Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 late in the afternoon, early evening, in remembrance of a great patriotic leader, a person who I think was America's greatest leader of the 20th century and one of history's alltime adherence advocates and leaders for freedom, individual freedom, liberty, and the advancement of security for free and just societies. The gentleman I am talking about would have been 95 years old today, and that is Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I would hope, actually, on future birthdays, the date of the birth of Ronald Wilson Reagan, some Senator will stand in this Chamber and remind Americans and remember Ronald Reagan, his words, his ideas, and his inspiration.

Ronald Reagan was one who motivated me to get involved in organized politics, and there are literally tens of thousands of others. There are certain people, though, if one looks through history, whose words are ones you can use; they are just enduring principles. I think of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain--all those great quotes from Mark Twain-- even Will Rogers. But in our day, the person for inspiration, to help us decide how to meet the challenges of our day, was Ronald Reagan.

President Reagan did leave the White House 17 years ago. For some young people, this seems like a long time ago.

President Reagan's words and deeds are still so applicable today.

He left our world 2 years ago, but we are still living in the wake of the Reagan era. It was Ronald Reagan, let's remember, along with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, who fundamentally changed all the dynamics of the Cold War, to bury communism and advance human liberty. While many in those days accepted the perpetual menace of communism and the perpetual servitude of millions of men and women locked behind the Iron Curtain, Ronald Reagan did not. His philosophy toward the Cold War was radically different from the elite sages of the establishment. As Governor of California and then also as President, he offered very clear and refreshing ideas. He was asked one time:

Mr. Reagan, what is your strategy on the Cold War?

He declared:

About the Cold War, my view is that we win and they lose.

He came into office as President. In his inaugural address in 1981, he called for an era of national renewal, and this was something very important after the years of malaise that we had in the late 1970s. That is exactly what his 8-year Presidency turned out to be--an era of national renewal for security, for opportunity, and for foundational values. The Reagan revolution reversed the high unemployment, high inflation, economic policies of the 1970s and unleashed the greatest economic boom in American history.

His policies proved that low taxes are good for the taxpayers, and they are also good for the economy, with more investment and more jobs and, for those who care about it, generating more revenue for the Government. After his tax cuts started to impact the economy in 1983, the wheels of American commerce started to move again. We saw an explosion of job creation, innovation, and investment.

In foreign affairs, President Reagan scrapped the policy of coexistence. He made the advancement of freedom, not containment, into the foundational principle of America's foreign policy. He rebuilt America's military strength. He started and initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative which put unprecedented strains on the Soviet economy and their ability to finance their military.

He refused to be cowed into silence when talking about our enemy or the evils of communism. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire. Oh, they criticized him, but, indeed, that was an accurate description. He was a vocal, tireless champion for freedom. He went to Brandenburg Gate in 1987 and boldly said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' He was criticized, but 2 years later, the Berlin Wall was gone, and 2 years after, the Soviet Union itself was gone, discarded into the ``ash heap of history,'' as Ronald Reagan prophesied during the depths of the Cold War.

Today, because of Ronald Reagan, there are literally hundreds of millions of people who were once locked behind the Iron Curtain living in countries we now know as free countries--Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, former East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and added countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, which are now tasting that sweet nectar of liberty as opposed to being behind the Iron Curtain. It is because Ronald Reagan provided us with a perseverance--he persevered, our allies persevered, particularly in Western Europe, and freedom has prevailed.

Five years after he left office in 1994, we were all crushed to learn about Ronald Reagan being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. He concluded his farewell address and letter to the American people by writing:

Now I begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset

of my life. I know that for America there will always be a

bright new dawn ahead.

As always, Ronald Reagan was right. Despite new and numerous challenges, this blessed country, America, has stood strong for freedom, extending the blessings of liberty and prosperity to a whole new generation of Americans and sharing those blessings with even more people who live here in this world.

When Ronald Reagan passed away on June 5, 2004, I know you, Mr. President--and I see Senator Hatch from Utah here--and all of America grieved and mourned. He was my political hero. But I also felt grateful, grateful for our country, for America, that we and, indeed, the world were blessed to have had Ronald Reagan's commonsense leadership and unwavering commitment to the ideals of freedom throughout the world.

Today, on what would have been his 95th birthday, I reflect on everything Ronald Reagan accomplished during his extraordinary life. If you want to measure a person's greatness and what he or she did in their life, you kind of determine it by the number of people who were positively impacted by their efforts, their deeds, and their life--in Ronald Reagan's case, as I said, the hundreds of millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe who were liberated from the tyranny of communism, but we also have Americans, now over 300 million strong, who have been enriched by the peace and prosperity that resulted from Ronald Reagan's courageous commitment to foundational ideals.

There are many such as myself--and really too many to count--who were inspired by meeting Ronald Reagan in person, who were touched by his great character and integrity, his unfailing optimism and patriotism, his genuine good will and sense of humor, and his words that applied the philosophy of our Founders, whether it is George

Washington in his peace-through-strength approach or James Madison in understanding our representative democracy or the spirit of this country as written by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence.

Everyone remembers meeting Ronald Reagan. I met him first when I was in high school. We moved out to California when my father became head coach of the L.A. Rams. Ronald Reagan that year was elected Governor and used to come to practices. One thing I really remember about Ronald Reagan is that he didn't just talk about ideals and principles; as Governor and as President, he put them into action. He realized we are all put here on Earth to do something, and we cheat ourselves or others if we do not advocate and advance those ideas.

President Reagan gave my father in the 1980s a plaque which bore his famous quote: ``If not us, who? If not now, when?'' My father kept that plaque on his desk. When my father passed away, my mother gave it to me, saying I should have it. I had it on my mantel as Governor of Virginia in the capitol designed by Thomas Jefferson. I keep that plaque, ``If not us, who? If not now, when?'' on my mantel in the U.S. Senate.

Ronald Reagan was a man of action. He was one who produced many great quotes over the years. In fact, a whole industry has sprung up around them. I share with my colleagues and American people my very favorites:

No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as

the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a

weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

Here is another great quote which is the essence of my philosophy:

Every dollar the government does not take from us, every

decision the government does not make for us will make our

economy stronger, our lives more abundant, and our future

more free.

He also understood our country:

In America, our origins matter less than our destination,

and that is what democracy is all about.

Today, we face challenges. We have a war on terror. I believe our mission in this present war on terror can find us constructive examples from President Reagan's administration. We are making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the coming years, there will be both breakthroughs and setbacks in both countries as we lead this generational struggle against the forces of Islamic terrorism and fascism. But let's remember Ronald Reagan. The Cold War lasted for nearly 50 years, and he persevered. Let's keep and remember Ronald Reagan's legacy of strong leadership as a guiding example to ourselves as we adapt and protect America in this war on terror.

In the area of our economy, we want to make sure the United States is the world capital of innovation, a land of opportunity for all, and is more competitive. If we do so, we need to keep Ronald Reagan in mind as we choose our country's economic policies.

I mentioned earlier Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s and the positive impact that had for jobs, investment, and economic progress in our country. When I came to the Senate in 2001, this country was actually in the midst of an economic slowdown. Over the next 3 years, we passed three rounds of tax cuts, and as a result we have an economic growth in this country which is very good, with rising income, more jobs, more investment, and record home ownership. We have even had record tax revenue for the Government because more people are working, investing, and creating more jobs.

However, Americans are going to be hit with tax increases in the next 2 years if we do not prevent tax increases, which would put a damper on our economy, create less investment, make our country less competitive and, in fact, have fewer jobs for the men and women of our country.

President Reagan showed us how tax relief can revitalize and recharge the American economy. Let's not hurt American jobs and American people and competitiveness by raising taxes. We should take action this year to prevent tax increases, and the Federal Government actually ought to be looking to reduce taxes to make our country more competitive for investment, jobs, and opportunity.

People are concerned, as I am, about fiscal accountability. Again, let's look to Ronald Reagan for guidance. I point out that in President Reagan's farewell address to the American people as President, he said that he was ``still sounding off about those things I didn't get accomplished while I was President. First, I'm out there stumping to help future Presidents--Republican or Democrat--get those tools they need to bring the budget under control. And those tools are a line-item veto and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.''

Today, the bloated cost of Government has become indefensible. We need to bring fiscal accountability to Washington. The Federal Government needs to spend smarter and learn to do more with less. And that starts, in my view, with reviving a pair of ideas Ronald Reagan shared in his farewell address: the line-item veto and the balanced budget amendment.

When I was Governor, I had the power of the line-item veto. Forty-six Governors have that power. Let me tell you, it is useful. It is a way of knocking out wasteful, undesirable expenditures and policies. You don't have to use it too much after you use it a few times, and the message is understood.

I want the President to have the same power I had as Governor, and so, together with Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, we have introduced a constitutional amendment to provide the President the line-item veto so that the President and the Congress can be held accountable for nonessential Government spending.

I will also be proposing a constitutional amendment that will require the President and the Congress to balance the budget every year. That is important because if deficits continue, we will end up with higher interest rates. Higher interest rates result in fewer and fewer Americans, especially young people, able to afford their own home. Owning one's own home is the American dream. It is also a question of fairness and opportunity. So to prevent interest rates from rising, we do need the institutional mechanism to get this deficit under control and we need to wrestle it down with a change of the Constitution.

Taken together, I believe lower taxes on the taxpayers, coupled with both the line-item veto and a balanced budget amendment, will restore fiscal accountability and common sense to Washington, and be a fitting capstone to the Reagan legacy.

Ronald Reagan is no longer with us in body, but he is surely with us in spirit. On his 95th birthday, my thoughts are with him and his family, particularly his wonderful bride and wife Nancy, who exhibited such grace and dignity as First Lady and later in caring for her husband during his very long goodbye.

My thoughts are also on America, this land Ronald Reagan loved so much and led so well, a land that has been continually blessed by God with great patriots such as President Reagan, who possessed strong character, integrity, and commitment to enduring values and principles.

I am going to close with this observation by President Reagan, which I believe is still true.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say

we're in a time where there are no heroes, they just don't

know where to look.

There are heroes all across this country. There are heroes serving this country on ships. They are serving us in Iraq.

Mr. President, President Reagan: Happy birthday. Your dream lives on. It warms the hearts and it cheers the spirit of freedom-loving people throughout the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, February 6, 2006, at 2 p.m. for a hearing titled, ``Hurricane Katrina: Managing Law Enforcement and Communications in a Catastrophe.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Monday, February 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Hart Senate Office Building Room 226. The hearing is expected to continue throughout the afternoon.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Madam President, I rise to echo and add to the remarks of the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. On this first day of debate, I rise to express my strong support for the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

There has been much discussion, advertising on the radio, in newspapers, and on television. There has been commentary about Judge Alito, and that is fine. That is the way it should be. Federal judges are appointed for life. This is the only time that the people's representatives--those of us in the Senate--have an opportunity to scrutinize an individual who has been nominated for the Federal bench in a lifetime appointment. So that scrutiny is appropriate. I am hopeful that this scrutiny and this discussion will be of a civil nature. Sometimes it has not been, over the last several years in this body.

I do believe, though, that all nominees who are reported out of a committee, whether the Judiciary Committee--for that matter, any committee--Foreign Relations, or other committees, ought to be accorded the fairness of an up-or-down vote at the end of this gauntlet. If you are going to make someone go through all of this, have all these slings and arrows, some relevant, some tangential, and some completely irrelevant. If they are going to go through all of this, they ought to be accorded the fairness of an up-or-down vote.

I believe if the approaches taken over the last several years for certain nominees continue, as a threat or as an actual practical impediment to someone receiving a vote, it will make it much more difficult for any President to be able to recruit from the private sector qualified men and women who have the experience, the personality, the insight, the leadership, and the ability to serve our Government. That might be in a variety of different fields. That is why I think it is important that we as Senators change and stop this practice of holding up nominees and not according them the fairness of an up-or-down vote.

With John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we allowed a lot of commentary and a vote. I hope the same will occur for Judge Alito.

There have been indications from those on the other side of the aisle that they are reserving the right to filibuster, or require a 60-vote majority to have a vote on the confirmation of Judge Alito. My reaction is if they move forward with such a filibuster, ``make my day.'' We will enjoy pulling the constitutional trigger to allow Judge Alito a fair or up-or-down vote.

I don't think it is too much to ask Senators to come here when the nomination is called forth to get off these cushy seats, stand up straight, and vote yes or vote no. That is a matter of fairness. It is also our constitutional responsibility in advise and consent.

When analyzing or determining whether I am going to support a particular judicial nominee, what matters most to me for these lifetime appointments is trying to discern that nominee's judicial philosophy. Trying to determine whether they believe what they are saying as to what they think the proper role of a judge will be.

We have seen through the years that certain individuals get appointed for a lifetime appointment, and they end up being completely different than what they have said in the hearings, in interviews with the President, or interviews with the Senators. Past performance is, in my view, usually a reliable indicator of future action.

In my view, regarding this particular nomination of Judge Alito, the best way to determine what kind of Justice Samuel Alito will be on the Supreme Court is to look at his 15 years of services as a circuit court judge. In his years on the bench, he has embodied the philosophy I like to see in judges. I believe the proper role of a judge is to apply the law, not invent the law. Judges are to uphold the Constitution, not amend it by judicial decree.

The proper role of a judge is to protect and indeed defend our God- given rights, not to create or deny rights out of thin air. They are not to act as a legislator.

In Judge Alito's case, no matter the issue, whether or not they are politically charged issues in the realm of electoral politics, he seems, from my reading and review, to have followed a

consistent, thoughtful, deliberative process to decide cases.

This is what judges are supposed to do. They are not supposed to be issuing cases based on predetermined ideology, or an eye toward future confirmation hearings. They should faithfully apply the law. They ought to apply the evidence before the court to the law in that particular case before the court.

As he stated in his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito recognized a judge's only obligation is to the rule of law. And in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires. In my opinion, that is the essence of the fair adjudication of disputes. There is credibility, there is reliability, and there is integrity in that approach. Judge Alito has exemplary, scholarly, and experienced qualifications--and especially the proper judicial philosophy--to serve honorably as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Judge Alito's 15 years on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he has demonstrated his understanding of the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system of Government, and will apply the law fairly and equally.

Judge Alito, in my view, genuinely respects the rule of law in our representative democracy. In recognition of Judge Alito's outstanding service on the Federal bench, the American Bar Association has given him their highest rating of well qualified. The American Bar Association's criteria for their evaluation are integrity, professionalism, competence, and judicial temperament.

Let me share with my colleagues what Stephen Tober, the chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee, had to say.

He said:

On The Federal Judiciary: ``Needless to say, to merit an

evaluation of well-qualified, the nominee must possess

professional qualifications and achievements of the highest

standing. . . . We are ultimately persuaded that Judge Alito

has, throughout his 15 years on the Federal Bench,

established a record of both proper judicial conduct and

even-handed application in seeking to do what is

fundamentally fair. . . . His integrity, his professional

competence and his judicial temperament are, indeed, found to

be of the highest standard.''

That came from Chairman Tober on January 12 of this year.

Judge Alito also provided to all of us an indication of his temperament and qualifications during his confirmation hearings, which went on for several days and many hours of hearings. He answered over 700 questions, explaining his thought processes, judicial philosophy, and I think very credibly dispelling some of the misstatements about his record of service.

Judge Alito was even forced to defend the statements of others when he was questioned about the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. That is a group that apparently Judge Alito joined when he was a member of the Armed Services because he didn't agree with the way the military was treated on the Princeton campus. As a result, some of the Democratic Senators tried to diminish Judge Alito. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial on January 12 of this year where they said they are trying to find him guilty by ``ancient association.'' Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal editorial page of that date.

They can't touch him on credentials or his mastery of

jurisprudence, so they're trying to get him on guilt by

ancient association. Senators Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer

did their best yesterday to imply that Judge Alito was racist

and sexist by linking the nominee with the views of some

members of Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which back in the

1970s and 1980s took issue with university policies on

coeducation and affirmative action.

Of course, Judge Alito said he didn't agree with any of that. He was concerned about fair access for our military recruiters on campus.

The closing lines in the Wall Street Journal editorial stated:

As for Judge Alito's prospects, if this irrelevant arcania

is the most his opponents have, he can start measuring his

new judicial robes.

Another comment made by some members of the Judiciary Committee is they don't have the assurance that the judge firmly believes in precedent. They criticize him for apparently having an open mind.

What some Senators choose to do is not recognize that there are times where precedent should be overturned such as the Court overruling Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States.

Also, as time changes and our country develops, the case law that comes before the Supreme Court also changes, to recognize the advances in technology and science.

In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun recognized that advancements in medical science will impact the trimester standard for when the State's interest in life begins.

As constitutional jurisprudence moves forward, Judge Alito, with his understanding that stare decisis is not an ``inexorable command,'' makes a great deal of sense. We have seen that throughout the history of our country.

There were some comments made during his confirmation process by the groups objecting to the nomination of Judge Alito that they disagree with the conclusion he reached after an independent review of the facts of a particular case. While these groups, and all Americans, have an important role in a free society and deserve to state their view, they also in some cases are distorting the proper role of a judge. On the bench, Judge Alito has not been a partisan activist. To the contrary, there have been no substantive claims that any litigant before Judge Alito did not have a fair and impartial hearing of their case. Factors whether a President should be overturned, or modified--there are many factors, such as the nature of the original decision, whether that precedent has been changed, or there is a desire on the part of the people who are the owners of the Government to change it. Another factor could be whether the precedent has been undermined by subsequent decisions or new facts or new laws.

Court decisions have been changed over the years because they have proven to be unworkable. The Court has overruled many decisions. Of course, Brown v. Board of Education overruling Plessy v. Ferguson is probably the prime example and illustrates that no precedent is untouchable. The Court should not be required to stick to bad law--in that case, separate but equal.

Judges do not run for office. They cannot and should not make campaign promises that are, in fact, prohibited. They are prohibited from doing so by the Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association. They also should not be judged on the basis of statements they made when working for elected public servants in the legislative or executive branches of Government. They should be judged by their record of service.

Again, with Judge Alito, we see a person with 15 years of judicial experience. We have seen, in too many cases, with the lifetime- appointed Federal judges, a complete disregard for the will of the people and their elected representatives who are supposed to be making the laws reflecting the will and the values of the people in particular States or maybe the Nation in our representative democracy.

People wonder: Why do we care about the activist judges? Why does judicial philosophy matter? I will go through recent decisions by activist judges who forget their role is to apply the law, not invent the law.

In California, certain counties thought it was a good idea to have children in schools say the Pledge of Allegiance. When I was Governor of Virginia, we passed such a law. But someone out there in the Ninth Circuit thought, no, we cannot have the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in California because of the words ``under God.'' That is an example of judges completely ignoring the will of the people in those regions of California and striking down the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words ``under God.'' This is a ludicrous decision.

We also see judges ignoring the will of the people in a variety of other ways. They struck down some laws in Virginia within the last 2 years because of international standards. Friends, colleagues, we make the laws. We represent the people of this country. It is our Constitution. It is not the U.N. constitution or various conglomerations or what confederations of other countries may think our laws should be. The laws are made by the people of this country.

A continuing debate has to do with parental notification. People in Virginia, when I was Governor, and other

States thought, if an unwed minor daughter is going through the surgery, the trauma of an abortion, and is 17 years old or younger, a parent ought to be involved. After all, if a child is going to get a tattoo or their ears pierced, they need parental consent. So the laws are passed by various States, there is one in contention dealing with New Hampshire. Federal judges, ignoring the will of the people in various States, strike down and allow those laws to be overturned.

Last year, in the summer, the Supreme Court got involved in a case that created a great deal of concern because the city of New London, CT, the city council, acting akin to commissars, decided they were going to take people's homes, the American dream, and condemn those homes, take them not for a school, not for a road or any such public purpose, but rather they wanted to derive more tax revenue off of that property. This is part of the Bill of Rights, the fifth amendment. The Supreme Court, in a very narrow decision, allowed New London, CT, in the Kelo case, to take away people's homes. This is an example of Supreme Court Justices, Federal judges, selected and serving for life, amending our Bill of Rights, the Constitution--the Bill of Rights is the most important part of all the Constitution--by judicial decree. That is wrong. This is why it is important we have men and women serving on the Federal bench that understand their role is to apply the law and not take away our God-given rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and in our Constitution.

I met with Judge Alito in my office and discussed with him my concerns about this troubling trend of judges who ignore the will of the people and start inventing laws themselves. I was actually very encouraged by his scholarship, his knowledge, and what I feel was a very genuine, sincere understanding that we need a respectful, restrained judiciary. And also his ability to cite examples from his very distinguished career of cases where he was presented with decisions where he put aside his personal view and followed the law.

I asked: What do you do if you do not like a law? He said: You have to apply the law, but it may be appropriate after the decision is made, for a judge or panel of judges to communicate with the legislature and advise them they may wish to revisit a certain issue. However, when it came to issuing a decision, he felt very strongly that judges would follow their duty and should incorporate the law as written.

Another quality of Judge Alito is his deep knowledge of the law and his sincere and deep commitment of being a student of our Constitution. When I asked Judge Alito about his role, his view of the role of the State to pass laws, he gave a thoughtful answer. He had a considered analysis of the dormant commerce clause. It was similar to being back in law school, learning some of these things again. His answer shows most importantly a deep understanding not only of the Constitution but also a commitment to the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded, that Government power should remain closest to the people.

In our system of government, it is essential the people in the States be free to experiment in public policy and that Washington, the Federal Government, should not dictate policy through the use of Federal funds in areas reserved to the States or to the people.

Opponents of this nomination have referenced half a dozen cases out of the more than 1,500 he has been involved in while serving on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The fact is, no matter how Judge Alito answered the questions posed to him, his detractors would continue to oppose his nomination. On the particularly important charge that he favors an expansive view of the Executive power, Judge Alito reiterated his view that no branch of Government has more power and that no person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law; no person in this country is beneath the law.

Aside from this very unambiguous answer, one can point to a litany of cases where Judge Alito came down against the authority of the Government, or for the little guy as some people like to call it.

Another criticism of this nomination has been that Judge Alito, if confirmed, will replace a moderate on the Court, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Sandra Day O'Connor by the way, in Kelo v. New London, CT, ``commissar taking of homes'' case, ruled on the side of the Constitution, so there will be no change there. We will need to get another Justice if the States are not able to rein in such takings of homes.

Justice O'Connor is a person for whom I have a great deal of respect. She served with great distinction on the Court for many years and has a compelling, interesting life story. The fact that President Reagan appointed her as the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States as a pioneer in so many ways has been an inspiration to many young people, regardless of gender. Particularly many young women who think, There is a future for me in the law. We have seen a great increase in the number of young women interested in studying in our law schools.

They will say that we have to have someone who has the exact same philosophy as whoever was being replaced. We ought to remember the Founders, in drafting article III of the Constitution that creates the Supreme Court, provides no requirement there must be an ideological balance on the Court. For over 200 years, the Senate has respected the prerogative of the President and performed their advice-and-consent function and ultimately voted for qualified judges, despite their political orientation.

So, therefore, let me conclude in this statement to my colleagues that if you look at Judge Alito's 15 years of exemplary judicial experience, his incredible, well-reasoned answers in the confirmation hearings. If you look at this individual, who has the qualifications, the judicial philosophy, the knowledge of the law, the respect for the law and, indeed, the respect for the people, the owners of this Government, and those of us in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and other bodies, Judge Alito is a perfect person to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively for Judge Alito to serve this country on the Supreme Court.

I thank you for your attention, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute the outstanding ambassadors for our enduring principles of freedom, justice, and individual rights--our brave men and women in uniform who show the heart of America by their good deeds.

As the Iraqi people slowly count the ballots from their historic parliamentary election, we are reminded once again of America's far- reaching power to be a force for good in this world. Over the past 2\1/ 2\ years, our brave soldiers have fought courageously and nobly sacrificed to extend the sphere of liberty into what was--up until their arrival--one of the darkest, most despotic alleys on Earth. Their heroic work has helped deliver a new free and just country into the family of nations.

We here at home watch the developments in Iraq with a feeling of pride. We are proud of our troops who have borne so much to advance the cause of freedom. We are proud of the Iraqi people, who risked their own lives to cast ballots three times this year for a better future. And we are proud of the heritage of our country--from the American Revolutionary secession from the British monarchy to the Second World War against fascism to the Cold War against imperial communism to today's fight against global terrorists, America has been the shining city on a hill--an ally to all men and women--on every continent, in every country--who yearn to breathe free.

In addition to Iraq, we have extended our hand of friendship to the people of Pakistan. A little more than 2 months ago, a devastating earthquake ripped through northern Pakistan. The toll from this tragedy is almost impossible to comprehend: 79,000 men and women lost their lives, an additional 72,000 were injured, and a total of 2.9 million people are now homeless.

Last month, my wife Susan cochaired a charity event near our home in Virginia to raise money for the earthquake victims. She then joined me when I traveled to Pakistan to visit some of the victims, and the 1,200 U.S. troops who are now stationed in Pakistan to assist in the recovery.

We presented a check to the Citizens Foundations charity, which will use the money to rebuild the Bagh School for Girls and other schools. When we visited a Pakistani classroom for children needing medical treatment, we

saw children on the floor, singing in English, learning new words, and painting artwork as well. On the wall behind the teacher was a drawing of a green Chinook helicopter and on the side of the helicopter was a big painted smile across the length of the helicopter.

That is the way these young people look at the United States. They are looking at these vessels of our military not as weapons of war but as machines that bring relief, and help. Later, Susan and I had supper with our troops there at the airfield. We told them how proud we are of their outstanding relief effort, about what great ambassadors they are, not just for the strength of America but also for the caring heart of America.

Today, in Pakistan, the heart of America is needed more than ever. As international attention fades and funds dry up, millions of earthquake survivors are now facing a harsh, cold winter. In the remote Himalayan region, villages at altitudes of 5,000 to 7,000 feet will soon be covered in snow. By leaving the earthquake victims exposed to the Himalayan winter, there is the real risk of seeing perhaps hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.

We should not let such deaths happen. And thankfully, avoiding this tragic scenario is in our power. Our U.S. administration has pledged over $500 million in aid, but these funds are urgently needed today and must reach the devastated people of Pakistan as soon as possible.

During this holiday season, and beyond, we should continue to help Americans in Louisiana and Mississippi and extend our arms to the people of Pakistan. By saving hundreds of thousands of lives during the harsh Himalayan winter, we can transform this tragic event into a story of hope, courage and perseverance.

Today I would like to honor a great man, Mr. Carl W. Smith, a native of Wise, VA, and a resident of Charlottesville, VA, who, sadly, passed away earlier this week.

Carl Smith was a truly wonderful leader for Virginia, and my wife Susan and I were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of our friend. His lovely wife Hunter and his children Carl, Stuart, and Hunter, will remain in our thoughts and prayers, as will their loved ones during this time of great sorrow.

Throughout his life, Carl was a truly special, invigorating friend and remarkable, insightful leader who was always a lap ahead of everyone else. I will always appreciate his discreet advice, his impressive perspective and his strong support. And I will be forever grateful for his trusted friendship that helped me win elections to become a Delegate and, later, Governor of Virginia.

Like me, Carl attended the University of Virginia, when he played football. After graduating, he served in the U.S. Army and worked as an investment banker. Just last year, Carl retired as head of AMVEST Corporation, a diversified energy and finance corporation based in Charlottesville that he founded in 1961. Throughout his successful career, Carl was the best, most loyal fan of the University of Virginia Cavaliers, and his generosity to his beloved alma mater and all those in his life was boundless. He donated millions of dollars to advance Virginia's academic, athletic and arts programs, and to support the construction and preservation of its facilities. He also served on the Board of Visitors for 8 years. Carl was known for his business savvy but also for his loyalty, his kindness and his sense of humor.

Susan and I grieve with Carl's dear wife Hunter and their family over this heart-aching loss. May God continue to bless Virginia and America with people of Carl W. Smith's unflinching character.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is designed to honor the document allows us to all be here today. The document I am referring to is the Constitution of the United States of America, the greatest and longest lasting political document in the history of the world. Drafted in part by the great patriot Thomas Jefferson, this document sets forth both the structure of our government and the fundamental freedoms we enjoy every day. Ingenious by its simplicity, the Constitution is a living breathing document that has allowed our country to evolve from 13 colonies who banded together to win her independence from Great Britain to the most powerful Nation in the world. While this document has created a strong national government that is unrivaled in the world, it has also kept the power in the States to decide how to govern themselves. As governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and now as United States Senator I have had the unique opportunity to experience how this ingenious system of federalism plays out in every action we take as leaders.

This legislation that I am introducing today will serve to remind all Americans of the freedoms embodied in the Constitution. For many of us, it has been a long time since we have had the opportunity to sit down and actually read this historic document. By placing the headings of the articles and the amendments on the back of the dollar bill, all people will have the chance to look at the provisions. I sincerely hope that when children take a look at the reverse side of a dollar bill, they will take the time to ask their parents about what they are reading so they can gain a better understanding of our great Nation and the principals our country was founded.

By looking at the order of the amendments to the constitution, students can also trace the history of our country. The amendments to the constitution embody the four pillars of a free and just society. The first of these pillars is freedom of religion, this important freedom is protected by the First Amendment which allows all people of all religions to freely practice their chosen religion without fear of government interference. The second pillar is the freedom of expression, which again is protected in the First Amendment. The third pillar is the private ownership of property. This important freedom is protected by the Fifth Amendment which limits the government's power to take private property. This freedom is also protected in the Third. The fourth Amendment which protects citizens from being forced to quarter solders in their homes and protects private property from unreasonable searches and seizures respectively. The fourth pillar is the rule of law. Protection of the rule of law runs throughout the Constitution, most notably in the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to a speedy trial and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which require due process of law.

Looking at the remaining amendments one can trace the evolution of the Constitution and the United States from the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, to the Fifteenth Amendment providing for the right to vote regardless of race, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote and the Twenty Fourth Amendment prohibiting the poll tax.

Throughout our history, hundreds of thousands of brave men and women have laid down their lives protecting the freedoms granted to us in the constitution. Having it been Veterans Day a few days ago, I feel it is high time

that we do all we can to publicize what these freedom are that we hold so dearly.

Before I yield the floor I would like to recognize the contributions of one of my constituents, Mr. Randy Wright who teaches at Liberty Middle School in Hanover, VA. Mr. Wright brought this idea to my attention several years ago and he along with his students over the years have been instrumental is providing support for this piece of legislation. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is designed to honor the document allows us to all be here today. The document I am referring to is the Constitution of the United States of America, the greatest and longest lasting political document in the history of the world. Drafted in part by the great patriot Thomas Jefferson, this document sets forth both the structure of our government and the fundamental freedoms we enjoy every day. Ingenious by its simplicity, the Constitution is a living breathing document that has allowed our country to evolve from 13 colonies who banded together to win her independence from Great Britain to the most powerful Nation in the world. While this document has created a strong national government that is unrivaled in the world, it has also kept the power in the States to decide how to govern themselves. As governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and now as United States Senator I have had the unique opportunity to experience how this ingenious system of federalism plays out in every action we take as leaders.

This legislation that I am introducing today will serve to remind all Americans of the freedoms embodied in the Constitution. For many of us, it has been a long time since we have had the opportunity to sit down and actually read this historic document. By placing the headings of the articles and the amendments on the back of the dollar bill, all people will have the chance to look at the provisions. I sincerely hope that when children take a look at the reverse side of a dollar bill, they will take the time to ask their parents about what they are reading so they can gain a better understanding of our great Nation and the principals our country was founded.

By looking at the order of the amendments to the constitution, students can also trace the history of our country. The amendments to the constitution embody the four pillars of a free and just society. The first of these pillars is freedom of religion, this important freedom is protected by the First Amendment which allows all people of all religions to freely practice their chosen religion without fear of government interference. The second pillar is the freedom of expression, which again is protected in the First Amendment. The third pillar is the private ownership of property. This important freedom is protected by the Fifth Amendment which limits the government's power to take private property. This freedom is also protected in the Third. The fourth Amendment which protects citizens from being forced to quarter solders in their homes and protects private property from unreasonable searches and seizures respectively. The fourth pillar is the rule of law. Protection of the rule of law runs throughout the Constitution, most notably in the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to a speedy trial and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which require due process of law.

Looking at the remaining amendments one can trace the evolution of the Constitution and the United States from the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, to the Fifteenth Amendment providing for the right to vote regardless of race, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote and the Twenty Fourth Amendment prohibiting the poll tax.

Throughout our history, hundreds of thousands of brave men and women have laid down their lives protecting the freedoms granted to us in the constitution. Having it been Veterans Day a few days ago, I feel it is high time

that we do all we can to publicize what these freedom are that we hold so dearly.

Before I yield the floor I would like to recognize the contributions of one of my constituents, Mr. Randy Wright who teaches at Liberty Middle School in Hanover, VA. Mr. Wright brought this idea to my attention several years ago and he along with his students over the years have been instrumental is providing support for this piece of legislation. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Reid, the ranking member, have long been strong supporters of our national labs and specifically the work done at the Jefferson Lab and Brookhaven National Lab. The questions that we collectively pose relate to how we can repair the unintended damage done by this funding level. It is my understanding that the actual bill only provides funding for the Office of Science and that the Department has wide discretion to reallocate those funds among the various programs. Does the Department of Energy have the flexibility and authority to move funds around or to reprogram funding to help to alleviate situations such as this?

Mr. President, we learned last night of the passing of one of this Nation's greatest Civil Rights heroes who will always be remembered for her steadfast leadership for equal justice. When Rosa Parks peacefully refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery public bus in 1955, her solitary act of courage for the cause of equality became a defining moment in American history.

It was Mrs. Parks' steady courage and unflinching character that helped set in motion changes that moved the hearts and minds of the American people. She clearly demonstrated the need for our country to live up to one of our founding principles, that all men are created equal. America is a much better place today because of the strength of this quiet seamstress from Tuskegee. My thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Parks' family during these days of sadness.

I would encourage young Americans to visit the Rosa Parks Library and Museum in Montgomery to learn about her life. It is my hope that the spirit of Rosa Parks continues to live on in America and that this Nation and its leaders never forget the important lessons about decency and equality of opportunity for all. I know that her spirit will live on in my life.

Mr. President, I very much respect the Senator from Oklahoma. He is a man who is a watchdog on the taxpayers' money, and so am I. I know he is very conversant on a variety of issues. It is one of those occasions I must rise in opposition to the Senator's amendment.

Congress, several years ago, authorized the Defense Travel System with the aim of saving taxpayers' dollars, and that makes a great deal of sense to make sure that travel administration by the Department of Defense has greater scrutiny. In fact, as I understand it, they have found by doing it this way--and it is only being field tested; it is not fully implemented--those who are traveling at first-class and tickets being paid for where travel wasn't used. This system is actually helping save the taxpayers money and also identifying when Government workers are flying at a higher cost than they ought to.

I am told that it is now used at a little bit more than half of the Department of Defense 11,000 sites by nearly 700,000 uniformed and civilian personnel. It appears, from what I have looked at, that DTS has not only met but exceeded its original objectives. It is not fully put in place. It is being field tested. As a practical matter, we would like another year or so to see it fully implemented. I am told that it has handled more than a million transactions, and it is well on its way to saving the projected $56 million a year for the American taxpayers.

As to efficiency and savings, any GSA solution will strip away what are planned savings and actually increase operations costs. This is the information I have been trying to gather on this since Senator Coburn offered the amendment. It would actually increase operation costs from $40 to $60 million annually. Senator Warner used the figure of $65 million. Regardless, there would be an added cost.

One thing the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned is that the Department of Defense does not actually own this software system and that what the Department of Defense, though, has done is it has appropriate license rights to the DTS software system in accordance with Federal acquisition regulations. While there are these allegations from outside parties that criticize the DTS program on the basis that the Government failed to obtain title to the DTS software, what is ignored is that the Federal acquisitions regulations provide that in the vast majority of Federal contracts, the Government does not take title, but instead it is given a license to the software. And the Department of Defense has secured appropriate license rights to all the developed software and third-party software products used by DTS.

The Senator from Oklahoma stated that this contract may violate the very laws that were put on the books to try to maintain competition in contracting. I don't know whether it was an assertion or a conclusion.

I respectfully disagree. The legality of the restructuring of the DTS contract has been challenged in court. From what our research has shown, no court has found that the entire restructured contract was illegal. It simply stated no part of the contract, as currently configured, has been found by any court to be illegal. Maybe it will be in the future, and we will see.

Let me finish and then the Senator can respond. I say to my

friend from Oklahoma, I do have a great deal of respect for him. He is truly a steward of the taxpayers' money. I pride myself, also, in being a good steward of the taxpayers' dollars. I know there have been hearings on this DTS program. We need to continue to examine this issue and, in fact, a lot of others. To cut funding right now for this program would be a hasty action and, from all the information I have been able to glean, would actually increase the cost to the taxpayers.

The Department of Defense does oppose this amendment. They called my office a short time ago expressing this opposition. They promised to review the GAO report as soon as possible. I do think the more prudent approach is to, of course, commend the Senator from Oklahoma for any kind of scrutiny. No spending should not be under the watchful eye of us as stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. But because of a lack of understanding on the part of the Senators on the floor and this amendment, this should continue to be studied.

I will oppose this amendment and work, such as all of us, to study this issue further. I hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment.

I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I reclaim my time and then I will yield. I also share with my colleagues that the judge who reviewed this case did not find a violation, for whatever technical reasons Senator Coburn may say, but the adjudication was there is no violation. The judge also said that to start over would be a mistake.

I yield the floor.

On September 3, 2005, America lost one of its greatest public servants when, following a year-long battle with cancer, William Hubbs Rehnquist passed away at the age of 80. At the time of his death, he had been a member of the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 distinguished years, having served as Chief Justice since 1986 and previously as an associate justice, appointed in 1972.

Much of William Rehnquist's professional career was dedicated to public service. He served his country honorably in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II from 1943-1946. After his military service, he earned an undergraduate, a masters' and a law degree from Stanford University. Even further demonstrating his intellectual acumen, Rehnquist also graduated with a master's degree from Harvard University and was first in his class at Stanford University Law School. After law school, he became a Supreme Court clerk for Associate Justice Robert Jackson before leaving for private practice in Arizona. In 1969, Justice Rehnquist joined the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General where he served until 1971. That year, President Nixon nominated William H. Rehnquist to be on the Supreme Court; the following year, he was confirmed to be an associate justice by the U.S. Senate.

It was on the Supreme Court that William Rehnquist built his reputation as one of the great legal minds of our time. His tenure on the high court of the land, both as an associate justice and as the Chief Justice, was an extraordinary achievement. I was particularly impressed with his leadership as the head of the entire Federal judiciary, as well as his affable personal demeanor on the bench and off, both of which were important traits in his role as Chief.

I respect immensely the way in which Chief Justice Rehnquist served on the Court with honor and restraint. As a justice, he fairly and properly interpreted the words of the Constitution without usurping the rights of the American people and those of the States to make laws as they deem appropriate rather than allowing un- elected judges who are appointed for life to substitute their personal political views for the popular will of the people.

Chief Justice Rehnquist clearly understood that judges ought to apply the law and Constitution, not invent the law or amend the Constitution by judicial decree. And I believe that he perfectly embodied what I consider to be the proper role of a justice and that America should be grateful for his long and distinguished public service on the bench.

Our Nation was so fortunate to have a man of William Rehnquist's intelligence and legal experience in public service for so many years. As a Supreme Court Justice, he was a decent, dedicated, steady, and principled jurist whose legal brilliance and knowledge will be difficult to replace. Chief Justice Rehnquist deserves America's gratitude for his over three decades of dedicated service on the Supreme Court and a life devoted to the service of this great Nation and its citizens.

My condolences go out to his family, in particular his three children, James, Janet, and Nancy, during this difficult time.

May he rest in peace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong support of the confirmation of Judge John Roberts to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.

When we first learned of this vacancy on the Supreme Court earlier this summer, I laid out the principles of what kind of judge I believe the President should nominate and how the nomination process should proceed. It should be a dignified approach as a due process. It should be fair, and there should be a vote.

Federal judges are appointed for life. When one recognizes those debates in the founding of our country, Mr. Jefferson wanted judges appointed for terms, and Mr. Hamilton wanted them for life. Unfortunately, in my view, Mr. Hamilton won. The only time there is any scrutiny on the part of the public is at this time of confirmation. While some may not like the editorials, some may not like the TV ads, the demonstrations, and all the speeches. I don't think judges ought to be legislators, and I don't agree with some of their perspectives in our free country. Let us as Senators not say that people are wrong to demonstrate, run TV ads, advocate and express their views, even if we may not be in agreement with them. That is one of the foundational principles of our country. Ultimately our role is to listen, to examine judicial nominees based upon our criteria. Obviously, we can listen to the people and then ultimately it is our responsibility to vote.

The following are the criteria I use to judge a judge. I have always believed the proper role of a judge is to apply the law, not invent the law. The proper role of a judge is to uphold the Constitution, not amend the Constitution by judicial decrees. The proper role of a judge is to uphold the intent of the Constitution and the principles of our Founders, not to indulge in self-satisfying judicial activism. The proper role of a judge is to protect and, indeed, to defend our God- given rights, not to create or deny rights out of thin air.

I believe it is my responsibility and the responsibility of all Senators to make sure that America's courts, including, of course, and most importantly, the Supreme Court, are filled with qualified men and women who possess the proper judicial philosophy in our representative democracy.

Laws are to be made by the representatives of the people. The people are the owners of the government. At the local level, they elect city councils, parish leaders, county boards of supervisors. Then we have State legislators, Governors, and, of course, Federal legislators, Congress, and the President.

However, colleagues, every week, and almost every day, we see the consequences of activist judges who do not properly respect our representative democracy. They do not understand or respect the proper role and responsibilities of a judge not to be an executive and not to be a legislator.

Let me share with my colleagues two examples of judicial activism, decisions where the rule of law which is one of those foundational bedrock pillars of a free and just society, where these concepts have been eroded and ignored by judges.

Exhibit A comes from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has trampled upon the will of the people of California by ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in California public schools because it contains the words ``under God.'' They fail to see that the Pledge of Allegiance is not the establishment of any religion. It is a patriotic act. If a student does not wish to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, he or she is not compelled to do so. They can sit there quietly as the pledge is recited.

This is a terrible ruling, not just because it violates the will and the values of the people of California, which it surely does, but it is also a terrible ruling because it actually displays a woeful and inexcusable ignorance of America's legal and historical traditions going all the way back to Mr. Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. This is all sacrificed on the altar of judicial activism.

Unless the Ninth Circuit reverses itself, then the Supreme Court of the United States should ultimately reverse this prohibition of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.

Exhibit B comes from, I regret to say, the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States. This past summer, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, five Supreme Court Justices willfully ignored the Bill of Rights, allowing local governments, acting as commissars, the right to take someone's home, a person's home to be taken not for a road, not for a school, not for a legitimate public use, but simply because they think they can generate more tax revenue from the property upon which that home is located.

Colleagues, home ownership is the greatest fulfillment of the American dream. Every American should have the opportunity to own the home in which they live. Every child is enriched by learning and appreciating the value and pride of home ownership. That is why I advocate economic policies that make home ownership more affordable to more people. It is not just good economic sense, it is also an issue of fairness. It is an issue of opportunity in this land we call home, America.

This outrageous decision that is forcing people out of their homes, the very definition of the American dream, in the name of expanded government tax revenue, is amending the Bill of Rights by judicial decree and is contrary to what I believe is a fair and just society.

These are just two examples of judicial activism. We do not need any more judicial activists on the Ninth Circuit, on the Supreme Court, or any court in this land. The only way to stop this insidious effect of judicial activism is to confirm well-qualified judges who possess good legal minds and understand their role in our Republic. Judges are not to be legislators or executives. Judges should fairly adjudicate disputes based upon the law and the Constitution.

I believe Judge Roberts is precisely that kind of judge. I believe Judge Roberts has the credentials, the values, and the temperament to be an outstanding Chief Justice.

Let me briefly touch on some of his outstanding credentials. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, was a law clerk for both Judge Friendly and later for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a Justice Department aide for the Reagan administration, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration, a private attorney with Hogan & Hartson, and since 2003, an esteemed judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

I supported Judge Roberts' confirmation to the D.C. Court of Appeals, and his service there has confirmed my confidence in his outstanding capabilities. I have been impressed not only by his keen judicious mind but also his commitment to the Constitution and understanding the importance of the rule of law and the role of a judge.

I met with Judge Roberts back in August. We discussed things one on one. I found him to be a very well grounded individual. He possesses the right judicial philosophy. I know people are concerned that some judges might get in there and somehow get out of touch in the rarefied air of judgeships, particularly on the Supreme Court. I thought it was good he cuts his grass every now and then--not that it is a qualification to be a judge, but it shows he understands how people live in a relatively normal way.

Most importantly, we talked about the importance of precedence, individual rights, the interpretation of Federal and State laws, and what deference should be given to laws passed by the representatives of the people, as well as a variety of other issues.

I am very comfortable with Judge Roberts and his understanding of the role of a judge, the importance of the Constitution, and that the Constitution should not be amended by judicial decree.

I enjoyed asking him what he thinks the role of international law or laws from other countries should be for judges. We will not have others from another country tell us what our laws ought to be. I love his judicious approach that any judge who uses international laws or the laws from other countries to make decisions upon cases in the United States, those judges are trying to accrue to themselves more power than they should have. The powers of Federal judges in this country

come from the laws that are passed by the people in the United States. If you start trying to get extraneous laws, that is judicial expansion. He understands the modest and respectful way a judge should handle cases.

Later in his confirmation hearings, we saw how Judge Roberts continued to show a rare reverence for our Constitution and the Supreme Court's responsibilities under our Constitution. He declared:

Judges are not to put in their own personal views about

what the Constitution should say, but they are supposed to

interpret it and apply the meaning that is in the

Constitution.

Judge Roberts went on to say:

[J]udges need to appreciate that the legitimacy of their

action is confined to interpreting the law and not to making

it, and if they exceed that function and start making the

law, I do think that raises legitimate concerns about [the]

legitimacy of their authority to do that.

It is refreshing to hear those words from the lips of a Supreme Court nominee. May other judges in the Federal court system understand and respect that, as well.

As we get ready to vote tomorrow on Judge Roberts, this is exactly how this system and this process ought to work--fair and open hearings where the nominee explains his or her judicial philosophy but refuses to prejudge individual cases, and following all of the scrutiny and the questions and examination, there is a fair, up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. This is the American tradition. This should not be an exception. This should be the rule and the way we treat judicial nominees, not just this nominee but future nominees.

I remind my colleagues, we will soon have another Supreme Court vacancy to fill. We will need to fill it very soon. We should be fair and dignified, we should be deliberative, and when it is over, we should vote. Yes, that is our responsibility, to vote.

I am looking forward to having John Roberts serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I am also looking forward to confirming other well-qualified judges who understand and appreciate the foundational principles of our country and who will reinforce the rule of law by fairly adjudicating disputes protecting our freedom of religion, protecting our private ownership of property, and our freedom of expression.

John Roberts, I believe, will go down in history as one of the great Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Let him also become a role model for all other men and women who will follow on Federal benches.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to honor the birth of one of Virginia's and America's true citizen soldiers, statesmen, and most importantly jurists, the former Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall.

The 250th commemoration of his birth over the weekend takes on special significance this week as the Senate prepares to confirm John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. He will replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whose decent, dedicated and principled leadership will be difficult to replace. I am confident that Judge Roberts will follow in the tradition of honorable service that was so evident in the work of former Chief Justices Rehnquist and Marshall.

John Marshall's legacy as a Federalist is truly remarkable, but what many people fail to address is his true love for a young America and the desire to see our country succeed and persevere for generations to come.

A native Virginian, from Germantown, he grew up with his parents Thomas and Mary Randolph Keith. His devotion to our Nation was ever present when the Revolutionary War began with the firing of the historic shots at Lexington and Concord. Like so many of his great countrymen, Marshall did not waver in spirit or succumb to fear; Marshall picked up arms against the tyrannical oppressive British Crown and defended the freedom and liberty that he envisioned for Virginians and other colonies.

At the young age of 20, Marshall joined the Culpeper Minute Men. He was chosen a lieutenant. Marshall proceeded to nobly fight in the battle of Great Bridge. In fact, while enduring the cold winter at Valley Forge, Marshall was General George Washington's chief legal officer and by the end of his military service, John Marshall was a brigadier general for the Second Brigade in the Virginia Militia.

After his valiant war service, Marshall returned to Virginia to study law under George Wythe at the College of William and Mary. He was admitted to Phi Beta Kappa and the Virginia Bar. Marshall's desire to practice in the courts and the court of appeals led him to the great capital city of Richmond. It is in Richmond where Marshall's political and judicial life began to flourish.

John Marshall became one of the leading attorneys defending Virginians in the United States District Court of Virginia, and as a consequence, he was selected to be the lead counsel in arguing the landmark case, Ware v. Hylton, in the 1796 term of the United States Supreme Court. This would be the only case that John Marshall would argue before the Nation's highest court and, ironically, he lost.

Like his legal career, Marshall saw success in politics. He held legislative office as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, a member of the Governor's Council of State, and finally as a member of the United States House of Representatives. But one of his most important, yet often overlooked roles is his election to the Virginia convention that ratified the Federal Constitution. Marshall rose and delivered a very poignant speech on the role of the judiciary. This speech dispelled many of the fears of a Federal court system and truly defined his views on the proper function of government.

Nonetheless, John Marshall was not a boisterous individual. He refused many attempts by President Adams to appoint him to Federal office. But he accepted and served as a diplomatic envoy to France for President Adams as well as Adams' Secretary of State. It was his dedicated service as Secretary of State that led President Adams to appoint Marshall to the United States Supreme Court, where his legacy would endure.

We all know the landmark cases that John Marshall decided. From McCulloch v. Maryland to Gibbons v. Ogden, Marshall's contribution to the American judiciary system is ever present. But the case that truly enshrines his legacy is his ruling in Marbury v. Madison. In truth, what made this even more impressive was that Marbury was the very first case that the Supreme Court heard under the leadership of Chief Justice Marshall.

The Marshall Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison has defined the role of the Supreme Court and its pivotal place in our system of checks and balances. Although the decision limited the power of the Supreme Court, it also served to establish the Court's authority to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress. The doctrine of judicial review became a fundamental principle of Constitutional law.

While I am a Jeffersonian who wishes to limit the reach and meddling of the Federal Government into the rights and prerogatives of the people and the States, I do believe these foundational Constitutional questions, debates, and decisions are noteworthy for the education of our present leaders and students. By commemorating historical figures such as John Marshall, we will help our young people better understand American history and what it means to be a citizen of the United States. One thing is certain: John Marshall deserves a prominent place in this Nation's history for his life of service and the impact he made on America even after death. It was, after all, Chief Justice Marshall's funeral that caused the famous crack in the Liberty Bell when it tolled for his procession in 1835. Indeed, John's Marshall's indelible mark in American lore came in many forms.

And so it is with great honor that I celebrate the birthday of one of our great citizen soldiers, statesmen, and Chief Justices. We should celebrate John Marshall's contribution to our country. His steadfast commitment to federalism helped define the role of the courts and may have ultimately preserved the delicate equilibrium of our Government. But what trumped his loyalty to the federalist way of life, was his love for his Nation and his desire to see America flourish into the great country that it is today.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy birthday to Chief Justice John Marshall, who was born 250 years ago in the great Commonwealth of Virginia. May Virginia and America continue to be blessed with men and women of his unflinching character and spirit.