Floor Statements

Mr. President, as we consider the possibilities and challenges that face our great Nation and the tremendous dependence we have on foreign sources of oil, every effort to reduce that dependence becomes a key point for consideration by the Congress. In addition, the growing demand for oil by China and India only intensifies the need for action. We must become less reliant on foreign sources of oil and natural gas from unstable parts of the world.

I have been made aware that by reducing fuel consumption in the aviation sector through implementation of an idle reduction technology we would see fuel reductions in excess of 90 million barrels of petroleum each year after full implementation.

Implementing this type of technology would also greatly reduce the associated mobile source emissions greatly benefiting our metropolitan areas facing EPA nonattainment and the losses associated this categorization. The airline industry and the general public would also benefit from such technology through reduced costs and environmental improvements.

According to DOT, expenses for U.S. commercial airlines, fuel and oil expenses were equal to those of labor which has historically been the single largest expense for the carriers. By reducing the amount of fuel required through idle reduction technology, the U.S. commercial airlines could save well over $4 billion in fuel costs at today's fuel prices, a large percentage of the estimated losses for this year.

Applying innovative technology applications in this manner will assist in reducing our overall dependence on foreign oil while providing other benefits as well.

The Energy bill that has passed today includes support for research and development for optimizing fuel efficiency for commercial aircrafts. This is an important step in the right direction for America's energy future.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an important innovative in manufacturing related to America's needs for clean, reliable, and affordable energy that is important for national security, American jobs, and our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we are fortunate to have a competitive manufacturing industry representing several sectors from pharmaceuticals to fire safety to paper products to refining. Virginia is also fortunate to have a strong base of smaller, progressive companies that are producing products that help America achieve cleaner air standards and decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

One such company advancing these priorities is Afton Chemical located in Richmond, VA. Founded in 1921, Afton is a full-service global petroleum additives supplier. It has a strong commitment to innovative technology and world-class research. It operates a state-of-the-art research facility in Richmond and a European research and test facility in Bracknell, Berkshire, England. It has manufacturing facilities worldwide.

Afton develops, manufactures, blends, and delivers chemical additives that enhance the performance of petroleum products. One of these additives, MMT, is an organic-based fuel additive designed to boost octane levels in gasoline. MMT is used commercially in the United States and throughout the world. The product is added into fuel at very small concentrations.

MMT provides refiners with an economical octane improver. MMT achieves emission reductions by lessening the degree to which a barrel of crude oil has to be processed to make a gallon of gasoline. Because less refining is needed, fewer emissions are emitted to the air. Those fewer emissions include greenhouse gas emissions. Because less refining per barrel of crude is needed, a barrel of oil goes a lot further; thereby increasing refinery capacity.

In fact, refinery studies have shown that MMT, if used in all gasoline in the United States, would save up to 30 million barrels a year of crude oil, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. At today's crude oil prices, that is nearly $2 billion per year. Because refiners using MMT operate under less severe conditions, refinery emissions of greenhouse gases can also be reduced by millions of tons per year.

Now, more than ever, with high gasoline prices and greater dependence on foreign oil from unstable countries, we need products that help conserve oil and result in more efficient refining of oil. Afton Chemical has made production of cleaner burning fuel additives a priority. And because of their efforts in this area, I applaud their efforts in increasing energy efficiencies.

I am proud of all the companies in Virginia, like Afton, that are innovating to find solutions for more efficient, cleaner burning, and less toxic fuels for America's energy needs. Whether these companies are producing MMT or biodiesel made from home-grown Virginia soybeans, innovators from the Commonwealth are creating energy solutions to strengthen our national security, create new jobs and save current ones and most importantly, increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of this Energy bill and in particular the amendment that is primarily sponsored by Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Landrieu, Vitter, and others.

First, I thank Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for their skillful leadership, their dedication, their patience, and everything they have done to craft a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan energy policy that I believe encourages, incents, provides us, as a country, with clean and affordable energy in a growing and obviously more secure economy.

We have made significant progress so far on this measure. I look forward to passage of this bill in the Senate so we can get a final measure passed before the summer recess.

This bill is important for three salient reasons: No. 1, the security of this country; No. 2, jobs in this country; and No. 3, the competitiveness of the United States of America.

As far as security and energy independence, we must become less reliant on foreign sources of oil and natural gas from unstable, unreliable places in the world.

Second, as far as jobs are concerned, this measure, when passed, will save jobs. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be saved and hundreds of thousands of jobs in a variety of ways will be created--new jobs. It is important for saving jobs especially in the areas where there is manufacturing of chemicals, fertilizers, plastics, forestry products, and even tires. All of those can be manufactured anywhere in the world, but we have a high-intensity need for clean burning natural gas right here in America. And jobs will be saved if we produce it here within our own borders.

We are supporting new technologies for the production of electricity using clean coal technology--where we are embracing the advances of technology to utilize an abundant resource, coal--we are the Saudi Arabia of the world in coal, and we ought to be using it, as well as new technologies for clean nuclear power generation. That is where jobs matter.

As far as competitiveness, there is not a person here, not a person in this country, whether it is driving to school, driving to work, operating a business, and it could be the highest, most technologically advanced business, that doesn't need electricity. Everything we consume goes by rail, truck, air, or a combination thereof before it gets to the store or to our homes or to our places of business. This bill is essential for lower gasoline and diesel costs for transport of these products.

We need to have an affordable energy source for our economy, for jobs, and the competitiveness of our country in the future because many of these jobs can be put anywhere in the world. In addition to proper tax policies, reasonable regulatory policies, less litigation, and the embracing of innovations, an energy policy for this country is long overdue.

With regard to competitiveness, I was Governor at one time. We would always try to get businesses to locate in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We succeeded. The businesses looked at the cost of operations in different States. They looked at what the cost was; what is the regulatory burden; do you have a right-to-work law, which we did; what is the cost of health care. They cared about transportation, but they also looked at the cost of doing business with electricity. We would have a report to top management in New York City, and we would compare our electricity rates in Virginia to those in the New York City area. Virginia's electricity rates, compared to those, looked as though they were almost free. That was an attribute, a strong selling point for businesses to come to the Commonwealth of Virginia. These same principles apply to the entire United States of America.

Let's look at natural gas. Natural gas, that wonderful clean burning fuel, is in many places around the world, in many strong economies around the world. We would certainly want to be able to match other countries in the cost of producing this clean burning fuel, whether for our homes, but also for manufacturers. It is not just the chemical and fertilizer manufacturers, it is the farmers who have to pay these

higher prices, and when farmers have to pay higher prices to run their tractors or to fertilize their fields, that means the cost of food goes up, which affects us all in that way as well.

Look at our prices--and these prices are from February, and prices of natural gas have gone up in this country since this report. In the United States of America, we are over $7 for 1 million Btus of natural gas and it is rising.

Take the United Kingdom, Great Britain. It is $5.15. Turkey is only $2.65. Ukraine is $1.70. Russia is less than a dollar per 1 million Btus. You say, well, we are not competing with them. Who are we competing with then? We are competing with them, as well as with South America. Look at the prices of natural gas in South American countries: $1.50 in Argentina compared to over $7 in the United States. In North Africa, it is less than a dollar.

What about real competition we are facing in the loss of manufacturing jobs to India and to China? China and India are increasing in their economies and, of course, demand for oil, natural gas, coal and other fuels is going up, too, exacerbating the prices. We see China now trying to buy up our gasoline companies, specifically Unocal. For our national security, it's important that we have a comprehensive review of the types of investments State owned Chinese companies are making in international and U.S. based energy resources.

Even there, where China has this booming economy, their price is $4.50 compared to us. The same with Japan. India pays half the price we do in natural gas, $3.10 per 1 million Btus. Our friends in Australia pay $3.75 for a million Btus of natural gas.

As a result of what we are seeing in these higher natural gas prices, we are already losing jobs in this country. The chemical industry, one of our Nation's largest industrial users of natural gas, has watched more than 100,000 jobs, one-tenth of the U.S. chemical workforce, disappear just since the year 2000.

Recent studies by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council found that 2 million jobs could be saved if Congress lays out a fresh blueprint for the supply, delivery, and efficient use of all forms of energy, including clean burning natural gas.

To address this natural gas crisis that is crippling our American farmers and manufacturers, we need a positive, proactive strategy for greater fuel diversity. The bill does just that by supporting clean coal. It supports nuclear energy and a whole host of renewable technologies, such as biofuels and incentives for fuel cells.

In the area of nuclear, I think it is one of the most important aspects of the bill. When one thinks of the generation of electricity, we ought to be using clean nuclear and clean coal technology while allowing natural gas to be utilized not for base load electricity generation but rather for factories, manufacturing jobs, and in our homes.

The President's Nuclear Power 2010 Program is designed to work with the nuclear industry in a 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement. It also addresses some of the risks and litigation aspects of it. One thing that is not in this measure but I am going to work on in the future is the repository.

The Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, was talking about Yucca Mountain. I fully understand why the people in Nevada would not want to have highly radioactive fuel rods that are radioactive for 40,000 years. What we need to do long term is look at what France is doing with nuclear power. What they have done is taken a technology that was started in this country on reprocessing and they have perfected it. We ought to be reprocessing this nuclear fuel, these spent fuel rods. If we do that, it is a much more efficient and much less dangerous approach. It is much less volume, and are decreased. That is something we need to do long term. It is not in this measure, but we need to move forward with it in the future.

Also in this bill we have set efficiency standards for everything from buildings to appliances that will help reduce our demand for electricity and natural gas.

Ultimately, we need to need to produce more natural gas. This amendment talks about coastal States that are committed to more exploration, the impact on their coastal areas and allowing them to get some assistance to these States closest to the exploration.

What I am going to say is not part of this amendment, but the issue of exploration off the coasts of different States came up during the hearings in our committee. It is not necessarily part of--in fact, it is not part of this amendment, but for the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this is an issue of some interest in our General Assembly. Our State legislature, in a very strong bipartisan action, stated that they were in favor of allowing or at least determining if there is any natural gas--not oil but natural gas--far off the coast of Virginia, beyond the viewshed, and, in the event that there is, allowing Virginia to share some of those revenues. That is not going to be part of this measure, and I say to Senator Bingaman, it is not part of this measure.

I realize things move slowly around here, slower than some of us would like, but I do think that the people in the States should have more of a say in energy production. Right now, if one looks at these coastal areas, it is all subject to the whims of the Federal Government. The Federal Government says they own it; the Federal Government says: We will determine if it is in a moratorium or not.

I am one, having been Governor, who would actually like the people in the States to have more prerogatives. There may be a different batch of folks in the Senate, and we may have a different President who says, No, we are going to do this, we do not care what the people of New Jersey think; we are going to go forward and explore. I would like to protect the prerogatives of the people of the States and also allow the people in the States, if they so choose to explore, to actually share in those revenues.

I have suggested that in Virginia, we ought to use a good portion of it for universities and colleges to reduce in-State tuition costs; another big chunk for transportation to alleviate traffic congestion; and another portion to the coastal areas, such as places like Virginia Beach, for things like beach replenishment. That is just something I would like to see ultimately allowed, but that is not part of this measure.

I also do think that I know the President's views on the inventory issue. People in South and North Carolina, Florida, and New Jersey do not even want an inventory. They do not even want to know what is off their coast. In my view, the compromise to all of this, if they do not want to, they don't have to. Why spend money looking off those coasts because the people of Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey, and maybe South Carolina as well, do not want to. So why waste the money? However, if the people of Georgia and Virginia would like to know what is off their coasts, allow them to at least find out what is out there and then make a determination therefrom. That might be the good compromise to this issue in conference.

This measure that Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter have brought up has to do with Louisiana and a great deal, obviously, with the gulf coast. They have certain needs in Louisiana. Being in Cajun country and all around Louisiana last year for a variety of purposes, I know this is a very big issue to the people of Louisiana. We should be thankful to the people of Louisiana for the efforts they have made in the exploration off their coast because they are powering this country.

Granted, natural gas prices are high, and maybe we will get more production out of Alaska, and maybe we will get some more out of Louisiana or maybe off of Mississippi, but the point is that they have great coastal impacts, not because of the exploration way off in the Gulf of Mexico but because of the services to transport it, just the nature of the bayous. It is just the topography, that they have coastal erosion there that is of great concern to everyone in the State of Louisiana, especially south Louisiana. They are all proud of that sportsman paradise, as they call it.

I strongly support Senator Domenici's and Senator Bingaman's effort in this bill to consider the needs of producing States. Long term, what we are looking at is supporting, creating, and

preserving manufacturing jobs and finding environmentally safe ways to increase production of clean burning natural gas. It is important for jobs in this country. It is important for our national security to be less dependent on foreign energy. We need to be more independent, and, of course, we need to be much more competitive for investments and jobs if we are going to be the world capital of innovation.

So I urge my colleagues most respectfully to vote for this amendment that allows coastal impact assistance to States closest to this exploration. We have listened in meetings to Senator Vitter argue very persuasively to me and to others, I hope, and the same with Senator Landrieu in a variety of forums as well--they have made a persuasive argument for Louisiana, but ultimately it is a persuasive argument for the United States of America.

I thank my colleagues for their attention, and most importantly I thank my colleagues in anticipation of a positive vote for this amendment and moreover getting this Energy bill passed so that this country can become more independent of foreign oil, foreign energy, save those jobs, create more jobs, and make this country more competitive for investment and creativity in the future.

I yield the floor.

I say to my chairman that the reason I wanted to get on his committee was because I believed that this Energy bill was the most important legislation we will pass in this Congress that will affect our competitiveness, jobs in this country, as well as our independence or less dependence on foreign oil and foreign energy, whether it is natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and all the rest.

I have been so impressed by the bipartisan way the Senator has methodically tried to move this measure forward that has great importance for the future of our country, not just for the next 5 or 10 years but, indeed, for generations to come. It is a model for how we can work in a bipartisan way. Does everyone get everything they want? No. But I think the American people ultimately will be much better off, there will be more people and families working, and we will be more competitive, thanks to the Senator's leadership.

I am very proud and pleased to have been appointed and elected to the Energy Committee, and I look forward to working with the chairman. He is a magnificent leader with the right vision for this country.

Mr. President, as we move forward on Energy legislation crucial for our country's national security, jobs, and competitiveness, I wish to raise an issue which is threatening global energy security. The surging demand for energy in developing countries coupled with the dynamic rise in power and influence of government operated energy companies is changing the global energy market. Specifically, I am concerned about the role of the People's Republic of China with its national oil companies, and the potential adverse effects on U.S. energy supplies. I am also concerned about our ability to compete for energy assets.

China's surging demand for energy is impacting the world. China has now emerged as the second largest consumer of energy, and demand could double by 2020. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, China is consuming 7.2 million barrels of oil per day and this is expected to rise to 7.8 million barrels of oil per day by next year. China alone has accounted for 40 percent of growth in oil demand over the last 4 years. According to recent studies, China's growing demand for oil is one of the significant factors driving oil prices to record high levels. With such growth in the Chinese economy, it is understandable why there is greater demand for energy in the form of coal, oil, and nuclear power as well as materials ranging from cement to steel.

With limited domestic resources, China has embarked on an aggressive program through its national energy companies to secure energy and in doing so has proposed acquisition of energy assets around the world, including assets of U.S. based companies. It has become increasingly difficult for private companies in the U.S. to compete against these government-owned energy companies, such as the Chinese state-owned company known as CNOOC. The inherent advantage that these state-owned companies have is that they can operate under non-market terms and conditions for the purchase of energy supplies and assets, including accepting very low rates of return. Thus, private entities in free countries are disadvantaged in competing for energy assets.

China in the past year has signed deals for oil reserved in Africa, Iran, South America, and now Canada. Today, one of China's largest state-controlled oil companies made a $18.5 billion unsolicited bid for Unocal, signaling the first big takeover battle by a Chinese company for a U.S. corporation.

Energy is a global issue and we need to understand the implications for American interests on how these energy shifts may impact us as well as the rest of the world.

It is important that we have a comprehensive review which would include a full assessment of the types of investments China is making in international and U.S. based companies, a better understanding of the relationship between the Chinese energy sector and the Chinese government, and what we can do to ensure a level playing field and flexibility in the global market. Perhaps most importantly, we need to understand how we can better work cooperatively to pursue energy interests as well as work together on conservation, energy efficiency, and technology.

It is nice to talk about working cooperatively with China, but I am concerned that we may be headed on a collision course. Energy is the lifeblood of economic growth and we are beginning to see an imbalance occur. I look forward to hearing from the administration to gain a better understanding of the issues and how the U.S. can best proceed to secure our future energy needs.

I am pleased today to recognize the Prince William County-Greater Manassas Chamber of Commerce which celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. For seven decades, the Chamber has supported the community, educational and business interests of Prince William County and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park.

In 1935, a small group of citizens gathered together in the Town of Manassas with an idea to form the Chamber of Commerce. These leaders founded an organization that has prevailed through times of prosperity and depression, and that continues to grow and prosper. Today, the Chamber has almost 1000 members, and it holds an accreditation from the United States Chamber of Commerce. Only 15 percent

of Chambers of Commerce throughout the country have earned this distinction.

The Prince William County-Greater Manassas Chamber of Commerce continues to perform outstanding work in representing and promoting its citizens and the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. I congratulate its members on seventy successful years, and thank them for the work they are doing to make Virginia a better place to live, work and raise a family.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize Julia Dyer, a teacher at Albemarle High School in Charlottesville, VA, who is one of eight finalists for the Richard T. Farrell Teacher of Merit Award for outstanding success in teaching history.

The Richard T. Farrell Award is presented each year to a teacher who employs innovative and creative teaching methods in and out of the classroom. The teacher must participate in the National History Day program, develop and use creative teaching methods to pique students' interest in history, help them make exciting discoveries about the past, show exemplary commitment to helping students develop their awareness of history and recognize their achievements.

Ms. Dyer is being recognized for her dedication to the National History Day program and her success with improving history education. She has been involved in helping students participate in National History Day for over 20 years. Ms. Dyer has a unique ability to take a classroom curriculum and personalize it for each student. And, most impressively, she continues to have an impact on students even after they have left her classroom.

As a former Governor who implemented academic standards for Virginia's students in a broad range of subjects, including history, I am especially pleased that we have outstanding women like Julia teaching in our schools. I commend Julia on her selection for this award and applaud her dedication to her students, the improvement of the educational process and the teaching of our common history. With dedicated teachers like Julia Dyer, I know the students in Virginia, and indeed across America, have a bright future.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the resolution of apology that Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and I have submitted. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership on this matter. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this and other matters, but this is undoubtedly the most historic.

I got involved in this because I received a letter from Dick Gregory. I know Members of the Senate received thousands of letters and e-mails and phone calls. He asked me to join with Senator Landrieu last year on this. He was signing this letter on behalf of Dr. E. Faye Williams, Martin Luther King III, Dr. C. DeLores Tucker, and others. But he asked me. He said:

I respectfully ask you to serve as an original cosponsor of

the Landrieu resolution. . . . We realize life will go on and

your world will not be affected if you choose to do nothing.

That struck me as: Well, I am going to choose to do something. He asked me to sponsor this on the Republican side ``because it is the right thing to do.''

That says it all, really, when we see an affront to the basic principles that were enunciated in the spirit of this country in the Declaration of Independence. When we seceded from Britain, we talked about freedom, liberty, and justice, trying to constitute that here in this country, fighting for so many years to free ourselves from the monarch to construct a free and just society, with freedom of religion, freedom of expression, due process of law, equal protection, as well as the rule of law.

In so many of those key pillars of a free and just society, when one looks at what happened with the lynchings, the torchings, the whippings to death of people because of their race, because of their religion, because of their ethnicity, the cold-hearted hatred of it, and the countenance of it--and the fact that this wonderful Senate, with these historic desks where you can pull out drawers and see some of the great minds, the great orators of our history who had argued magnificently and inspiringly things on this Senate floor--you see there were times in our history when Senators ended up looking the other way. They did not take a stand. They turned their eyes, they turned their heads when something positive could have been done to disapprove, deplore, and obviously pass a law to make lynching a Federal crime.

This Chamber is part of our representative democracy. We are to represent the ``Will of the People.'' We are also to represent those foundational principles of our country. Unfortunately, that has not always occurred.

Daniel Webster, standing in the Old Senate Chamber, told his colleagues in 1834 that a ``representative of the people is a sentinel on the watchtower of liberty.'' Indeed, the Senate has been a great watchtower of liberty. Many individuals have been outstanding orators, brilliant men and women in the world's greatest deliberative body. Unfortunately, this August body has a stain on its history, and that stain is lynching. Americans died from hangings, from whippings, from a torch, from evil hearts outside of this Chamber.

Three-fourths of the victims of these injustices--and these have been documented and researched by the respected archives of the Tuskegee Institute--were perpetrated against African Americans. Mr. President, 4,749 Americans died by lynching, whipping, torturing, and mutilation, starting in 1882. Many times these lynchings were not lone acts by a few white men. Rather, they were angry gangs, as Senator Landrieu talked about. They were occasions, they were events, mobs who were whipped into frenzies by the skewed mentalities of what is right and what is wrong.

These cruel and unjust acts are so contrary to the rule of law, due process, and equal protection that we pride ourselves on in the United States. Again, three-quarters of the victims were African Americans. But this hatred also was perpetrated against those who are Asian, primarily Chinese; against American Indians; against Latinos; against Italians; and against people who are Jewish; and others who found themselves unprotected.

Mr. President, Senator Landrieu and I, as well as my colleagues who are joining us right now in the Chamber--Senator Kerry and Senator Pryor--are rising this evening to make history, to try to right history. We are standing to give our heartfelt and formal apology, not for what anybody here presently in the Senate had done, but what this body, this continuous body, failed to do in the past. And it is an apology to all the victims and descendants of those who were lynched, who were whipped to death, who were torched to death, who were mutilated to death.

Many of the victims' descendants are currently watching in our gallery. This is a somber, not happy time but also one of reflection. It is one of the failures of the Senate to take action when action was most needed. It was a time where we were trying to make sure all Americans had equal opportunity. However, that clearly was not the case.

Senator Landrieu showed those photographs. These were vile killings. They captivated front-page headlines. They drew crowds with morbid curiosity and left thousands and thousands, mostly African Americans, hanging from trees or bleeding to death from the lashing of whips. By not acting, this body failed to protect the liberty of which Daniel Webster spoke.

One of those who suffered this awful fate was an African American named Zachariah Walker, from Coatsville, VA. In 1911, Walker was dragged from a hospital bed where he was recovering from a gunshot wound. Accused of killing a white man--which he had claimed was in self-defense--Walker was burned alive at the stake without trial.

Such horrendous acts were not just a regional phenomenon of the South. States such as Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and even the Washington, DC area experienced this sort of mob violence and injustice. Lynching was not just a regional problem; it was a crime throughout our Nation, which occurred in 46 States of our country. It was because of the national scope of these atrocities that the Senate should act.

The Senate, of course, failed to pass any of the nearly 200 antilynching bills introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century. Three bills passed the House of Representatives, but they were filibustered on the Senate floor. In addition, seven Presidents had asked that such laws be passed.

One might ask: What impact would such a Federal law have had? Would that have saved all 4,749 people who were lynched, torched, mutilated, or whipped to death? Probably not in all cases because some had occurred before such bills were passed.

However, it would have sent a message, as it was read in newspapers across the land--whether in small towns, big cities, or in the country--that as a nation, we must stop such horrendous injustices being perpetrated on people, that we stand for the rule of law and equal protection and due process. By the Senate not acting, guess what message was sent. It sent the message that there are some people who may not think this is a good idea, that the Senate apparently condones it because they failed to act, notwithstanding the request of Presidents and the passage of such bills in the House of Representatives.

Why was Federal legislation needed? Because out of these 4,749 injustices of lynching, torching, and whipping, only 1 percent were prosecuted. In many cases, local authorities were complicit and involved in these cruel acts of injustice. Virginia was one of the States that actually passed an antilynching law which means that while there were 100 such lynchings, torchings, and burnings--and 100 is too many--compared to other States in the South, that was less. I have learned a lot since we introduced this bill. North Carolina's Governors, in the early 1900s, protested against such mob violence in their State and, therefore, they had less than in other States.

Another reason I got involved is to carry on the tradition of a man named Champ Clark, a Senator from Missouri whose son was actually one of my mentors when I first became involved in organized politics. He moved to the Charlottesville area when I was Governor, and I appointed him to the University of Virginia Board of Visitors. Sadly, he died a few years ago.

I found that his father, Senator Champ Clark of Missouri, posted photos--similar to those Senator Landrieu had--in our cloakrooms, of mutilated bodies. I will read from a document entitled, ``The U.S. Senate Filibusters Against Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation: The Case For A Formal Apology.'' It states:

Unlike in 1935, when senators killed anti-lynching

legislation in just six days, the 1937-38 filibuster took six

weeks. One reason: in April 1937, a Mississippi mob, in

collusion with local law enforcement, removed two African

Americans from their jail cells, whipped them with chains,

gouged out their eyes with ice picks, and put them to death

with acetylene blowtorches. Senator Champ Clark of Missouri

posted photos of these victims' mutilated bodies in the

Senate cloakroom with a caption, ``There have been No

arrests, No indictments and No convictions for any one of the

lynchers. This is NOT a rape case.

One month later, a mob in Georgia, consisting partly of

women and teenage girls, forced its way into a funeral home

and seized the body of a lynched twenty-four-year-old African

American. After dumping the body into the trunk of a car and

carrying it through town in a horn-blowing motorcade, the mob

took it to a baseball field and burned it.

Horror-struck by these incidents, Senators sought to invoke

cloture. If nothing else, they recognized that not only were

African Americans in high lynch states at risk, but their own

constituents were unprotected if they were black and

traveling through these areas. Sadly, after courageously

battling on the Senate floor for six weeks, they abandoned

their effort to obtain cloture.

Six weeks with all this and no action. Historians will no doubt disagree as to a single reason why Senators blocked antilynching legislation in the 1920s through the 1940s. My desire is not to get into motivations. Regardless of their reasoning, one reason that I can see from all this is that there is no reason. There is no rationale. They were clearly wrong. They turned their eyes. They turned their heads. That is why it is so important that we set aside these hours to apologize for this lack of action by the Senate--because there was no reason. There was no tolerance. There was an acceptance and a condonation of vile, hate-filled activity.

Thankfully, justice in our Nation has moved forward and left such despicable acts history. In ignoring the protections of our Founding Fathers, that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, the Senate turned its back on our foundational principles of justice and freedom.

I look around the Chamber and note that all of us serve with a great deal of honor and integrity, and many have throughout our history.

As Ephesians teaches us: All things that are reproved are made manifest by light. This apology has been a long time in coming.

I thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, for her tireless efforts in getting this resolution agreed to. I thank also leader Frist for making the legislation a priority and taking time on the Senate schedule to recognize the significance of the moment.

I thank the cosponsors. We have nearly 80 cosponsors and will most likely have more by the end of the day. They recognized the importance of a resolution and knew that the Senate owed an apology to the victims of lynching, their families and descendants. I also thank James Allen, as Senator Landrieu has, for his authorship of ``Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America,'' for bringing to us these horrendous, but important, issues and making us react, recognizing how violent and hate-filled they were.

I also thank Janet Langhart Cohen and Mark Planning for their spirited leadership and teamwork in getting support for this resolution. I want to share with my colleagues some excerpts from Ms. Cohen's comments.

While some members of the Senate question why so many of us

have been seeking the passage of this official expression of

apology at this time, the real question is why the Senate

action was not forthcoming decades ago.

This is important for us to understand the meaning for those who are descendants of victims of lynching and torture and whipping.

She continues:

Consider the scope and depth of the crimes committed

against humanity: more than four thousand men and women were

hung from trees, many of them disembowled, their limbs and

organs amputated, and then set on fire. These heinous acts .

. . were designed to terrify African American citizens,

remind them that they have fewer rights and protections than

animals, and drive them from their land--all while serving as

entertainment for white society.

The point is, this was to intimidate people.

Ms. Cohen says that she comes to the Senate today--she is in the gallery with many other descendants--for many reasons. She writes:

As a Black woman, as the spouse of a former Senator, and as

one who had a family member lynched, I need to bear witness

to an act of decency that has been deferred, indeed

filibustered, for far too long.

We know she is here with many others and recognize that it has been filibustered far too long.

She also states that:

It's important to remind the American people about the evil

chapters in our history. It is the reason we construct

museums in Washington and beyond, to hold up for all to see

how capable we are of descending into the heart of darkness.

It's important for us to look back into the past so that we

can pledge never again to allow racial hatred to consume our

ideals or humanity.

President Bush, in his second inaugural address, stated:

Our country must abandon all habits of racism because we

cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of

bigotry at the same time.

She concludes with these statements:

An apology, I concede, will do nothing for the thousands of

people who perished during what has been called ``the Black

Holocaust.'' It cannot repair the battered souls of their

survivors. It is, after all, only a symbolic act. Our

symbols, however, the Eagle, Old Glory, Lady Liberty, to

mention but a few, are but short hand narratives of who we

are as Americans.

It is through an acknowledgment of the Senate's abdication

of its duty to protect and defend the rights of all American

citizens that, perhaps, we can begin to understand the pain

and anger that still lingers in

the hearts and minds of so many who have been deprived of the

equality promised in our Constitution.

My friend and mentor, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once

said that ``the arc of history bends toward justice.''

Today, as the Senate Members cast their historic votes,

that arc dips closer to its destination.

Signed, Janet Langhart Cohen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud that this resolution will pass tonight. The Senate is going to be on record condemning the brutal atrocities that plagued our great Nation for over a century.

I will close with the words of our resolution:

Whereas, an apology offered in the spirit of true

repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and

may become central to a new understanding, on which improved

racial relations can be forged. Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure

of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

(2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn

regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of

lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human

dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all

citizens of the United States; and

(3) remembers the history of lynching, to ensure that these

tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

My colleagues, I ask you to join all of us in examining our history, learn from history, never again sit quietly, and never again turn one's head away when the ugly specter of racism, antisemitism, hate, and intolerance rises again. It is our responsibility to stand strong for freedom and justice.

In the future, I am confident that this Senate will perform better than it has in the past. We will protect the God-given blessings of all people to life and liberty, regardless of their race, their ethnicity, or their religious beliefs. The Senate can do better; we have done better tonight. But the real measure of what we have learned when such acts occur in the future is, will this Senate rise and condemn it to protect those God-given liberties? I know that Senator Landrieu and I believe the Senate will rise appropriately.

Mr. President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous agreement, the Senate now proceed to the vote on the pending resolution; I further ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adoption of the resolution, the remaining time under the previous agreement remain available for Senators who wish to make statements, provided that any statements relating to the resolution appear prior to its adoption in the Congressional Record.

I thank the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer to my colleagues my strong and unequivocal support for John Bolton and his nomination to be our United States representative to the United Nations.

John Bolton was picked by the President. A President ought to be able to bring people into his administration, men and women, who share the values, the aspirations, the goals, of that administration. This President also represents the views of most Americans who believe the United Nations needs reforming. We need to bring someone into that position to get those reforms done.

I believe very strongly John Bolton is exceptionally well-qualified for this task. This is a time of change, a time of improvement that is necessary for the United Nations.

During the protracted committee process, we saw all sorts of sensationalized charges and outright fabrications against John Bolton. His nomination nonetheless, has finally reached the Senate where I am sure my colleagues will see the wisdom in confirming John Bolton. This debate provides an opportunity to have a full discussion on John Bolton and his qualifications to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations.

What has been lost in this entire debate from the very beginning as they are off on tangents, detours, and all sorts of allegations. What is being missed--and what I hope my colleagues and the American people will focus on--is the dire need for change in the United Nations. The need for accountability, the need for scrutiny, the need for reform.

In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee and in interviews conducted by the committee staff, there is almost no mention, or discussion, of what needs to be done to reform the United Nations. John Bolton is a man with the skill, wisdom, principles, and the right person to unflinchingly lead those changes as our representative.

Much of the debate during the committee consideration and some of the things that have been said in the Senate has been focused on the sensibilities of some who are apparently easily offended. There is a fascination with speech crafting. For example, there is concern over what Mr. Bolton said at a speech to the Heritage Foundation concerning Cuba's biological weapons program and how that might be shared with rogue nations.

The reality is, and I will quote this for the record so if anyone wants to see what was actually said that created this controversy. What was actually said is the following by John Bolton at the Heritage Foundation in the speech ``Beyond the Axis of Evil,'' May 6, 2002:

Here is what we now know. The United States believes that

Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare

research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual-use

biotechnology to other rogue states. We are concerned that

such technology could support biological weapons programs in

those states. We call on Cuba to cease all biological weapons

applicable cooperation with rogue states and to fully comply

with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons

Convention.

Well, one of the people, a very cheerful fellow, Carl Ford, complained about the sensibilities of some staff person. Here is what he said in testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee. He said:

The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited

developmental offensive biological warfare research and

development effort. Cuba has provided dual use bio-technology

to rogue states. We are concerned that such technology could

support biological weapons programs in those states. We call

on Cuba to cease all biological weapons applicable

cooperation with rogue states and to fully comply with all

its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.

Mr. President, I see you are squinting and trying to probably figure out: Well, what is the difference? There is no difference. It is the same in the speech as was the testimony from Mr. Ford in the Foreign Relations Committee. Then, we hear from folks talking about: Oh, people were upset because of all of this concern on how this speech was constructed. Well, here is the reality. The whole process was one in which the person who was clearing this language did some things that were inappropriate. An e-mail from Thomas Fingar to Thomas Bolton stated the following:

I looked at what my guy sent to the IC and that won't

happen again . . . Choice of the phrase ``does not concur''

was entirely inappropriate . . . we have no role whatsoever

in determining how you or any policymaker says what you want

to say beyond suggesting alternatives that we think might be

cleared more readily than what has been drafted if time was

of the essence and the drafter asked for such advice.

The bottom line, he ends it:

We screwed it up, but for base reasons. It won't happen

again.

So John Bolton had a reason to be concerned about how some things went around through the loops and so forth. The reality is, as many individuals, our colleagues, fellow Senators, particularly on the Foreign Relations Committee--in recent months, once John Bolton had been nominated for this position--were talking about how he was rude maybe, or irascible with some staff, or concerned about this, that, or the other. Things that have supposedly come up in recent years, of course, each and every one of these allegations have been refuted and the truth has come forth.

The reality is that when John Bolton was proposed and nominated to be Under Secretary of State, back in 2001, Senators Biden, Boxer, Kerry, Dodd, and Sarbanes--all of them--voted against John Bolton. That was even before they knew about these tangential issues.

Now, I would prefer, when looking at the United Nations, we would be, as a country, united in making sure we pursue the abuse and anti- Americanism that pervades the United Nations. Rather than get off on these tangential and unfounded charges, I am much more concerned about the United Nations being used as a front for dictatorships and terrorists, as well as being a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Over the last year, we have witnessed scandal after scandal in the United Nations. Unfortunately, these are not issues that can be addressed by a few marginal changes. These are issues that have shaken the credibility of the United Nations and caused many citizens in the United States, and people around the world, to really wonder whether the U.N. has any relevance in the future or has a redeeming role in world affairs.

Now, the United Nations was founded on:

faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth

of the human person.

While the United Nations performs a number of admirable endeavors, it is also beholden to tyrants, dictators, and repressive regimes in certain circumstances. Not considering the scandals, this is an organization that has allowed some of the world's worst violators of human rights to chair its Commission on Human Rights. Just when the United States has made a commitment to the spread of freedom and justice throughout the world, it is difficult for Americans--I know in Virginia, in North Carolina, and elsewhere around this country--to see the United Nations as anything other than wasting their tax dollars. When a country such as Libya is chairing the Human Rights Commission. Sudan is on the Human Rights Commission, and within the last several weeks, Zimbabwe has been made a member of the Commission. This is certainly not an indication that the Secretary General's call for reform of the Commission on Human Rights is at all being heeded.

Now, as public servants and stewards of the American taxpayers' dollars, we need to make sure the revenues we allocate are being put to good use. The United States and the people of this country, the taxpayers, every single year, are providing $2 billion to the United Nations. We will provide over 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular budget in 2005.

I believe all Americans want reforms enacted that would prevent future abuses in programs like the Oil-for-Food Program, where Saddam Hussein and his thugs skimmed off $20 billion. I think we also, as Americans, want to hold accountable U.N. peacekeepers who commit crimes against children. We have an obligation to work with like-minded reformers in the U.N. to make sure policies are implemented to prevent similar abuses in the future.

Now, reform is absolutely necessary in the United Nations. The United Nations is in a crisis, and the United States has a strong interest in seeing it emerge as a credible and relevant institution once again. The U.N. Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency, otherwise known as IAEA, are needed forums for discussing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the actions that need to be taken, not just by the United States but with our European and other allies around the world, to make sure that rogue nations do not acquire those nuclear weapons.

We have seen in recent years that the United Nations can provide an important role in helping the spread of democracy. They can be helpful in rebuilding societies that are emerging from decades of tyranny and repression.

The United Nations has a role to play in the future of global affairs and security, but it can only do so if it takes serious steps to reform the extraordinary corruption and ineptitude that has plagued it in recent years.

Now, John Bolton comes to this nomination with a broad and deep knowledge of international affairs. From his early days as General Counsel at the U.S. Agency for International Development during the Ronald Reagan administration, to his most recent post as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Affairs, Mr. Bolton has spent a great deal of time working on advancing the interests of the United States and our foreign policy.

Some have wrongly criticized John Bolton as a rigid unilateralist who is incapable of building consensus with allies. However, his years of service prove otherwise.

On counterproliferation, Mr. Bolton's efforts gave life and actual meaning to President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative. Under John Bolton's leadership, a dangerous gap in counter-proliferation enforcement on the seas has been filled by international cooperation and information sharing. Sixty countries were brought together. That is not working alone. He understands, if we are going to interdict weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, nuclear or otherwise, we do need the support of other countries.

In addition, Mr. Bolton helped create the Global Partnership at the G-8 summit in Alberta, Canada, in 2002. This partnership doubled the size of the nonproliferation effort in the former Soviet Union by committing our G-8 partners to match the United States' $1 billion per year Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar program.

He also played a central role in negotiating the Treaty of Moscow, which will reduce operationally deployed nuclear weapons by two-thirds.

Elimination of North Korea's nuclear threat still requires much hard work, but it is clear that the half century stalemate that has allowed the North Koreans to steal or develop nuclear arms technology is over. Growing pressure is on that dictatorship, and John Bolton's role at the State Department in creating it are being confirmed by the torrent of personal invective directed at him from the North Korean Government.

While our Ambassador there might have had his sensibilities offended by John Bolton calling the North Korean regime a ``repressive dictatorship,''

which seems to be accurate, as well as saying it is a ``hellish nightmare'' for people to have to live in. North Korea, which I might not have used the first word, but it is certainly a nightmare, it seems to me to be very accurate description.

Of course, some have criticized John Bolton for doing that. And gosh, the North Koreans called him ``human scum.'' I am going to stand with John Bolton in his characterization of North Korea. In fact, they say of John Bolton: Oh, this was not helpful for him to be calling North Korea or characterizing it as it is.

He helped break a long international silence, while there are some who think, when you are dealing with a repressive dictatorship, the best thing to do is just be quiet, calm them down, try to coordinate them into a corner, pet them, don't get them agitated, and maybe they will just change on their own. Maybe there are those who think you can have editorials in newspapers and that is going to matter to tyrants and dictatorships. They don't care about public opinion. They don't care about human rights. All they care about is power and staying in power.

So John Bolton, in my view, performed a valuable service in breaking this long international silence about the suffering of the people in North Korea. For too long, savage conditions, condemned by food aid workers, and glimpsed by visitors to the North, received very little, very scant world attention. By magnifying the human dimension of the North Korean problem, his work may hasten the day when these abhorrent human rights violations in North Korea will end. The reality for North Korea is that we need the Chinese. The South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Russians are all very important but as a practical matter the ones who really prop up that regime is the Government of the People's Republic of China.

When people are allowed to escape from North Korea, what happens? They get to some embassy in China and they get sent back to North Korea. Guess what happens? They get tortured and in some cases they get killed. We need to make sure that if somebody can get out of that regime--just as if someone could have gotten out of East Germany or Czechoslovakia or Hungary or Poland; if they somehow could get out of those countries and escape to Austria, to West Germany, to the Netherlands, to Denmark, we certainly would not say: Go on back in there and let the East German police take care of you or let the Soviet puppets in the Eastern Bloc take care of you.

So, I think John Bolton has done a great job in pointing out the human rights violations in North Korea. Some may also not agree with his forthright critique of the United Nations and its failings. I think Mr. Bolton has clearly placed a great deal of thought into his views, and he can work with the United Nations' bureaucracy. But he is not going to be a lapdog. He is not going to get seduced by niceties. He is going to say: This is what needs to be done.

As Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations--and this is, indeed, working with the United Nations--John Bolton--and you can read what Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger wrote--led the effort to have the United Nations change its odious resolution that equated Zionism with racism. Now, to get the United Nations to say that they ever did something wrong and to repeal it--similar to anything that even happens here, to say we did something wrong and to repeal some law--takes some negotiation. John Bolton was able to get the United Nations to repeal that odious resolution.

It is a clear, a very clear--example of his ability to stand by principle, stand for what is right, and also to work cooperatively with other countries in the United Nations.

So in my view, John Bolton has the knowledge and experience to effectively represent the United States at the United Nations and to negotiate the changes that need to be made to ensure its relevancy and its credibility in the future. All of us want a United Nations that is with us, working to advance free and just societies and human rights around the world. We do not want them squandering, wasting money, propping up repressive regimes, being a front for terrorist regimes. We need the United Nations to remember what its charter is.

Now, unfortunately, the committee was forced to spend a majority of its nomination hearing and subsequent meetings on tangents, exploring wild claims, and not addressing the issues that face the United States at the United Nations. Nor has the debate been much about John Bolton's qualifications to serve as our representative.

Most of those who have complained and made charges against John Bolton never had any intention of considering the merits of his nomination in the first place. When considered, as I said earlier, for his current position, all of these--Senators Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, Boxer, and Kerry--voted against him. We have had many unsubstantiated claims and rumors and exaggerated innuendo. I do see the Senator from Wisconsin, who did vote for him the other time, so it does not apply to Senator Feingold. I hope the Senator recognizes I did not list his name. I think, as people look at these overly hyped charges, they have been refuted. They do not have any bearing on John Bolton's ability to serve as our ambassador to the United Nations.

A President should have the prerogative to select the men and women-- unless there is some extraordinary, proven infirmity or criminal violation--he determines to advance and lead his initiatives and also to keep the promises he made to the American people. President Bush has nominated John Bolton to advance our foreign policy and goals at the United Nations.

Let me conclude with these final thoughts. In 1945, when it reported the U.N. Charter to the Senate for ratification, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote that:

. . . neither this Charter nor any other document or formula

that might be devised can prevent war. . . . The

establishment of the United Nations will at best be a

beginning toward the creation of those conditions of

stability throughout the world which will foster peace and

security.

As we know, the United Nations has fallen short of these expectations. But a better, more accountable United Nations may better serve our interests much more reliably.

Thus, the Bolton nomination offers the Senate an opportunity to again play a historic role in bringing sensible reform to the United Nations. It is worth the effort. John Bolton is the right person to advocate our principles, and he will not be easily seduced by empty, meaningless, courteous pontifications of international bureaucracies.

John Bolton will bring much needed reform and accountability to the United Nations, that is in dire need of such to regain its credibility. He will be a watchdog, and that is what I think the taxpayers of this country want. He is going to be a strong diplomat, a man of vision, and an integral part of an administration team that has proven its readiness to foster positive change throughout the world.

The Senate, at 6 o'clock this evening, I hope, will take action--take action, and very positive action. There will be some differences, but let's recognize that this is a historic time, a time for change in the United Nations, a time for reform. And these reforms will be positive. Our taxpayers will support these changes.

I think freedom-loving countries and people who are not yet tasting that sweet nectar of liberty will also appreciate these changes. The billions of dollars going to the United Nations will be used for positive, constructive change in implementing and fostering the construction of those pillars that are so essential for a just and free society: The freedom of religion, freedom of expression, private ownership of property, and the rule of law. Those are the principles we need to address, and we are, as a country, in advancing the United Nations, consistent with its Charter, which ought to be a strong ally, not an impediment, in those efforts.

I hope we will work with John Bolton and the United Nations to bring forth this reform, improve the credibility and, in fact, the effectiveness of the United States and the United Nations, to advance freedom and justice for people throughout the world.

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

Mr. President, if I may ask the Senator from Delaware how much longer he expects to be?

OK.

Mr. President, I thank my wonderful colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, for his rebuttals of what has been said. As Senator Coleman and I have listened to this in the Foreign Relations Committee for many weeks--and all of these different issues and allegations and charges that have been refuted--we understand that what we are now off on are the detours and tangents, avoiding the reality and what is important; that is, John Bolton being the right person to bring accountability, being a watchdog for the $2 billion the American taxpayers send to the United Nations every year. The United Nations ought not to be a front for terrorist organizations or anti- Americanism.

John Bolton has a record of performance that is exemplary, from the Proliferation Security Initiative to repealing the odious resolution that likened Zionism to racism. They don't want to talk about the United Nations and the reform that is needed.

They talk about John Bolton being straightforward. He is straightforward. He is not going to get seduced by the flowery language and pontifications of bureaucrats internationally. He is going to advance freedom and the interests of the United States and get other countries to join us.

Having been a quarterback, there is a key player you always want to put in when you want to refute allegations of the side in opposition. I note that all of these individuals who have been criticizing Mr. Bolton, before they heard any of these allegations about intercepts, anything about the sensibilities of different Government officials being offended by Mr. Bolton, all of them--Senators Biden, Boxer, Kerry, Dodd, Sarbanes, and Rockefeller--in 2001, voted against Mr. Bolton in his position as Under Secretary before they heard any of these allegations.

Now to talk about and to present the facts on this latest fishing expedition that we are hearing from the opposition of Mr. Bolton insofar as the conversations, the perfect person to speak on this and to answer the issue is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts of Kansas. He will rebut the allegations so far as matters dealing with intelligence are concerned.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on this matter of judges. I was presiding the last hour and a half or so listening to some of my colleagues speak. I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Ohio. But I was listening to my colleagues from New Jersey and Illinois, Senator Corzine and Senator Durbin.

I heard the Senator from New Jersey talking about the rights of minorities. The Senate does care about the rights of the minority. When one talks about the rights of the minority, one normally talks about ways to enhance

civil rights, to make sure there is equal opportunity--that there is due process of law.

Sadly, the Democrats have changed the rules. They changed 214 years of practice, which was that when a President nominated a particular person for a judicial vacancy, the Judiciary Committee would examine that individual very closely, as to their scholarship, their temperament, their judicial philosophy, and ultimately if they passed muster, that person would come to the Senate floor. Senators, for 214 years, would vote to confirm or deny confirmation to that particular nominee. That changed just 3 years ago.

What is being suggested by Senator Corzine and others on the other side is that a minority of only 41 Senators should be able to deny a well-qualified nominee the fairness and the due process of an up-or- down vote on the Senate floor.

These individuals are well qualified, but they are denied the opportunity of an up-or-down vote. These individuals, as Senator Voinovich said, go through a gauntlet. And when one of these nominees goes through the gauntlet, that doesn't last just months. It has been lasting for 1, 2, 3, and, in the case of Priscilla Owen, 4 years. Once you get through that gauntlet, you may be bruised and you may have some aspersions made about you and statements taken out of the record and opinions criticized and scrutinized and all the rest.

At the end of the day, when a majority of the Senators are in favor of that individual and they have come out of the Judiciary Committee, they ought to be accorded the fairness, the decency, the due process of an up-or-down vote.

Another statement that was made is that the Senate is to protect minority interests. Well, if one would actually read the Constitution and read the documents and the debates on the Senate, why the Senate was created the way it is and compare that to the way the House of Representatives is, one would find that the Senate is to protect the interests of the people in the States. The Senate is not representative of the population of the country, as is the House.

In fact, the Senate was to serve, in many respects, as a safeguard of State prerogatives. So when the Senator from New Jersey says the Senate is created to protect minority rights, it is to protect the right of the States. Let's recall that it was the people in the States who created the Federal Government. Note the name of our country: The United States of America. In fact, the rights of the States were so closely guarded that State legislators actually selected Senators for most of the history of this country rather than the people. Let's get those facts straight.

All of this sort of talk and background noise is trying to avoid the point that the Democrats' partisan obstruction of the President's nominees is unprecedented. We are trying to get back to the precedent we had for 214 years before they changed it. It is an issue of fairness. It is an issue for me as a Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of James Madison, one of the key authors of our Constitution. It is my constitutional duty to advise and consent. What 41 Senators are trying to do is take away my responsibility to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I see nothing wrong with voting yes or no.

Now, also in the midst of this flailing and background noise, from time to time, we have heard from the senior Senator from Illinois, casting aspersions on an organization called the Federalist Society, saying because Justice Owen of Texas was a member of the Federalist Society, and that many of President Bush's nominees for the Federal courts were in the Federalist Society, he wondered what this society was all about.

Well, after listening, I had my crack staff get on the Internet and get me the background on the Federalist Society. Let me share this with my colleagues regarding what is called the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Here is their background:

Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public

Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians

dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are

committed to the principles that the State exists to preserve

freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is

central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the

province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is,

not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness

of these principles and to further their application through

its activities.

It goes through its mission and says the purpose of the society is unique. They have legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, law students, academics, and the architects of public policy. They talk about appreciation of the role of separation of powers; federalism; limited constitutional Government; and the rule of law protecting individual freedom and traditional values. Overall, the Society's efforts are improving our present and future leaders' understanding of the principles underlying American law. They have a student division, and the student division has more than 5,000 law students at approximately 180 ABA-accredited law schools, including all of the top twenty law schools.

They have a lawyers' division comprised of over 20,000 legal professionals and others interested in current intellectual and practical development in the law.

I urge my colleague from Illinois to recognize that they have chapters in 60 cities, including Washington, DC; New York; Boston; Chicago; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; San Francisco; Denver; Atlanta; Houston; Pittsburgh; Seattle; Indianapolis, and others. They have a faculty division and more.

I ask unanimous consent that this statement of the background of the Federalist Society be printed in the Record before anybody else mischaracterizes the purpose and salutary goals and mission of the Federalist Society.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois went on further to

chastise and criticize the statements that he said were contradictory statements of Senator Frist in a filibuster, as he characterized it, in the year 2000.

Now, if the senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, wants to point to prior inconsistent statements, let me refresh his memory. This is what Senator Durbin said on September 28, 1998:

I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely

fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose

cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be

held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If,

after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report

on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If,

after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that

name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the

person up or down. They are qualified or they are not.

Those are good words from the senior Senator from Illinois in 1998. Those are the principles we are advocating now. These nominees have not been held up for just 150 days. These nominees--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and others have been held up for months and years, and in Justice Owen's case, four years.

Then we heard from the senior Senator from Illinois, after saying that we ought to watch our words, he called the Republicans dogs, more specifically, cocker spaniels. This was all because we vote for President Bush's nominees for judges. So we are like dogs, cocker spaniels. Let me be like an Australian shepherd and herd in the Democrats for the last few days who have been popping up like prairie dogs. We have heard this charge from others, including Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, Senator Schumer, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Durbin, who just recently made this unsubstantiated accusation that, we just vote for all these nominations and nobody votes against any of President Bush's judicial nominees.

The truth is, all of these Senators--Senators Kennedy, Murray, Schumer, Dorgan, and Durbin when it came to a straight up-or-down vote on all of President Clinton's judicial nominees, whether they were for district court, circuit court of appeals, or Supreme Court, never cast a dissenting vote--not even once. That is a lot of affirmative votes, if you ask me, for 8 years of President Clinton's nominees.

Then I scoured around like a German shorthair, and let me point out what I found out from Senator Kennedy on straight up-or-down votes, not only on President Clinton's nominees, but on President Carter's judicial nominees. Senator Kennedy didn't even cast a dissenting vote on any of those nominees. To be calling Republicans ``lap dogs,'' ``rubberstamps,'' and so forth--I don't think so.

Unlike Senator Durbin, we are not going to call the Democrats dogs or cocker spaniels. I think we are lucky dogs that President Bush has examined some outstanding nominees from coast to coast, outstanding men and women who are willing to serve at the circuit court level, which is a very important level of appeals in this country. He has nominated well-qualified nominees for the circuit court, such as Miguel Estrada.

When you talk about qualifications, Miguel Estrada received the highest possible rating unanimously from the American Bar Association and although we had, on five or six occasions, 55, 56 votes, he was denied the opportunity of a fair up-or-down vote. Finally, his life could not continue in such limbo and he withdrew his nomination.

Priscilla Owen, a justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, another outstanding nomination from President Bush, the person we are actually debating right now, received the highest level of endorsement from the American Bar Association, a unanimous, well-qualified. Justice Owen was elected to the Supreme Court of Texas in 1994 and was reelected with 84 percent of the vote in Texas in the year 2000. This is a person well qualified, well respected in her State.

Janice Rogers Brown, another great American life story of someone who is the daughter of a sharecropper in segregated Alabama, moved to California, ended up being the first African American on the Supreme Court of California, the largest State in our Nation. She is one who has been characterized as a brilliant and fair jurist who is committed to the rule of law. The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court called on her to write the majority opinion more times in 2001 and 2002 than any other justice of the supreme court.

In California, judges are elected rather than appointed and in the most recent election, Justice Brown received 76 percent of the vote, which was the largest margin of any of the four justices up for retention that year in California, which is not a strong red State. In fact, it is kind of a pale-blue State. Nonetheless, she received 76 percent of the vote in California.

This individual, Janice Rogers Brown, is having to go through these sort of accusations against her. She is well respected, and she is certainly within the mainstream.

I hope these rebuttals will shed some light on the reality of what is going on here. What we are simply trying to do is accord these nominees the fairness of an up-or-down vote. People in the real world probably do not understand this process. They do not understand why a nominee who has majority support cannot be accorded the fairness of a vote. The people of America understand courtesy, and they understand due process. They understand the bump and run and activity that one will have and statements that might be made, and you can have some fun talking about dogs, and so forth.

But ultimately, once you go through all the histrionics, aspersions, characterizations, rebuttals, and setting the record straight, ultimately what we ought to do as Senators is our job and our duty. This is what the people of America in our respective States have asked us to do. I really do not think it is too much for us to get off our haunches, show some spine, show some backbone, vote yes, vote no on these nominees, and then you can explain to your constituents back in New Jersey or Illinois or South Dakota or Virginia why you voted the way you did.

What we need to do is truly take the politics out of this process. It is harmful that this has become so politicized in the last several years. It is an issue I know is very important to the American people. They recognize President Bush has a philosophy--and it is one that I share--that judges ought to apply the law, not invent the law, and that he has found and sought out men and women of diverse background to bring their experiences, but also their fundamental belief of what the proper role of a judge should be, and that is to listen to the evidence, apply the facts to the law as written by the legislative branch in our representative democracy, and make that ruling.

These nominees are well qualified. They have gone through a lot. They are individuals. These are not just pieces of paper that you just crumble up and throw aside. These are human beings, and they should not be treated this way.

If we are going to be able to attract quality men and women in the future to our Federal judgeships and Federal appointments, many giving up lives where they can make more money, certainly have less controversy, they ought not to be treated like a sheet of paper. They are human beings. Let's have our debates, have the arguments, make a judgment, and ultimately vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.''

That is what I think the American people expect out of the Senate, and it is a shame we are having to spend as much time as we are on this, but it is an important principle. It is due process, it is fairness, and it is the rule of law.

I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the nomination of Edmund S. Hawley, of California, to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security be referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and that, further, upon the reporting out or discharge of the nomination, the nomination be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for a period not to exceed 30 days, after which time the nomination, if still in committee, will be discharged and placed on the Executive Calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 35, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 150, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 151, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk. I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request, all en bloc.