but vulnerable to public disclosure.

The letter concludes that

Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged

deliberations would come at a cost of the Solicitor General's

ability to defend vigorously the United States litigation

interests, a cost that also would be borne by Congress

itself.

The Democratic committee member's request has even drawn criticism from the editorial boards of the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. On May 28, 2002, in an editorial entitled ``Not Fair Game'' the Washington Post editorialized that the request

For an attorney's work product would be unthinkable if the

work had been done for a private client. . . . [and] legal

advice by a line attorney for the federal government is not

fair game either.

According to the Post editorial

. . . In elite government offices such as that of the

solicitor general, lawyers need to speak freely without

worrying that the positions they are advocating today will be

used against them if they ever get nominated to some other

position.

On May 24, 2002, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled ``The Estrada Gambit'' also criticized the request, calling it ``one more attempt to delay giving Mr. Estrada a hearing and a vote.'' The Journal further criticized the Committee's request in a later editorial, entitled ``No Judicial Fishing'', calling the request ``outrageous'' and noting that the goal of the request ``is to delay, trying to put off the day when Mr. Estrada takes a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two editorials also be printed in the Record after my statement.

Mr. Estrada is not the only former deputy or assistant to the Solicitor General nominated to the Federal bench. In fact, there are seven others now serving on the Federal Courts of Appeals. None had any prior judicial experience, and the committee did not ask the Justice Department to turn over any confidential internal memoranda those nominees prepared while serving in the Solicitor General's Office. The seven nominees were: Samuel Alito on the 3rd Circuit, Danny Boggs on the 6th Circuit, William Bryson and Daniel Friedman on the Federal Circuit, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit, and A. Raymond Randolph on the D.C. Circuit. Why should Mr. Estrada be treated any differently?

During Mr. Estrada's hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats alleged that the committee has reviewed the work product of other nominees, including memos written by Frank Easterbrook, by Chief Justice Rehnquist when he served as a clerk to Justice Jackson, and by Robert Bork when he was an official at the Justice Department.

For the record, there is no evidence that the Department of Justice ever turned over confidential memoranda prepared by Frank Easterbrook when he served in the Solicitor General's Office. There also is no evidence that the committee even requested such information.

During Robert Bork's hearings, the Department did turn over memos Judge Bork wrote while serving as Solicitor General, but none of these memos contained the sort of deliberative materials requested of Mr. Estrada and the Justice Department. The Bork materials include memos containing Bork's opinions on such subjects as the constitutionality of the pocket veto, and on President Nixon's assertions of executive privilege and his views of the Office of Special Prosecutor. None of the memos contain information regarding internal deliberations of career attorneys on appeal decisions or legal opinions in connection with appeal decisions. Moreover, the Bork documents reflected information transmitted between a political appointee, namely the Solicitor General, and political advisors to the President, rather than the advice of a career Department of Justice attorney to his superiors, as is the case with Mr. Estrada.

You see, the Judiciary Committee has never requested and the Department of Justice has never agreed to release the internal memos of a career line attorney. To ask that Mr. Estrada turn over his memos is unprecedented, and frankly unfair. No Member of this body would ever condone a request to turn over staff memos. What my staff communicates to me in writing is internal and private. I am sure every other Senator feels the same way as I do. This Democrat fishing expedition needs to stop. Miguel Estrada is a more than well qualified nominee and he deserves a vote on his nomination, today.

In conclusion, we are again seeing an attack on another very talented, very principled, highly qualified legal mind. It all boils down to this, Mr. Estrada's opponents refuse to give him a vote because they say they do not know enough about him. They further contend that the Justice Department memos, which they know will never be released, are the only way they can find out what they need to know about Mr. Estrada. It is a terrible Catch-22.

These obstructionist efforts are a disgrace and an outrage. We must put a stop to these inappropriate political attacks and get on with the business of confirming to the Federal bench good men and women who are committed to doing what judges should do, interpret law as opposed to making law from the bench, because it is our responsibility to make law as members of the legislative branch.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2003]

Just Vote

The Senate has recessed without voting on the nomination of

Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit. Because of a Democratic filibuster, it spent much of

the week debating Mr. Estrada, and, at least for now, enough

Democrats are holding together to prevent the full Senate

from acting. The arguments against Mr. Estrada's confirmation

range from the unpersuasive to the offensive. He lacks

judicial experience, his critics say--though only three

current members of the court had been judges before their

nominations. He is too young--though he is about the same age

as Judge Harry T. Edwards was when he was appointed and

several years older than Kenneth W. Starr was when he was

nominated. Mr. Estrada stonewalled the Judiciary Committee by

refusing to answer questions--though his answers were similar

in nature to those of previous nominees, including many

nominated by Democratic presidents. The administration

refused to turn over his Justice Department memos--though no

reasonable Congress ought to be seeking such material, as a

letter from all living former solicitors general attests. He

is not a real Hispanic and, by the way, he was nominated only

because he is Hispanic--two arguments as repugnant as they

are incoherent. Underlying it all is the fact that Democrats

don't want to put a conservative on the court.

Laurence H. Silberman, a senior judge on the court to which

Mr. Estrada aspires to serve, recently observed that under

the current standards being applied by the Senate, not one of

his colleagues could predictably secure confirmation. He's

right. To be sure, Republicans missed few opportunities to

play politics with President Clinton's nominees. But the

Estrada filibuster is a step beyond even those deplorable

games. For Democrats demand, as a condition of a vote,

answers to questions that no nominee should be forced to

address--and that nominees have not previously been forced to

address. If Mr. Estrada cannot get a vote, there will be no

reason for Republicans to allow the next David S. Tatel--a

distinguished liberal member of the court--to get one when a

Democrat someday again picks judges. Yet the D.C. Circuit--

and all courts, for that matter--would be all the poorer were

it composed entirely of people whose views challenged nobody.

Nor is the problem just Mr. Estrada. John G. Roberts Jr.,

Mr. Bush's other nominee to the D.C. Circuit, has been

waiting nearly two years for a Judiciary Committee vote.

Nobody has raised a substantial argument against him. Indeed,

Mr. Roberts is among the most highly regarded appellate

lawyers in the city. Yet on Thursday, Democrats invoked a

procedural rule to block a committee vote anyway--just for

good measure. It's long past time to stop these games and

vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be the lead Republican cosponsor of the ``Training for Realtime Writers Act''. This legislation that Senator Harkin and I are introducing today will provide grants for the training of realtime reporters and captioners. While we ran out of time to address this matter in the 107th Congress, I would remind Senators of the looming problem related to a shortage of what are called ``realtime writers''. Realtime writers are essentially trained court reporters, much like the Official Reporters of Debates here in the Senate, who use a combination of additional specialized training and technology to transform words into text as they are spoken. This can allow deaf and hard of hearing individuals to understand live television as well as follow proceedings at a civic function or in a classroom.

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress mandated that most television programming be fully captioned by 2006 in order to allow the 28 million Americans who are deaf or had of hearing to have access to the same news and information that many of us take for granted. Information provides a vital link to the outside world. Americans receive a large amount of their information about what is happening in the world and right in their communities from television. Whether it is an international crisis or a weather warning, information is necessary to fully participate in our society. In order for those who are deaf and hard of hearing to receive the same information as it is broadcast on live television, groups of captions must work around the clock transcribing words as they are spoken.

Currently, video-programming distributers must provide an average of at least 900 hours of captioned programming. Starting in 2005, this will increase to 1350 hours. By 2006, 100 percent of new nonexempt programming must be provided with captions. At the same time, student enrollment in programs that provide essential training in captioning has decreased significantly, with programs closing on many campuses. In order to meet the growing demand for realtime writers caused by this mandate, we must do everything we can to increase the number of individuals receiving this very specialized training.

Our bill will help address the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers by providing grants to accredited court reporting programs to promote the training and placement of individuals as realtime writers. Specifically, court reporting programs could use these grants for item like recruitment of students for realtime writing programs, need-based scholarships, distance learning, education and training, job placement assistance, the encouragement of individuals with disabilities to pursue a career as a realtime writer, and personnel costs.

The expansion of distance learning opportunities in particular will have an enormous impact by making training accessible to individuals who want to become realtime writers but do not live in metropolitan areas. Also, need based scholarships offered using these grants funds would be subject to an agreement with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide realtime writing services for a period of time.

We must act quickly because the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers will only grow more severe as the captioning mandate in the 1996 Telecommunications Act continues to take effect. Failure to act could leave the 28 million deaf or hard of hearing Americans without the ability to fully participate in many of the professional, educational, and civic activities that other Americans enjoy. Congress was not able to complete work on this urgent matter before the end of the 107th Congress, so we must redouble our efforts. I would urge all senators to support the swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be the lead Republican cosponsor of the ``Training for Realtime Writers Act''. This legislation that Senator Harkin and I are introducing today will provide grants for the training of realtime reporters and captioners. While we ran out of time to address this matter in the 107th Congress, I would remind Senators of the looming problem related to a shortage of what are called ``realtime writers''. Realtime writers are essentially trained court reporters, much like the Official Reporters of Debates here in the Senate, who use a combination of additional specialized training and technology to transform words into text as they are spoken. This can allow deaf and hard of hearing individuals to understand live television as well as follow proceedings at a civic function or in a classroom.

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress mandated that most television programming be fully captioned by 2006 in order to allow the 28 million Americans who are deaf or had of hearing to have access to the same news and information that many of us take for granted. Information provides a vital link to the outside world. Americans receive a large amount of their information about what is happening in the world and right in their communities from television. Whether it is an international crisis or a weather warning, information is necessary to fully participate in our society. In order for those who are deaf and hard of hearing to receive the same information as it is broadcast on live television, groups of captions must work around the clock transcribing words as they are spoken.

Currently, video-programming distributers must provide an average of at least 900 hours of captioned programming. Starting in 2005, this will increase to 1350 hours. By 2006, 100 percent of new nonexempt programming must be provided with captions. At the same time, student enrollment in programs that provide essential training in captioning has decreased significantly, with programs closing on many campuses. In order to meet the growing demand for realtime writers caused by this mandate, we must do everything we can to increase the number of individuals receiving this very specialized training.

Our bill will help address the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers by providing grants to accredited court reporting programs to promote the training and placement of individuals as realtime writers. Specifically, court reporting programs could use these grants for item like recruitment of students for realtime writing programs, need-based scholarships, distance learning, education and training, job placement assistance, the encouragement of individuals with disabilities to pursue a career as a realtime writer, and personnel costs.

The expansion of distance learning opportunities in particular will have an enormous impact by making training accessible to individuals who want to become realtime writers but do not live in metropolitan areas. Also, need based scholarships offered using these grants funds would be subject to an agreement with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide realtime writing services for a period of time.

We must act quickly because the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers will only grow more severe as the captioning mandate in the 1996 Telecommunications Act continues to take effect. Failure to act could leave the 28 million deaf or hard of hearing Americans without the ability to fully participate in many of the professional, educational, and civic activities that other Americans enjoy. Congress was not able to complete work on this urgent matter before the end of the 107th Congress, so we must redouble our efforts. I would urge all senators to support the swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the PROTECT Act, which I am proud to be co-sponsoring with Senators Hatch, Leahy and others. I have been greatly concerned with the increase in reports of child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater protection.

This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children.

This bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their communities, improves the Nation's ability to respond to child abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child predators.

I urge my fellow Senators to vote for this important bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the funding resolution, adopted by the committee on Finance for the 108th Congress, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Rules of Procedure, adopted by the Committee on Finance for the 108th Congress, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important tax legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Baucus, Conrad, Crapo, Breaux, Leahy, Harkin, Durbin, Craig, Johnson, Chafee, Snowe, and Kerry.

This bill, entitled the ``Bipartisan Renewable Efficient Energy with Zero Effluent, BREEZE, Act,'' extends the production tax credit for electricity generated by wind for three years. The current tax credit is set to expire on January 1, 2004.

As the author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I sought to give this alternative energy source the ability to compete against traditional, finite energy sources. I strongly believe that the expansion and development of wind energy must be facilitated by this production tax credit.

Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally safe form of energy production. Wind energy makes valuable contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing the combustion of fossil fuels.

Since the inception of the wind energy production tax credit in 1993, more than 3,000 megawatts of generating capacity have been put online. This generating capacity powers nearly 900,000 homes.

Just last year, over 400 megawatts of new wind energy capacity was installed, bringing total capacity to more than 4,500 megawatts. Wind energy is currently serving the equivalent of more than 1.3 million average American homes in 27 states across the country.

During the past two decades, the price of wind energy has been reduced more than 80 percent, making it one of the least expensive sources of renewable energy. In order to continue this investment and development in America's energy future, we must extend the production tax credit.

From 1999 to 2001, wind energy capacity in Iowa grew by 33 percent, and while Iowa ranks tenth in the nation in terms of wind energy potential, Iowa currently ranks third nationally in wind development, with over 400 megawatts of generating capacity. Only California and Texas generate more electricity from wind than Iowa. And, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources estimates that Iowa has the potential to produce nearly 5 times its own annual electrical needs through wind power.

Wind energy also produces substantial economic benefits. For each wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms already pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners.

Equally important, wind energy increases our energy independence, thereby providing the United States with insulation from an oil supply dominated by the Middle East. Our national security is currently threatened by a heavy reliance on oil from abroad.

Unfortunately, due to the structure of the current tax incentive, a significant portion of the electricity industry is unable to take advantage of the credit. Rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities provide power to nearly 25 percent of the Nation's consumers. To encourage a unified national energy plan, it's only fair to give cooperatives and other not-for-profit utilities the ability to use renewable tax incentives.

REC's and municipal utilities should be given a mechanism to utilize the tax incentives for renewable electricity generation. And, while the legislation I'm introducing today does not address this issue, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to include such a mechanism in a comprehensive energy tax package.

Extending the wind energy tad credit would allow for even greater expansion and planning stability in the wind energy field. Wind is a domestically produced natural resource, found abundantly across the country. Because wind energy is homegrown, it cannot be controlled by any foreign power.

Wind energy can be harnessed without injury to our environment. Wind is a reliable form of power that is renewable and inextinguishable. This legislation ensures that wind energy does not fall by the wayside as a productive alternative energy source.

The Senate needs to extend this important incentive and I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important tax legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Baucus, Conrad, Crapo, Breaux, Leahy, Harkin, Durbin, Craig, Johnson, Chafee, Snowe, and Kerry.

This bill, entitled the ``Bipartisan Renewable Efficient Energy with Zero Effluent, BREEZE, Act,'' extends the production tax credit for electricity generated by wind for three years. The current tax credit is set to expire on January 1, 2004.

As the author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I sought to give this alternative energy source the ability to compete against traditional, finite energy sources. I strongly believe that the expansion and development of wind energy must be facilitated by this production tax credit.

Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally safe form of energy production. Wind energy makes valuable contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing the combustion of fossil fuels.

Since the inception of the wind energy production tax credit in 1993, more than 3,000 megawatts of generating capacity have been put online. This generating capacity powers nearly 900,000 homes.

Just last year, over 400 megawatts of new wind energy capacity was installed, bringing total capacity to more than 4,500 megawatts. Wind energy is currently serving the equivalent of more than 1.3 million average American homes in 27 states across the country.

During the past two decades, the price of wind energy has been reduced more than 80 percent, making it one of the least expensive sources of renewable energy. In order to continue this investment and development in America's energy future, we must extend the production tax credit.

From 1999 to 2001, wind energy capacity in Iowa grew by 33 percent, and while Iowa ranks tenth in the nation in terms of wind energy potential, Iowa currently ranks third nationally in wind development, with over 400 megawatts of generating capacity. Only California and Texas generate more electricity from wind than Iowa. And, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources estimates that Iowa has the potential to produce nearly 5 times its own annual electrical needs through wind power.

Wind energy also produces substantial economic benefits. For each wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms already pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners.

Equally important, wind energy increases our energy independence, thereby providing the United States with insulation from an oil supply dominated by the Middle East. Our national security is currently threatened by a heavy reliance on oil from abroad.

Unfortunately, due to the structure of the current tax incentive, a significant portion of the electricity industry is unable to take advantage of the credit. Rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities provide power to nearly 25 percent of the Nation's consumers. To encourage a unified national energy plan, it's only fair to give cooperatives and other not-for-profit utilities the ability to use renewable tax incentives.

REC's and municipal utilities should be given a mechanism to utilize the tax incentives for renewable electricity generation. And, while the legislation I'm introducing today does not address this issue, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to include such a mechanism in a comprehensive energy tax package.

Extending the wind energy tad credit would allow for even greater expansion and planning stability in the wind energy field. Wind is a domestically produced natural resource, found abundantly across the country. Because wind energy is homegrown, it cannot be controlled by any foreign power.

Wind energy can be harnessed without injury to our environment. Wind is a reliable form of power that is renewable and inextinguishable. This legislation ensures that wind energy does not fall by the wayside as a productive alternative energy source.

The Senate needs to extend this important incentive and I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort.

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