Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues the fact that the budget deficit for 2003 and 2004, including Social Security and the cost of the war, is going to be over $500 billion. Again, in 2003 and 2004, including Social Security, it will be a half trillion dollars.

This amendment basically says the tax package will be at $350 billion. It also says if this Congress decides to go over $350 billion, we ought to offset it either by cutting expenses or, in the alternative, increasing other taxes that are less stimulative to the economy, and paying for a tax reduction that is more stimulative to the economy. It makes sense.

We are on the edge of a fiscal crisis in this country if we keep going the way we are, particularly with the war that is hanging over us today.

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

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

Mr. President, today, our hearts and prayers go out to those people in the Armed Forces who are fighting the war in Iraq. This morning, I put on this orange ribbon I wore when I was Governor of the State of Ohio during Desert Storm. I am going to continue to wear it during the war in Iraq to remind me and others that our men and women are in harm's way, and I will continue to wear it until they return.

I seek 15 minutes.

Mr. President, before I address the merits of this amendment, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for his successful efforts to bring a budget resolution to the floor. I would like to particularly commend the chairman for including several important budget reform initiatives that will control spending and impact the soaring deficit: Extension of supermajority enforcement, reestablishment of discretionary spending limits in the Senate, reestablishment of restrictions on advance appropriations in the Senate, providing a clear definition of emergency legislation, reestablishment of the pay-as-you-go point of order in the Senate. Those are good things, but I must say I take issue with the reconciliation instructions contained in the budget resolution. As much as I oppose deficit spending, I also oppose deficit tax reduction, and these reconciliation instructions have the opposite effect of the budget reforms in the resolution.

I say to my colleagues this evening that we are on the edge of a serious crisis in terms of our Federal budget. In the past decade, conservatives worked hard to return the Federal Government to a balanced budget. For a short time after hand-to-hand combat, we met our goal for 2 years in 1999 and 2000. We balanced the budget without raiding the Social Security surplus. We had an on-budget surplus. That means we did not use Social Security in 1999. In 2000, again we did not use Social Security and we had a true on-budget surplus of

$87 billion. Ever since 2000, we have been increasing our budget deficit to the extent that if the budget deficit for 2003 is projected, it will be $408 billion, the largest budget deficit we have experienced in the Senate.

Unfortunately, as I said, our balancing the budget was short lived. Today, instead of reducing our $6.2 trillion national debt, we are expanding it. In 2001, we suffered an on-budget deficit of $33 billion. In 2002, we suffered an on-budget deficit of $314 billion. CBO now projects that if Congress were to go home and not legislate any further--and that does not include costs associated with the economic stimulus, a drug benefit for Medicare, or the war--we would suffer an on-budget deficit, as I mentioned, of $408 billion. It is clear that increased discretionary spending has led to these exploding Federal deficits.

This discretionary spending reached a post-cold-war low in 1995 of $502 billion. At the current rate of growth, discretionary spending will exceed $1 trillion in fiscal year 2008. In terms of deficits, the future does not look very good. CBO recently prepared an analysis of OMB's budget proposals and, according to this report, if these proposals are enacted, we can expect a whopping on-budget deficit of $452 billion in fiscal year 2003, which does not include costs associated with war, and $512 billion in fiscal year 2004. Again, that does not include the costs associated with the war.

The fact of the matter is that in 2003 and 2004, if we include Social Security, we are going to be borrowing over half a trillion dollars to run our Government.

Currently, as I said, we have a $6.2 trillion debt. The administration has recently asked Congress to again raise the debt ceiling. I am sure they are reluctant to come over here and ask us to raise the debt ceiling at the same time we are talking about a $726 million reduction in taxes.

The current Federal debt represents an obligation of more than $21,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States, including the Budget chairman's new grandson Nicholas and my new granddaughter Emily. Under CBO's baseline, again, assuming Congress goes home and does not legislate anymore for the next 10 years and spending grows at inflation, we will reach a total debt of $8.7 trillion by 2008 and $9.7 trillion by 2012. However, under current policy assumptions, which include costs associated with economic stimulus and a drug benefit for Medicare, but not the war, OMB's budget projects Federal debt will exceed $9.3 trillion by 2008. The President's budget did not even include a projection for debt of 10 years.

I say to my colleagues that debt does matter. Every dollar we add to the Federal debt today must be repaid in the future with interest, and there is no way around it.

I am also concerned about the seemingly new message which minimizes the importance and effect of the debt. In contrast, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has consistently stated that all things being equal, a declining level of Federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investments.

Even the proponents of using the debt-to-GDP ratio as a measure of fiscal responsibility must acknowledge our current situation is not good. As recently as 2000, we had a surplus-to-GDP ratio of 2.4 percent. In 2001, when we passed the last stimulus package, the ratio of deficit to GDP was only 1.5 percent. Currently, CBO estimates the GDP ratio for 2003 will be 3 percent and could go higher. We have doubled that percentage in 1 year without including the cost of the war.

In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described the effort to bring deficits under control and decisions needed to maintain fiscal discipline. He said: Achieving a satisfactory budget posture will depend on ensuring that the new initiatives are consistent with our longer run budgetary deficits. As you craft the budget strategy for the coming years, you may want to consider provisions that in some way would limit decreasing tax and spending initiatives if specified targets for the budget surplus and Federal debt were to be satisfied.

In other words, in putting our budgets together, we have to look down the road to the day of reckoning when the baby boomers retire and we are in a position where we can take care of their retirements.

Many foreign investors believe budget deficits demonstrate the relative strength of an economy. In addition, they believe this ratio gives a fair idea of Government policies and political aspects of the individual nation's monetary systems. Consequently, the Maastrich Treaty requires the EU countries not to exceed a debt-to-GDP ratio of 3 percent. When the costs of the anticipated supplemental spending related to the war are added, the current budget deficit will exceed 3 percent of GDP in 2004.

The U.S. Federal budget would demonstrate less fiscal discipline than European nations are imposing on themselves. This change in perception would tend to increase interest costs for Federal borrowing since the United States finances a large portion of its debt held by the public through the sale of T-bills. And it will become progressively more difficult to finance continued deficits or pay future Social Security benefits.

That being said, and despite my concerns regarding the expanding national debt, I think most agree that some economic stimulus is needed to provide a shot in the arm to our economy, although many economists, including Alan Greenspan, have said the problem is geopolitical, that after the cloud of a war is over our economy will move forward.

Stimulus, I believe, is still needed. But not $700 billion worth of stimulus. Our amendment calls for $350 billion in stimulus. And realistically, tax cuts larger than $350 billion appear to have very little support on either side of the Hill. It might not be possible to pass any stimulus proposal if the pricetag is too large. The all or nothing approach could rob us of the opportunity to give business the stimulus it needs. That is unacceptable. We need to cooperate and enact a $350 billion stimulus package and get the economy moving as rapidly as possible.

I say to the Presiding Officer, when I was Governor of Ohio, if I suggested a $700 billion package of tax reductions to the legislature and they came back to me and said on a bipartisan basis, we will give you $350 billion, I would have taken it and ran. We believe that $350 billion will cover what is needed to help rev up the economy, especially given the fact we will be borrowing each and every dollar used for the tax cut.

Reconciliation instructions at the $350 billion level provide the financing committee the ability to enact one large tax reform proposal, several small reforms, or a combination of medium and small reforms. It is reasonable to expect future economic growth within 10 years would begin to pay for the cost of tax reforms limited to $350 billion.

It is also important to note our amendment does not preclude Congress from passing a larger economic stimulus package this year. It just says we need to pay for it.

We should honor the principle embodied in pay-go. If people want more than $350 billion in tax reductions, pay for them with offsets. Even proponents of dynamic scoring can see it would take much longer than 10 years for economic growth to begin to pay for tax reductions of more than $350 billion. Although many have agreed to vote for final passage of the budget resolution, I can guarantee we will not support a package larger than $350 billion.

The Senate should also clearly recognize bipartisanship is the best stimulus we can provide the American people at this time. The Senate did not even consider a budget resolution on the floor last year. It led to partisan gridlock and failure to enact appropriations bills before the end of the 107th Congress. Major programs, including many related to homeland security, were left in limbo. We must not repeat this mistake. The Senate, the administration, and the American people are best served through bipartisan support for budgetary initiatives.

The people are watching us. They want to see us work together. We are at a time of war. Given the current economic and geopolitical climate, we should avoid excessive partisanship which breeds uncertainty and discourages business investment. Enacting a budget resolution with only a one or two vote margin tells financial markets that Congress is likely to drag out

the whole process, including reducing taxes and passing appropriations bills when they are needed. In contrast, enacting a budget resolution with strong bipartisan support will signal stability, tell financial markets that Congress is likely to manage Federal finances efficiently and effectively, and encourage business investment.

Additionally, I think it is very important that we act in a unified manner, supporting the President due to the war. I disagree strongly with my Republican colleagues who maintain that not passing the President's larger package will look bad for him. I don't agree with that. Instead, I believe passing a $350 billion package with strong bipartisan support will be looked upon very favorably by the American public, that the Congress and the President can work together to move things ahead on a bipartisan basis.

Let's send a signal to Wall Street, Main Street, and the rest of the world that during this time of crisis we are able to overcome our differences and unify behind fiscal policies with a broad base of support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will continue the debate in regard to the partial-birth abortion ban. This afternoon, I will talk about the constitutionality of this statute, S. 3. The argument has been made that this statute is unconstitutional, but I differ with my colleagues who make this argument.

Reference has been made to the Stenberg case that overturned the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law. I argue that the law in front of us, or the statute in front of us, is fundamentally different.

First, the language is different. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 provides a very precise definition of partial-birth abortion so that it is clear on the face of the legislation exactly what procedure is to be banned, unlike the Nebraska statute that was declared unconstitutional.

The bill would outlaw one, and only one, abortion procedure, and that is the D&X procedure, the partial-birth procedure we have been describing in very vivid detail on the Senate floor, the procedure that no one really can argue is anything less than barbaric and inhumane.

There is absolutely nothing vague, unclear, or ambiguous about how this bill defines the partial-birth abortion procedure.

To make this even more clear, it is useful to examine the law struck down by the Supreme Court in the Stenberg case. The procedure was defined in that case by the Nebraska Legislature as follows, and I will read from that Nebraska law that was found to be unconstitutional, to show its difference from this law:

An abortion procedure in which the person performing the

abortion partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child

before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery.

That is what the Nebraska law said. The phrase ``partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child'' was further defined in the Nebraska statute as follows:

Deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a

living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for

the purpose of performing a procedure; that the person

performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child

and does kill the unborn child.

The Supreme Court held this language of the Nebraska statute covered more than just one abortion procedure. The definition used in the Nebraska statute implicated not only partial-birth abortion procedures, but it also implicated the more common dilation and evacuation or D&E methods, which is different from a D&X method we are dealing with in this statute.

For the record, a D&E, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, is described as follows:

D&E involves the dilation of the cervix and the

dismemberment of the fetus inside the uterus. The fetal parts

are later removed from the uterus either with forceps or by

suction.

In other words, in a D&E procedure, an unborn child is essentially dismembered, limb by limb, piece by piece. During a D&E, an arm or leg is sometimes pulled into the birth canal before being twisted off, while the baby is still alive. The Justices thought this might be considered a partial-birth abortion under the Nebraska law definition because that definition, as I have just stated, includes any procedure in which a baby is delivered vaginally, even if that vaginal delivery is just a partial delivery.

At this point, it is worth repeating exactly how a partial-birth abortion procedure, again also known as a D&X procedure, is distinguished from a D&E procedure. The D&X or partial-birth abortion procedure was very well described by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent in the Stenberg case.

This is what Justice Thomas wrote:

After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the

fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus

into the vaginal cavity . . . While the fetus is stuck in

this position, dangling partly out of the woman's body, and

just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses

an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate

the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or

will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial

contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus' head and

pull the fetus from the uterus.

That is depicted in a later phase of this procedure in this picture.

In order to avoid any possibility of confusion, the bill before the Senate, S. 3, defines the phrase ``partial-birth abortion'' so narrowly that only the D&X abortion procedure is covered. No other abortion procedures--including the D&E procedure in which an unborn baby's arm or leg is pulled into the birth canal before being twisted off--could possibly be implicated by S. 3.

While we have already heard it read on the Senate floor during the debate, while I read it last night in this debate, I think it is important to again repeat the bill's definition of the partial-birth abortion procedure. According to the definition in this bill, S. 3:

(1) the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in

which----

(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and

intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the

case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is

outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech

presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is

outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing

an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially

delivered living fetus; and

(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of

delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;

My colleague from California and others have argued that the S. 3 definition of a partial-birth abortion still covers more than one abortion procedure. But she has never explained how this is possible. The description of partial-birth abortion in S. 3 is so precise and is based, frankly, on the description of a leading abortionist, Dr. Mark Haskell, a man about whom I spoke last night on the Senate floor, a man who regularly conducts these heinous procedures in my home State of Ohio. This is a very precise definition of a partial-birth abortion that leads absolutely nothing to the imagination.

Clearly, without question, S. 3 very precisely and very specifically addresses the first constitutional issue that was raised in the Stenberg case and is fundamentally different than the Nebraska statute that was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. S. 3 would ban one and only one very specific abortion procedure. It simply imposes absolutely no undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.

Let me turn now to the second issue, the second constitutional issue, and that is the health of the mother, which was the other issue raised in the Stenberg case. The so-called requirement that the statute must contain ``the health of the mother'' also springs from the notion of undue burden on the woman's ability to get an abortion.

The argument, as I understand, goes something like this: If a procedure is medically important to protect the health of the mother, banning that procedure would pose an undue burden on her ability to have an abortion. Yet in the case of the partial-birth abortion, medical experts have repeatedly confirmed that this callous act is never medically indicated. And because it is never medically indicated, banning it cannot possibly be an undue burden.

There is substantial evidence from past congressional hearings on this issue to support a finding obtained in the bill itself, and the bill makes these findings. It says in part, the following: Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to protect the health of the mother but, in fact, poses serious risk to the long-term health of women and, in some circumstances, their lives.

I remind my colleagues of a 1996 interview in which the former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, explicitly discussed partial-birth abortion. In that interview, a reporter for American Medical News posed the following question. This is what the interviewer asked.

President Clinton just vetoed a bill to ban partial-birth

abortions, a late-term abortion technique that practitioners

refer to as intact dilation and evacuation or dilation and

extraction. In so doing, he cited several cases in which

women were told these procedures were necessary to preserve

their health and their ability to have future pregnancies.

How would you characterize the claims being made in favor of

the medical need for this procedure?

Dr. Koop responded as follows:

I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical

advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to

late term abortions because in no way can I twist my mind to

see that the late term abortion as described, you know,

partial-birth, and then destruction of the unborn child

before the head is born, is a medical necessity for the

mother.

Similarly, in 1997 a House committee report on the subject cited over 400 OB/GYN and maternal/fetal specialists who have unequivocally stated:

Partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to

protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the

opposite is true. The procedure can pose a significant and

immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and her

fertility.

The majority leader of the Senate, a medical doctor, gave us, a few moments ago, the benefit of his wisdom, of his experience on this issue. The point I believe is worth repeating because it is notable that so many doctors are willing to come right out and say: No, this is absolutely not necessary; we can never find one instance in which it is medically indicated.

Doctors usually don't say things like this. They just don't like being that definite because medicine, by definition, is usually a case- by-case situation, a case-by-case profession. But this issue is different. On this issue, it is crystal clear, partial-birth abortions serve no legitimate medical purpose that cannot be served by other means. As my colleague from Pennsylvania stated earlier today:

Over the past several years the Senate advocates of

partial-birth abortion have never produced even one case in

which a partial-birth abortion is shown to be medically

necessary.

Opponents of this bill go beyond just arguing about the merits of partial-birth abortion. They go further, probably because it is so gruesome that some of my colleagues are uncomfortable supporting it. Some of my colleagues would prefer to debate the issue of abortion more generally. They try to cast this debate as a debate about a broader issue, and that issue is reproductive freedom. But the issue before us today is not reproductive freedom; it is a much more narrow issue. The issue is very narrowly defined. It is simply the issue of partial-birth abortion. The issue before us is the very specific method of partial- birth abortion, a method that is particularly brutal and gruesome and wrong.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who observed Dr. Haskell use the procedure to abort three babies in 1993, testified before our Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995. I would like to share with my colleagues what she said because she gave very gripping, very telling testimony.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am grateful to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and my colleague from Ohio, the senior Senator from Ohio, for their courageous fight to stop this barbaric procedure. Any of us who have listened to them cannot help but be moved by their eloquence in regard to the importance of banning this procedure.

This tie that I have on is one that was given to me last week. It says, ``Stop Violence Against Women.''

I wish those of us who are opposed to this procedure would have had ties made saying, ``Stop Violence Against Babies.''

It is even difficult to talk about because it is a gruesome procedure, but we need to remind Members of the Senate that this is a procedure that is not done on an emergency basis. It is a little bit difficult for me to talk about it because last week my daughter delivered our fifth grandchild, a little baby girl, Emily Elizabeth.

The way the procedure goes is that a woman goes through 2 days of doctor visits to get dilated; 2 days to get dilated. On the third day, the baby is positioned for delivery in the birth canal. The doctor then pulls the living baby feet first out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the head which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside of the womb. The doctor punctures the base of the baby's skull with a surgical instrument such as long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar.

He then inserts a catheter into the wound and removals the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the doctor completes the delivery of the now dead baby.

I can't understand how anyone can support this ghastly procedure or cannot support it being illegal.

There are some who say it is hard to believe we are even talking about the question on the floor of the Senate. In an editorial today, the Washington Post called our debate in the Senate on this subject ``pointless.'' I have also heard my colleagues take the floor and state, Have we no other priorities that take precedence over this? What priority is more important than human life? It is hard for me to believe anyone would say we should not even discuss this procedure that kills a human being. It should have been banned years ago. I am glad we are moving early in the 108th Congress to go forward with something that should have been done many years ago.

The subject of partial-birth abortion is not a new one for me. Eight years ago in 1995, Ohio was the first State to pass a partial-birth abortion ban. The bill prohibited doctors from performing abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy and banned completely the dilation and extraction procedure we call the partial-birth procedure in this bill, the one I just described.

The bill allows late-term abortions to save the life of the mother. The women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy were required to undergo tests to determine the viability of the fetus, and if the fetus was deemed to be viable, the abortion would be illegal.

I am glad the Senator from Ohio pointed out the language in this bill has been carefully drafted. It is not ambiguous. I have heard the Senator from California say this should have gone to the Judiciary Committee. The fact is this has been discussed on the floor of the Senate since 1994.

While I was Governor, I watched the partial-birth abortion ban make its way through the 104th and 105th Congresses, only to be vetoed by President Clinton. It has been around a long time.

After I arrived in the Senate in the 106th Congress, I gave a speech in support of banning partial-birth abortion and, quite frankly, lobbied some of my colleagues to support it. The bill passed both Chambers of the Senate and the House. It made it to conference but never came out of conference.

I have listened to my colleagues quote statistics and spout off facts about medical necessity and the health of the mother. We can all quote different statistics, but the bottom line is there is no need for this procedure. My colleague from Ohio has spoken to that very clearly. Most of these partial-birth abortions are elective. They take 3 days to complete. If a mother really needs an abortion, she has alternatives available to her that are not as tortuous as partial-birth abortion.

It is interesting to note that in January 2003 the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, published a survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000. Why is the occurrence of such a procedure that is never medically necessary increasing? One of the main reasons we do not need these late-term abortions is thanks to the technology available today. It is better than it has ever been before. We can identify problems very early in the pregnancy so abortions can take place earlier. Women today are being encouraged to come in early in the first trimester for the various tests they need so that if an abortion is acceptable to them, they can have an early abortion while the baby is still not viable outside the womb. In fact, to date, the technology is so sophisticated that if they find there is something wrong with a baby, they can go in through surgery and correct it in the womb.

I want to make it clear to those who believe in abortion and who face that tremendous decision in terms of whether they are going to deliver the baby, that there are other procedures available. The victims of the partial-birth abortions are human beings. I find it interesting that they are sometimes called ``living fetuses.'' They are living human beings. Whether they are called ``babies'' or ``fetuses,'' no one seems to dispute the fact that they are living. In fact, they are human babies and they can feel pain. When partial-birth abortions are performed, these babies are just 3 inches away from life and, for that matter, seconds away from life.

I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to stand up against what I refer to as ``human infanticide.'' This is not Roe v. Wade. I suspect that when the vote is taken on the floor of the Senate, there are going to be many people who will support partial-birth abortion who label themselves as pro-choice and pro-abortion. When this legislation passed in Ohio back in 1995, it passed overwhelmingly in both houses, and there were pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion people who supported this legislation. This is not an issue of Roe v. Wade. This is an issue of banning a procedure that is gruesome and is not medically necessary.

In the State of the Union address this year, President Bush again pledged to support the legislation and said, ``We must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.''

I urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial-birth abortions in the United States of America and end this national tragedy.

Yes. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Do you agree this issue has been debated on the floor of the Senate for a long period of time?

Is my colleague from California aware of the fact that those of us who want to ban this procedure believe the language in this bill is not vague and that it will sustain a test in the Supreme Court of the United States?

Will the Senator yield the floor back so I can make a----

The question I would ask, again, is that those of us who have had a concern about this for many, many years have studied the language quite carefully. I particularly have because of the fact that we had two partial-birth abortion statutes that passed in Ohio, and we were looking at what the Supreme Court was going to do with the Nebraska case.

I must say to you we have looked at it as carefully as we can. We believe the language that is in the bill is not vague. We believe it will stand up to a test in the Supreme Court, and that to go back to the Judiciary Committee, quite frankly, would just delay the real issue; that is, whether we have enough votes on the floor of the Senate to ban partial-birth abortions.

I think that was a statement.

I do have a question.

What is puzzling to me--the question is, you have pointed out some unusual cases that----

Would the Senator from California agree that the technology today, in terms of the delivery of babies, in the ascertaining of a problem that a baby or a delivering mother would have, has improved substantially over what it was in 1994 when we first started the debate on this legislation?

I do.

If you agree that the medical technology today is better than it was in 1994, can you explain to me why the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, published a survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000? Wouldn't you think there would be less partial-birth abortions because of the technology that we have, less cases like the ones you have presented here before my colleagues in the Senate?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I reiterate the fact that this is not an issue that gets to the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. I predict that just as in the past on the floor of the Senate, there are going to be people supporting the outlaw of this gruesome procedure, which is not necessary, who are very much pro-choice, pro- abortion, and who will probably have amendments on the floor of the Senate, a sense of the Senate, in terms of Roe v. Wade and many of the people who will vote to sustain Roe v. Wade will be some of the same people who will vote against this procedure because they understand how gruesome it is.

I point out one other fact. You just cannot give the back of the hand statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a very respected institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, that published a survey of abortion providers showing--these are abortion providers, OK--showing that the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000.

So this procedure is not one that is being practiced in some of the examples that my colleague from California has presented on the floor of the Senate but, rather, has become a regular procedure in the offices of many OB/GYN doctors in this country--a procedure that is not necessary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 11. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of Calendar No. 19, S. 3, the partial-birth abortion bill; that at 11 a.m., the Senate return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a circuit judge for the DC Circuit, and that the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 12:30 p.m., the Senate recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party caucuses; and that upon reconvening at 2:15 p.m., the Senate return to legislative session and resume consideration of S. 3.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume the consideration of S. 3, the partial- birth abortion bill. It is my understanding that Senator Murray will be prepared to offer an amendment first thing tomorrow morning. The leader has indicated it is his intention to finish this important legislation by the end of the week. Therefore, I encourage any Senators who wish to offer an amendment to the bill to work with the bill managers so they can arrange time for amendment consideration.

At 11 a.m., the Senate will return to the Estrada nomination and begin a critical debate on the judicial nominations process and the long-term implications the current filibuster will hold for this body. Members are encouraged to come to the Chamber and engage in this vital discussion.

Following the recess, the Senate will return to consideration of the partial-birth abortion bill. Additional amendments are expected, and therefore Members should anticipate votes during tomorrow's session.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and the National Invasive Species Council Act. As a Senator representing a Great Lake State, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of both of these bills that are critical to the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

In my 36 years of public service, one of my greatest sources of comfort and accomplishment has been my work to help clean up and protect the environment, particularly Lake Erie.

Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the state legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the northern border of my district and it was known worldwide as a dying lake, suffering from eutrophication. Lake Erie's decline was covered extensively by the media and became an international symbol of pollution and environmental degradation. I remember the British Broadcasting Company even sending a film crew to make a documentary about it. One reason for all the attention is that Lake Erie is a source of drinking water for 11 million people.

Seeing firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we had to do more to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. As a State legislator, I made a commitment to stop the deterioration of the lake and to wage the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's Great Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my career as County Commissioner, state legislator, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and United States Senator.

It is comforting to me that 36 years since I started my career in public service, I am still involved, as a member of the United States Senate and our Committee on Environment and Public Works, in the battle to save Lake Erie.

Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality. It is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the area's tourism, transportation, and recreation industries, and the main source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Unfortunately, however, there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve and protect Ohio's greatest natural asset.

Our current enemy is the aquatic invasive species that threaten the health and viability of the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. I am worried about these aquatic terrorists in the ballast water that enter the Great Lakes system through boats from all over the world. These species are already wreaking havoc in the lakes and will continue to do so until they are stopped.

Since the 1800s, over 145 invasive species have colonized in the Great Lakes. Since 1990, when legislation to address aquatic nuisance species was first enacted, we have averaged about one new invader each year. Clearly, we have not closed the door to invasive species. I am deeply troubled by the surge in new invasive species in Lake Erie, because once a species establishes itself, there is virtually no way to eliminate it.

As Mayor of Cleveland in the 1980s, I was alarmed about the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and conducted the first national meeting to investigate the problem. It is a complicated situation and we are still learning how invasive species like the zebra mussel affect the ecosystem.

In early August, for example, I conducted a field hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee to examine the increasingly extensive oxygen depletion or anoxia in the central basin of Lake Erie. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ``dead zone.'' Anoxia over the long term could result in massive fish kills, toxic algae blooms, and bad-tasting or bad-smelling water.

Anoxia is usually the result of decaying algae blooms which consume oxygen at the bottom of the lake. In the past, excessive phosphorus loading from point sources such as municipal sewage treatment plants were greatly responsible for algae blooms. Since 1965, the level of phosphorus entering the Lake has been reduced by about 50 percent. These reductions have resulted in smaller quantities of algae and more oxygen into the system.

In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been increasing, but the amount of phosphorus entering it has not. Scientists are unable to account for the increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic nuisance species the zebra and quagga mussels. Although their influence is not well understood, they may be altering the way phosphorus cycles through the system.

Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion in Lake Erie is due to their ability to filter and clear vast quantities of lake water. Clearer water allows light to penetrate deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic growth on the bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen.

The possible link between Lake Erie's ``dead zone'' problem and aquatic nuisance species like the zebra mussel should underscore the importance of our legislation, the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Act. Over the last 30 years, we have made remarkable progress in improving water quality and restoring the natural resources of our Nation's aquatic areas, and we need to prevent any backsliding on this progress.

While aquatic invasive species are a particular problem because they readily spread through interconnected waterways and are difficult to treat safely, they represent only one piece of the problem. Both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America. Recent estimates state that invasive species cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year and that 42 percent of the species on the Threatened and Endangered Lists are at risk primarily due to invasive species.

In 1999, President Clinton issued an Executive Order creating the National Invasive Species Council to develop a national management plan for invasive species and bring together the federal agencies responsible for managing them. This was a promising action that has never been fully implemented. The National Invasive Species Management Plan was issued in 2001, but agencies with responsibilities under the plan have been slow to complete activities by the established due dates and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner.

The General Accounting Office released a report in October 2002 that claimed that implementing the Management Plan was being hampered by the lack of a congressional mandate for the Council. It is disturbing to me that this Council exists but is not making substantial progress. Make no mistake about it; these species are not waiting for the Federal Government to get all of its ducks in a row. They are continuing to take over the waters and lands of the U.S.

The National Invasive Species Council Act will fix this problem by legislatively establishing the Council. Because timing is so important, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on both of these bills to ensure that the National Invasive Species Management Plan is updated and fully implemented.

We must act quickly to strengthen the oversight of efforts preventing invasive species from wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes' aquatic habitat and throughout the U.S.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move these bills forward. I understand that both bills will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee today, and I look forward to working with Chairman Inhofe to move them expeditiously through committee.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and the National Invasive Species Council Act. As a Senator representing a Great Lake State, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of both of these bills that are critical to the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

In my 36 years of public service, one of my greatest sources of comfort and accomplishment has been my work to help clean up and protect the environment, particularly Lake Erie.

Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the state legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the northern border of my district and it was known worldwide as a dying lake, suffering from eutrophication. Lake Erie's decline was covered extensively by the media and became an international symbol of pollution and environmental degradation. I remember the British Broadcasting Company even sending a film crew to make a documentary about it. One reason for all the attention is that Lake Erie is a source of drinking water for 11 million people.

Seeing firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we had to do more to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. As a State legislator, I made a commitment to stop the deterioration of the lake and to wage the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's Great Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my career as County Commissioner, state legislator, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and United States Senator.

It is comforting to me that 36 years since I started my career in public service, I am still involved, as a member of the United States Senate and our Committee on Environment and Public Works, in the battle to save Lake Erie.

Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality. It is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the area's tourism, transportation, and recreation industries, and the main source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Unfortunately, however, there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve and protect Ohio's greatest natural asset.

Our current enemy is the aquatic invasive species that threaten the health and viability of the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. I am worried about these aquatic terrorists in the ballast water that enter the Great Lakes system through boats from all over the world. These species are already wreaking havoc in the lakes and will continue to do so until they are stopped.

Since the 1800s, over 145 invasive species have colonized in the Great Lakes. Since 1990, when legislation to address aquatic nuisance species was first enacted, we have averaged about one new invader each year. Clearly, we have not closed the door to invasive species. I am deeply troubled by the surge in new invasive species in Lake Erie, because once a species establishes itself, there is virtually no way to eliminate it.

As Mayor of Cleveland in the 1980s, I was alarmed about the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and conducted the first national meeting to investigate the problem. It is a complicated situation and we are still learning how invasive species like the zebra mussel affect the ecosystem.

In early August, for example, I conducted a field hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee to examine the increasingly extensive oxygen depletion or anoxia in the central basin of Lake Erie. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ``dead zone.'' Anoxia over the long term could result in massive fish kills, toxic algae blooms, and bad-tasting or bad-smelling water.

Anoxia is usually the result of decaying algae blooms which consume oxygen at the bottom of the lake. In the past, excessive phosphorus loading from point sources such as municipal sewage treatment plants were greatly responsible for algae blooms. Since 1965, the level of phosphorus entering the Lake has been reduced by about 50 percent. These reductions have resulted in smaller quantities of algae and more oxygen into the system.

In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been increasing, but the amount of phosphorus entering it has not. Scientists are unable to account for the increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic nuisance species the zebra and quagga mussels. Although their influence is not well understood, they may be altering the way phosphorus cycles through the system.

Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion in Lake Erie is due to their ability to filter and clear vast quantities of lake water. Clearer water allows light to penetrate deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic growth on the bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen.

The possible link between Lake Erie's ``dead zone'' problem and aquatic nuisance species like the zebra mussel should underscore the importance of our legislation, the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Act. Over the last 30 years, we have made remarkable progress in improving water quality and restoring the natural resources of our Nation's aquatic areas, and we need to prevent any backsliding on this progress.

While aquatic invasive species are a particular problem because they readily spread through interconnected waterways and are difficult to treat safely, they represent only one piece of the problem. Both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America. Recent estimates state that invasive species cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year and that 42 percent of the species on the Threatened and Endangered Lists are at risk primarily due to invasive species.

In 1999, President Clinton issued an Executive Order creating the National Invasive Species Council to develop a national management plan for invasive species and bring together the federal agencies responsible for managing them. This was a promising action that has never been fully implemented. The National Invasive Species Management Plan was issued in 2001, but agencies with responsibilities under the plan have been slow to complete activities by the established due dates and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner.

The General Accounting Office released a report in October 2002 that claimed that implementing the Management Plan was being hampered by the lack of a congressional mandate for the Council. It is disturbing to me that this Council exists but is not making substantial progress. Make no mistake about it; these species are not waiting for the Federal Government to get all of its ducks in a row. They are continuing to take over the waters and lands of the U.S.

The National Invasive Species Council Act will fix this problem by legislatively establishing the Council. Because timing is so important, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on both of these bills to ensure that the National Invasive Species Management Plan is updated and fully implemented.

We must act quickly to strengthen the oversight of efforts preventing invasive species from wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes' aquatic habitat and throughout the U.S.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move these bills forward. I understand that both bills will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee today, and I look forward to working with Chairman Inhofe to move them expeditiously through committee.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I had intended to finish my remarks this evening by reading an editorial from the Washington Post. I have listened patiently to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and I would like very much to quote from the Post editorial because it is looked upon as one of the most objective papers in the United States of America. Some of my colleagues think it has a liberal tilt to its editorial policies. This is a February 18th editorial from the Washington Post:

The Senate has recessed without voting on the nomination of

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

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

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

Democrats are holding together to prevent the full Senate

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

range from the unpersuasive to the offensive. He lacks

judicial experience, his critics say--though only three

current members of the court had been judges before their

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

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

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

nominated. Mr. Estrada stonewalled the Judiciary Committee by

refusing to answer questions--though his answers were similar

in nature to those of previous nominees, including many

nominated by Democratic presidents. The administration

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

reasonable Congress ought to be seeking such material, as a

letter from all living former solicitors general attests. He

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

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

are incoherent. Underlying it all is the fact that Democrats

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

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

Mr. Estrada aspires to serve, recently observed that under

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

his colleagues could predictably secure confirmation. He's

right. To be sure, Republicans missed few opportunities to

play politics with President Clinton's nominees. But the

Estrada filibuster is a step beyond even those deplorable

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

answers to questions that no nominee should be forced to

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

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

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

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

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

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

it composed entirely of people whose views challenged nobody.

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

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

waiting nearly two years for a Judiciary Committee vote.

Nobody has raised a substantial argument against him. Indeed,

Mr. Roberts is among the most highly regarded appellate

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

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

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

vote.

We all know of Mr. Estrada's illustrious background. I will not rehash his stellar credentials. We have already heard many of our colleagues come to the floor and tell what I refer to as the ``only in America'' story about Estrada's unprecedented rise from his home in Honduras to his current position as a partner with one of Washington's distinguished law firms.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have leveled many complaints against Mr. Estrada, including that he has not had enough judicial experience. I note the following: 26 circuit judges had no judicial experience when they were nominated by President Clinton; they were all confirmed. Of the 108 individuals who have served on the Supreme Court, 43 had no judicial experience at all. In fact, in the entire history of the Supreme Court of the United States, 8 of the 16 chief justices in America's history had no prior judicial experience. Of those justices appointed in the last 50 years, Justices William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Jr., Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, and Byron White had no prior judicial experience when appointed to the Supreme Court.

On the circuit court to which Mr. Estrada has been nominated, five of the eight judges had no previous judicial experience before taking the bench, including two Clinton nominees and one Carter nominee.

On the other hand, Miguel Estrada has a combined level of appellate and trial experience that far exceeds that of the average court of appeals nominee. Mr. Estrada's experience even exceeds that of many Supreme Court nominees. He has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, both criminal and civil. He has tried 10 cases as a prosecutor, argued 7 cases before the U.S. court of appeals for the second district, as assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York.

I emphasize to my colleagues the American Bar Association has rated Estrada well qualified, a rating that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called the gold standard. I heard before: Your nominees, Mr. President, are going to have to reach the gold standard of the American Bar Association. Judge Estrada has met the gold standard of the American Bar Association.

My colleagues have also launched criticism at Mr. Estrada for not turning over documents--I heard that this evening several times--that he worked on while he was employed by the Office of the Solicitor General. What they do not mention is that these documents are confidential. These confidential memos were not requested of the seven previous nominees to the court of appeals who had worked in the Solicitor General's Office.

In addition, and I think this is very important, every living Solicitor General, both Democrat and Republican, signed a joint letter to former Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Leahy, stating that fulfilling this request would have a debilitating effect on the ability of the Department of Justice to represent the United States before the Supreme Court.

This is a very bad time to delay the appointment of judicial nominees. Our Federal courts are in crisis. The U.S. courts of appeals are currently 15 percent vacant, even as case filings in those courts reached an all-time high in 2002. Chief Justice Rehnquist has warned that this high vacancy level, coupled with the rising caseload, threatens the proper functioning of the Federal courts.

Currently, there are 14 courts of appeals pending nominees, 12 of whom were nominated in 2001 and have been waiting for over a year for a vote in the Senate. The most egregious example is the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio, where 6 of the 16 seats are open and classified as judicial emergencies. Of these six vacancies, two, Jeff Sutton and Deborah Cook, have been pending since May 2001, nearly 2 years, and three others have been pending since November 2001, over 2 years. The fact is, we do have a crisis in the judiciary in the United States of America.

Now, let's look at the record. When Senator Hatch was chairman during the Clinton administration, he considered more than one circuit nominee at 11 different hearings. But not once during the 107th Congress did the Democrats hold a hearing on more than one circuit court nominee at a time. The result is we fell behind in the confirmation of circuit nominees.

Presidents Clinton, Reagan and the former President Bush all received confirmations for their first 11 circuit nominees well within 1 year of the nominations. This is in stark contrast with the treatment afforded to President George W. Bush. Only 3 of his first 11 circuit nominees were confirmed within 1 year of their nomination. And only 5--fewer than half--were confirmed during the entire 107th Congress. That's terrible.

My friend Senator Hatch is an extraordinary man. After so much repetition of the same arguments, I'm amazed that he can even stand up.

As Senator Hatch has highlighted in the past, during Democrat control of the Senate in 2001-2002, only 17 Bush circuit court nominees reached the floor for votes. In three of the cases in which they did go to the floor--the nominations of Julia Smith Gibbons, Richard B. Clifton, and Lavenski R. Smith--cloture motions were filed and the motions easily carried.

However, and this is very important, none of those cloture votes was in response to a genuine effort to filibuster a nominee. Rather, cloture petitions were filed as a Senate time-management device.

If the Estrada nomination is permanently blocked by a filibuster, the political baseline shifts forever.

To understand just how extraordinary the current situation is, one only needs to examine the Senate's record of judicial confirmations. The first filibuster of a judicial nominee that resulted in a cloture vote was in 1968. Since then, the Senate has confirmed approximately 1,600 judicial nominations--the vast majority of these, nearly 1,500, occurred without even a roll call vote, as most are confirmed by unanimous consent.

Indeed, of those 1,600 judicial nominations confirmed by the Senate since 1968, only 14 were subject to a cloture vote. And with the exception of the bipartisan 1968 filibuster of Abe Fortas' nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States, the Senate has never blocked by filibuster a judicial nominee to any court--Never.

The rejection of Abe Fortas to serve as Chief Justice of the United States marked the first and only time the Senate has rejected a President's judicial nominee by way of a filibuster. Yet Miguel Estrada presents none of the concerns that caused a bipartisan coalition of Senators to block Justice Fortas' elevation to chief justice.

Given the Senate's historical unwillingness to filibuster nominees-- even Supreme Court nominees--it is not surprising that the Senate has never blocked by filibuster a nominee to any lower court. Furthermore, the Senate has never blocked--by a partisan filibuster--any judicial nominee. As I noted, the only rejection-by-filibuster was the case of Justice Fortas, which was bipartisan. There is no precedent in the Senate of a filibuster conducted solely by one Party to deny the President his judicial nominee.

The stakes here are much greater than the fate of a single judicial nominee. At issue is whether the Senate should reinterpret its constitutional advise and consent obligation to require 60 rather than 51 votes to confirm a judicial nominee. This is a position the Senate has never taken in the context of lower court nominees, and one which Republicans have avoided.

To adopt a new standard would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the administration and the Senate in the judicial confirmation process. It also would seriously erode the comity that has existed between the two branches in the past.

In effect, we're playing games with the administration of justice, acting without regard for the problems of the Judiciary. If Senators filibuster Mr. Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit, and if that filibuster results in the rejection of the nomination, Democrats will have forced a permanent change to the political and constitutional landscape. This in essence, would create a completely new process and would, in effect, allow Senators to deny any judicial nominee their right to a vote.

Due to the numerous delays in the Estrada vote, the crisis in the Federal courts continues and the Senate can't attend to our pressing legislative business. Our country has serious problems today and they require serious and thoughtful consideration in the Senate. The stalling games that are being played here are really hurting the judicial process and to a larger and greater extent the Nation itself.

While we wait for the minority to make up its mind, we cannot accomplish any meaningful debate on the country's pressing problems. These are hard times for Americans and my constituents ask me: Do you guys in Washington get it? Do you get it? Do you understand what is going on?

We are involved in a war on terrorism abroad and at home. The economy is sputtering. The President of the United States has more on his plate than perhaps any President in my memory. Some say he has more on his plate than FDR, some say Abraham Lincoln. Our constituents believe we are behaving like Nero, fiddling around while Rome was burning. They continue to ask, don't you get it? Is the Emperor wearing any clothes?

All of us in this body have priority concerns, yet during this stalemate, no one's legislation is moving ahead. Consideration of urgent matters that I would like to be addressed, such as prescription drugs/Medicare reform, medical lawsuit abuse reform, asbestos litigation reform, human capital, the energy bill at a time when the cost of natural gas is skyrocketing, or the accelerating deficit.

I know I am not the only Senator who is concerned about these issues and I know some of my colleagues have other priority concerns. At present, no one is winning anything by this stalemate and the important concerns of the American people are being held hostage.

This is bigger than a delayed vote on Miguel Estrada. As U.S. Senators we need to act like adults. We need to come together and create a unanimous consent agreement on how we will handle the approval of judges from now on. We have to find a way to reach agreement.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle persist in opposing Mr. Estrada, they will have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they voted against him since he has met, and I dare say surpassed, the ``gold standard'' they asked for by the American Bar Association. They also would be hard-pressed to explain why his nomination has been held up for so long without a vote.

I've been receiving letters from my constituents who think the U.S. Senate is holding up this vote because Mr. Estrada is Hispanic. My Hispanic constituents think he is being used as the whipping boy and they are furious. I don't think some of my colleagues realize what this means to a minority community. In Ohio, I appointed Jose Feliciano as the first Hispanic police commissioner because he was the best candidate, but the Hispanic community was very proud and excited. The Hispanic community was so proud that one of their boys made it. Can you think of what an impact it had on the young people that a Hispanic made it to be the police commissioner.

I remember when I appointed Ken Blackwell to be the treasurer of the State of Ohio, the first African American to serve as the treasurer of the State of Ohio, a constitutional office, and how much it meant to African Americans in our State that someone could hold a constitutional office. They had an inspiration. I came up during the years of Carl Stokes, the first African American mayor of the city of Cleveland, and I remember the impact it had on young people in Cleveland and all over America that an African American could be a mayor of a major city. I remember Frank Lousche, who was the mayor and Governor of the State of Ohio, and Senator, who was a Slovenian--when I was 12 years old, how much it meant to me to see Frank Lousche, Slovenian, get to be mayor, and then Governor. By that time he wasn't even a Senator. But it inspired me and other people of my nationality to say if he can do it, I can do it.

There is more to it here. In this case I think my colleagues should understand, particularly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is a good man. He has the qualifications. There is not any reason why we should not allow a vote on this particularly wonderful human being who will make a difference if he has a chance to serve on the bench here in the DC District.

In addition to that, it will mean so much to Hispanics all over the United States that one of our boys made it.

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