Floor Statements

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Judith Spooner of Louisville, KY on her reception of the Adoption Excellence Award given to her by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Ms. Spooner has dedicated her life to helping improve and increase adoptions and foster families in Kentucky. Her devotion to this cause was put to great work during her time at the Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children. She has done a wonderful public service through her innovative efforts to increase the number of adoptive families in Kentucky. She has also been instrumental in setting up area support groups for foster and adoptive parents. Although she retired in March of 2003, we are all very lucky that she will continue to spend some of her time with AdoptUSKids, a nonprofit group that helps match waiting children with adoptive families.

The citizens of Kentucky are fortunate to have the leadership of Judith Spooner. Her example of dedication, hard work and compassion should be an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth.

She has my most sincere appreciation for this work and I look forward to her continued service to Kentucky.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, which is based in Berea, KY. On Thursday, December 11, Craig will receive the Public Interest Research Group's annual John O'Connor Citizen Achievement Award.

The O'Connor Award is presented annually to a dedicated advocate for a cleaner, better America. Craig Williams has dedicated his life to grassroots organizations safeguarding the environment and protecting Americans working and living near chemical weapons storage facilities. He rightly deserves this tremendous honor.

I have personally worked with Craig for years on protecting the local citizens and environment surrounding the Bluegrass Army Depot in central Kentucky. As the director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, Craig was instrumental in ensuring the safest possible disposal of chemical weapons in Kentucky. Craig has been a tireless advocate against the incineration of these deadly weapons and has done a remarkable job educating and mobilizing the local communities surrounding these disposal sites across the country.

I congratulate Craig for receiving this honor, and I thank him for his tireless advocacy on behalf of a cleaner environment and protection of all those living and working near chemical weapons storage facilities. I look forward to working with Craig on future projects. I thank the Senate for allowing me to pay tribute to this dedicated Kentuckian.

Mr. President, the list that is published in the calendar only has Democratic Senators in it. Obviously, there is an alternative list that would allow for Republican Senators to have a 30- minute block in between the Democratic Senators who speak.

I thank the Chair.

I have a unanimous consent request first to propose. Then I will.

I ask unanimous consent that with the previous order standing in place, the 30-minute time limit on each Senator be considered controlled time, so that any remaining time may be yielded to another Senator, and if not yielded, the time be automatically yielded back.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, today I rise to talk about the Medicare prescription drug bill. First, let me commend the members of the conference committee who worked day and night for many months to reach this agreement. I know it was not easy, but they have done a good job that will finally bring Medicare into the 21st century.

Second, let me say how disappointed I am that it appears some Members may try to filibuster this bill. In fact, it seems as though there are Members in this body who want to filibuster just about everything we try to do, whether it is stopping judicial nominations, the Energy bill, or this Medicare bill. Just a few weeks ago we spent several days in continuous debate on judicial nominations. On Friday, the Energy bill was blocked. Now it looks as though some are going to try to kill this bill. I call that obstructionism.

I want to show a chart because from the beginning there have been charts shown on both sides. These are 358 different groups--358 different groups that support this bill in its present form. It is headed by the American Association of Retired People--the AARP, which represents over 35 million seniors.

Seniors have been pleading for Congress to expand Medicare to include drug coverage, and this bill will do just that. It might not be all things to all people, and I am sure every Member in here would have written a different bill if it was completely up to him or her, but that is not the way we work around here and this bill is a very large compromise. Even the AARP, as I said before, has endorsed this bill and said that, although the bill is imperfect, it is an historic breakthrough. I want to repeat that--an historic breakthrough; and that we should not let this opportunity pass us by.

Today, Medicare provides health insurance to about 40 million seniors and disabled individuals each year. The number is only expected to grow as the baby boomers begin retiring. Medicare provides important medical and health and hospital benefits for seniors. However, it is a program that is still trying to provide health care as if it were in 1965 instead of the year 2003.

When Medicare was created, prescription drugs played a small role, a very small role in medical care. Today, as we all know, that is much different. In fact, for many seniors and many Americans, prescription drugs have replaced expensive surgeries and extended their lives significantly. By tying a drug benefit to Medicare, this bill makes these lifesaving and life-enhancing drugs more available to millions of Americans.

This has been a very long process, and I kind of chuckle when I hear people say we are rushing into this. I can tell you as a member of the Finance Committee that we have been working on this bill for almost the entire year, working and crafting legislation to make the best drug bill possible for all Americans.

I was supportive of our bill as it moved through the Finance Committee and through the full Senate. Today I am supportive of the bill before us. It is time to add this benefit to Medicare. Seniors have waited too long for their benefit, and I urge my fellow colleagues in the Senate to support this bill. Talk is cheap, and it is time to act and it is time to act now.

We have $400 billion allocated for this benefit. It would be a shame if we let this opportunity pass us by. It might not come again.

This legislation provides a much needed prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. It provides more options to seniors than just traditional fee-for-service Medicare, and it provides incentives to companies to continue offering medical benefits to their retirees.

Seniors will be able to receive prescription drug coverage under two options: Through the traditional fee-for-service Medicare and also through a new Medicare Advantage Program made up of private companies offering Medicare benefits.

Under the fee-for-service Medicare, beneficiaries will be able to enroll in Medicare drug plans. The standard drug benefit will require a $35 monthly premium and a $250-a-year deductible. Once seniors have met the deductible, they will pay 25 percent of the prescription drug cost up to $2,250. Once a beneficiary has received an out-of-pocket spending limit of $3,600, they will pay 5 percent for their prescription drugs.

I emphasize this because this is the key to the whole Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Low-income seniors will be provided with assistance paying for their drug costs depending on the level of their income. This means that seniors with the lowest income--those below 100 percent of poverty-- will not pay a deductible or monthly premium and will pay either $1 or $3 per prescription drug up to the catastrophic limit. Once they reach the catastrophic limit, these seniors will have 100 percent of their drugs paid for.

These are the seniors who truly struggle to pay for their prescriptions. At 100 percent of poverty, a senior's income is $8,900 per year. Other low-income seniors below 150 percent of poverty will receive additional assistance depending upon their level of income. Personally, I believe our biggest responsibility is to low-income seniors. These are the ones who struggle the most to buy their prescriptions, and they deserve a very generous benefit.

Seniors will also be able to choose to receive their health care through a private company. I hope everybody heard that. They will be able to choose. This is a voluntary program. You can choose to stay in Medicare Part B and have no prescription drugs if you choose to do that. You can choose to take Medicare Part B and add a prescription drug benefit or you can choose to go into a private company's health care program.

Under Medicare Advantage, seniors will be able to choose whether they would like medical coverage from a preferred provider organization, known as a PPO, or a health maintenance organization, or HMO, operating in their regions.

These plans will provide beneficiaries with an integrated benefit, which means seniors will receive both medical and drug coverage under the plan. They would have a single deductible for medical benefits currently provided under Medicare Part A and B. They would also be able to receive preventive care, disease management, and chronic care under these programs.

These private plans will have much more flexibility in the type and scope

of benefits they provide than traditional Medicare, and will provide many seniors with a valuable health care option.

Please notice--``option, voluntary.'' These are very key to this whole program.

I know some of my colleagues do not like these PPOs and HMOs because they say seniors will not be able to go to any doctor they choose. Hogwash. No one is going to force the seniors into these private plans, and they will be able to pick a plan in which their doctor participates.

Please understand that. We are not going to force any senior away from their given doctor. They will be able to choose their own doctor and stay with that doctor.

That is one of the key elements of the bill--giving seniors more choices instead of forcing them to use a health care plan created in 1965, which has changed very little since then. If these care advantage plans sound familiar, they should.

Finally, Medicare will provide seniors with a modern benefit similar to what is offered to most employees, including what the Federal Government offers to employees.

One of the biggest concerns with the legislation as it moved through the Finance Committee and the full Senate was what would happen to retirees who currently have drug coverage from their former employer. No one wants this new program to be an excuse for employers to drop their retirees' health coverage. That would be counterproductive and unfair to those seniors. To encourage companies to continue providing these benefits, this agreement sets aside almost $70 billion of our $400 billion for subsidies to help companies cover their prescription drug costs for their medical-eligible retirees. This is a substantial commitment by Congress to make sure companies do not have an excuse to drop their coverage.

The members of the conference committee have worked long and hard for many hours and in many meetings over the last year on this compromise. We have a real chance to pass this bill, and we shouldn't pass up this opportunity.

If we don't pass this bill now, it will be several years before we get another chance, and seniors have waited much too long already.

Again, I urge my fellow Senators to pass this bill and finally fulfill the promise that each and every one of us in the Senate has made either on the campaign trail or anywhere that we have spoken to senior groups. We have promised this benefit and we can deliver it.

I urge my fellow Senators, once again, to pass this bill providing prescription drug coverage to our seniors. We can talk about it for 2 or 4 more years or we can do it now.

I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of National Adoption Day by introducing legislation to repeal the sunset on two current-law tax provisions that make adoption more affordable for American families.

In 2001, this Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This act contains many much needed tax relief provisions for the American people. However, because of procedural rules in the Senate, this law sunsets and expires after December 31, 2010.

The legislation I introduce today makes permanent two tax provisions contained in that law, the adoption tax credit and the exclusion for employer-provided adoption assistance benefits. If we do not pass this bill and therefore allow these provisions to sunset, then this tax credit will be cut overnight from a maximum of $10,000 to $5,000. Families who adopt special needs children will no longer receive a flat $10,000 credit, and instead, they will be limited to a maximum of $6,000. As well, families claiming the credit may be pushed into the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Today, National Adoption Day, we celebrate the adoption of over 3,000 children from foster care. There are over 542,000 kids in foster care. Of these, more than 125,000 children are waiting to be adopted permanently. We here in Congress need to continue to help these children to find loving homes. We need to make it easier for families to adopt, not throw up barriers. If the adoption tax credit is cut to the prior law level of $5,000, many families will not be able to afford adoptions. And therefore less children will be welcomed into what they want the most, a permanent family.

Last year, the House of Representative passed this permanent extension of the adoption tax credit by a vote of 391 yeas to 1 nay. We in this Chamber failed to act. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate recognize the importance of moving on this legislation to permanently extend this tax credit. The children and parents deserve to see this adoption tax credit set into law for good. This is not a partisan issue, but something all Americans can agree on. We owe it to them all.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of National Adoption Day by introducing legislation to repeal the sunset on two current-law tax provisions that make adoption more affordable for American families.

In 2001, this Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This act contains many much needed tax relief provisions for the American people. However, because of procedural rules in the Senate, this law sunsets and expires after December 31, 2010.

The legislation I introduce today makes permanent two tax provisions contained in that law, the adoption tax credit and the exclusion for employer-provided adoption assistance benefits. If we do not pass this bill and therefore allow these provisions to sunset, then this tax credit will be cut overnight from a maximum of $10,000 to $5,000. Families who adopt special needs children will no longer receive a flat $10,000 credit, and instead, they will be limited to a maximum of $6,000. As well, families claiming the credit may be pushed into the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Today, National Adoption Day, we celebrate the adoption of over 3,000 children from foster care. There are over 542,000 kids in foster care. Of these, more than 125,000 children are waiting to be adopted permanently. We here in Congress need to continue to help these children to find loving homes. We need to make it easier for families to adopt, not throw up barriers. If the adoption tax credit is cut to the prior law level of $5,000, many families will not be able to afford adoptions. And therefore less children will be welcomed into what they want the most, a permanent family.

Last year, the House of Representative passed this permanent extension of the adoption tax credit by a vote of 391 yeas to 1 nay. We in this Chamber failed to act. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate recognize the importance of moving on this legislation to permanently extend this tax credit. The children and parents deserve to see this adoption tax credit set into law for good. This is not a partisan issue, but something all Americans can agree on. We owe it to them all.

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

Mr. President, I thank you.

I rise to talk about the Energy conference report and urge my fellow Senators to support this bill. We have waited for a comprehensive Energy bill for too long. I am pleased that we have before us a good energy policy bill which we can send to the President of the United States.

The conference bill is not perfect. I don't believe I have voted for a perfect bill in the last 17 years. But no bill we ever pass around here is perfect. But it is a good compromise that will help our country meet its future energy needs. This agreement will mean more jobs and more money in American's pocketbooks and create more than a million jobs across this country. We are already on the upturn of an economic recession. This bill will help kick our economy into high gear.

A good energy policy must strike a balance between energy production and conservation. This bill does just that by including increased energy production while also doing more to encourage conservation and smarter energy use.

I know this bill was difficult to get out of conference. I watched my chairman for almost 2 months suffer with this bill. Under his leadership and the leadership of Senator Grassley, we have before the Senate a solid piece of legislation that provides energy policy and tax incentives to promote production and energy efficiencies throughout and the use of cleaner burning fuels.

In the wake of our ongoing problems in the Middle East, now more than ever a sound energy policy is a critical part of our national security. We must have a reliable source of energy and we must cut our reliance on foreign oil. Presently we depend on foreign nations, including the Middle East, for nearly 60 percent of our Nation's oil supply. While we appear to be moving away from combat in Iraq, we still have many problems there. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the Middle East. We need to increase our own production of energy because it is more important than ever right now. It is too important and there is too much instability in the world not to pass this bill. We do not want the United States of America at the mercy of other countries just to keep our engines running and our lights on. This Energy bill will help increase our energy independence by increasing domestic production of energy and reducing our reliance on foreign sources.

This bill allows for and encourages through tax credits more oil and more natural gas exploration. The bill also includes clean coal provisions that I helped write, to increase domestic production, while also improving environmental production soundness. In my home State this means jobs, a lot of jobs, and a cleaner place to live.

Clean coal technology will result in a significant reduction in emissions and a sharp increase in energy efficiency.

I am proud to be from a coal State. Generations of Kentuckians have made their living in the coal fields and coal mines of Kentucky. For the last decade, coal in Kentucky was on the downturn because of legislative and regulatory policies from the Federal Government which forced electricity generation to invest in natural gas-fired facilities instead of coal.

I am glad to see we have turned things around and are taking steps to make sure coal continues to play a vital role in meeting our future energy needs. This focus on clean coal is good for the environment. It is certainly good for the economy and for putting folks back to work.

The Energy bill encourages research and development of clean coal technology by authorizing nearly $2.6 billion in appropriations for the Department of Energy to conduct programs to advance new technologies. Almost $2 billion will be used for the clean coal power initiatives where the DOE will work with industry to advance efficiencies, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness of new clean coal technologies.

The energy tax package includes $2.5 billion for coal-fired companies to invest in clean coal technologies and pollution control equipment. I am pleased to see that the bill also authorized an additional $2 billion for clean air programs which will encourage the use of pollution control equipment and the next generation of clean coal generators.

The 21st century economy will require increased amounts of reliable, clean, and affordable electricity to keep our Nation running. This bill recognizes that coal must play an important role in our energy future.

Today, more than half our Nation's electricity is generated from an abundant low-cost domestic coal. We have over 275 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. This is nearly 30 percent of the world's coal supply. That is enough coal to supply us with energy for more than 250 years.

This Energy bill also includes fuel provisions that I pushed hard for that will help make fuel burn cleaner. The bill requires the use of 5 billion gallons

per year of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel in gasoline by the year 2012. The bill also provides tax credits to encourage the use of these fuels. Increasing the use of alternative fuels will help farmers while also increasing domestic energy production and lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

The bill also addresses electricity. Kentucky is the second lowest electric rate State in the Union. It just fell below Idaho. Much of Kentucky's low rates come as a result of our coal production. The low rates also come from Kentucky's decision to put Kentucky consumers first before consumers outside of the State.

I do not believe this bill goes far enough to prevent FERC from implementing SMD permanently or preventing mandatory RTOs. I do believe this bill is a good compromise. The bill delays until 2007 FERC's plan to create its SMD and allows companies to participate in RTOs voluntarily.

Some of the electric provisions are especially good for Kentucky. More than one-third of Kentucky's electricity comes from rural electric cooperative distributors. This bill will help the consumer-owners of Kentucky's 26 electric cooperatives to stay in business and maintain the State's status as having the lowest residential or second lowest residential rates in the country.

I worked hard in the Senate Energy Committee to ensure that the small rural electric cooperatives in Kentucky are not subject to expensive FERC jurisdiction that could raise consumers' rates without improving the reliability of the electric utility system. This is a big issue for our cooperatives in Kentucky that serve only a few thousand customers and do not have bulk transmission.

This bill specifically codifies RUS borrowers' existing exemption from FERC regulation and expands the exemption to include small electric cooperatives that sell less than 4 million megawatts of electricity per year. This is also called the small utility exemption.

The bill also minimizes other new regulatory burdens on cooperatives. I am pleased to see this bill does not include new regulatory programs such as environmental mandates that would have raised consumers' electric rates.

I hope the Senate passes the Energy bill this week so we can make our environment, economy, and national security stronger.

Thank you, Mr. President, for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Absolutely. The Senator is absolutely right.

I assure the Senator from New Mexico that I was not lobbied by coal companies. But I sure was lobbied by the small electric producers in Kentucky.

Fifty different ones.

Right.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of MG Robert Clark to the rank of lieutenant general and commander of the Fifth Army. I first met General Clark over 5 years ago when he was commander of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY. Since that time, I have known General Clark to be an honest man and an excellent soldier. The military communities in Kentucky and Tennessee surrounding Fort Campbell admire General Clark very much. He is well respected throughout the Army, and we should be grateful that we have soldiers like General Clark serving and protecting our Nation.

GEN Jack Keane, who commanded General Clark at Fort Campbell, said this about him:

In my 37 years of service, I have never met an officer who

is such a tower of character and integrity. His peers,

subordinates, and superiors all respect and admire him for

the truly special person that he is.

General Clark loves the Army and he loves his country. Some may even say that General Clark was born with the desire to serve his country in his blood. Both of his grandfathers served in both World War I and World War II. His father served for 31 years and fought in both World War II and the Korean conflict. His older brother served in Vietnam. One of his younger brothers is an Air Force colonel, and another brother is an Army lieutenant colonel on the front lines in Korea.

The Clark family has made many sacrifices so that future generations of Americans can live in peace. General Clark has given 33 years of his life in the armed service to this great Nation. He is a decorated soldier and has shed his own blood for our country. He led a platoon in Vietnam, commanded a brigade that was dropped deep into Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.

As commanding general of the 101st Screaming Eagles, he deployed himself, with his troops, all over the world, from Kuwait to El Salvador. Most recently, General Clark has been deputy commander of the Fifth Army and mobilized Guard and Reserves for homeland defense and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has worn just about every hat the Army has to offer.

COL Mike Oates, who served under General Clark at Fort Campbell, said this about him:

He spoke straight to the soldiers. He looked them in the

eye and he set high standards for wearing our equipment and

how we behaved. Discipline is what keeps good units effective

and reliable. He enforced discipline and set the example

himself.

I could go on and on about General Clark's distinguished career. But I need to address the tragic incident that has held up his nomination, which occurred while General Clark was at Fort Campbell. A murder occurred at Fort Campbell on July 5, 1999. PVT Barry Winchell was killed in a tragic event that none of us should ever forget. Private Winchell was murdered by a fellow soldier, who is serving--and deservedly so--a life sentence for this horrendous crime.

I do not wish to address the details of this horrible murder, but I do wish to

extend my thoughts and prayers to Private Winchell's family and friends. I have spoken with General Clark several times about this tragic incident. I know how sorry he is about the murder of Private Winchell, especially since it did happen on his post and under his leadership.

But it is important to note that after the incident--and as the general court martial convening authority--General Clark approved the maximum punishment for the convicted murderer.

I want to set the record straight. A small, yet loud minority has blamed General Clark for this tragic death. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A man who has given 33 years of his life to protect all Americans-- all Americans--does not deserve to be treated this way. Army investigations and many interviews were conducted to dispel the misinformation over this incident. And the Army has recommended General Clark for nomination to lieutenant general and commander of the Fifth Army because he is the most qualified soldier for this job.

The President nominated General Clark for this post and important rank. It is important to note that the Senate Armed Services Committee approved his nomination.

I thank Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for helping to move his nomination through the committee.

Mr. President, our military has an old saying: ``Not for self, but for country.''

Those who know General Clark in the Army and in the communities in which he has served all think of him when they hear this statement. General Clark is a man who has given his entire life not for self but for God and country. I thank him for it.

We should all be grateful to him for all the sacrifices he has made for our freedoms and our protections. I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of GEN Robert Clark. He deserves it and he has earned it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank for yielding my good friend from Kentucky and my good friend from Oklahoma. I have a question for the senior Senator from Kentucky.

I ask my friend from Kentucky: The Michigan Senators argue that they have not been properly consulted on these, the Michigan nominees. Yet I understand the White House Counsel's Office consulted extensively with the Michigan Senators. This chart reproduces a letter from the White House Counsel that shows from April to November 2001, the White House consulted with the Michigan Senators no fewer than 13 times. So I ask my friend from Kentucky, in light of the record, does it not seem that the Michigan Senators are defining consultation as picking the nominees, rather than the President picking them?

On the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where these Michigan circuit judges are needed so desperately, isn't it true right now that Federal district judges are having to go to the Sixth Circuit and be seated because of the judicial crisis we have on the Sixth Circuit?

I only say to my good friend, the senior Senator, that even some of the newer judges with whom you and I are familiar are now having to do 2-week tours of duty over at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals--they have only been on the district bench for 2 years--to try to catch up the backlog we have at the Sixth Circuit Court. If we could only get a little better cooperation out of certain Senators from Michigan, maybe we could fill those four vacant seats in a rational and reasonable way.

Mr. President, we have heard from many on this side of the aisle this morning and last night. They have made great points about President Bush's judicial nominees and the bad situation they are in.

We started this year talking about Miguel Estrada. His nomination is no longer before the Senate because of the opposition party's tactics and for the sale of his family.

Today marks 918 days after Miguel Estrada's nomination. He has never received an up-or-down vote. That is unfair to him. President Bush, and the American people.

Miguel Estrada is a respected attorney here in Washington. He received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA which is the rating our Democrat colleagues call the gold standard for judges.

He would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the prestigious DC circuit. He was a clerk at the Supreme Court. He graduated with distinction from Harvard Law School and argued many

cases before the Supreme Court. He even served in the Clinton administration.

But that is not the most impressive part of Miguel Estrada's story. He was born in Honduras and came to America at age 17 speaking little English. He overcame that hurdle and graduated from one of our most exclusive colleges and law schools.

He also overcame a speech disability. And this is no small hurdle to clear when your career depends on making successful oral arguments in court.

Miguel Estrada became a victim of politics in the Senate when some here said his views were unknown. They made unprecedented demands for documents every legal office in the country would object to releasing. They asked questions that countless Clinton nominees also declined to answer. And opponents said that was unacceptable.

The real issue here is what is known about Miguel Estrada.

He is a bright young Hispanic lawyer who follows the law and would make a great Supreme Court nominee.

The idea of the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court being a conservative is unacceptable to them. I hope his nomination comes before the Senate again some day and we can vote to confirm him.

And then there is Priscilla Owen.

Her nomination has been pending for 918 days. She has been a supreme court justice in Texas since 1995.

In her last election she received 84 percent of the vote. I'm not sure many here know what it feels like to receive that kind of percentage. But I bet we would all like to.

And just like Miguel Estrada, the ABA gave her a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating.

She graduated with honors from Baylor Law School where she was on the law review and she earned the highest score in Texas when she took the bar exam. Having suffered through several children taking the bar exam, I've heard what kind of challenge that can be.

But most telling is what her colleagues in Texas say about her.

Justice Owen has the support of three former Democrat justices on the Texas Supreme Court. Fifteen bipartisan past presidents of the Texas bar endorsed her.

And running for re-election she was supported by every major Texas newspaper. We should all be so lucky to even get our hometown newspaper's endorsement.

We've had three cloture votes on her and we will vote again on Friday.

Each time a majority signaled we should give her an up-or-down vote. But again the minority is preventing her from having her day in court.

What is her crime? Twice in the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owens said the court was wrong and that under Texas law the parents of a pregnant child had the right to be informed before their daughter had an abortion.

Several lower courts had already upheld these parental rights and that Texas law does not give parents the right to stop the abortion, but they did have the right to be informed.

But that precedent apparently doesn't matter and she is being obstructed by a radical minority in this Senate that believes children have unlimited rights to abortions and parents should not be able to talk to their pregnant child first.

I know the vast majority of Americans do not believe that. And it is well past time we give Justice Owen an up-or-down vote.

Alabama attorney general Pryor was the next judge to fall victim to special interest politics.

Bill Pryor was appointed Alabama attorney general in 1997 and re- elected twice, most recently with 59 percent of the vote.

He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, practiced at two law firms, and taught law school.

In law school he was on the law review and graduated with honors. After law school he was a clerk at the fifth circuit where he worked for a judge who spent years working to desegregate schools in the South.

Attorney General Pryor is supported by Republicans and Democrats in Alabama.

Newspapers praise the lack of partisanship in his office. He is known in Alabama for following the law. Ironically that is what his detractors say he won't do.

Bill Pryor is an outspoken man who does not hide his beliefs but he has proven that his personal beliefs do not get in the way of following the law. He does not support abortion and has never apologized for it.

But he made sure his office followed Supreme Court precedent in enforcing the State's partial birth abortion statute even though he disagreed with the decision, and most recently he acted against overwhelming public opinion in Alabama to enforce Federal court rulings ordering the Ten Commandments display in the Alabama Supreme Court to be removed.

Again a majority of this body has kept Attorney General Pryor from getting the up-or-down vote he deserves. He has proven without a doubt that he will follow the law even when he disagrees with it.

Twice a majority of the Senate has said he should get a vote. Next time I hope we give him an up-or-down vote.

Next up on the honor roll of filibustered judges is Judge Charles Pickering.

Judge Pickering was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1990 to be a Federal district judge in Mississippi.

He graduated first in his law school class at the University of Mississippi. He practiced in a law firm and was both a city and county prosecutor. He was a municipal court judge and elected to the Mississippi State Senate.

Judge Pickering has spent his career as a leader in race relations in Mississippi.

His career has been dedicated to tearing down racial barriers against minorities in the South, and he was not very popular for it in Mississippi in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was the right thing to do.

I remember traveling around the South in the 1950s and 1960s and remember race relations there.

I remember signs at cafes saying ``whites only'' and then bringing food outside with my white teammates and sitting down with our black teammates on the bus and eating with them.

I remember what it was like as professional baseball gradually embraced minorities. Judge Pickering helped break down these racial barriers and he risked his career and reputation to do it.

In recent years Judge Pickering served on race relations committees in Mississippi. He spent time working with at-risk minority children.

In 1967 Judge Pickering was a prosecuting attorney in Jones County,

Mr. President, I pay tribute to Dr. Don Dugi professor of political science at Transylvania University located in Lexington, KY on being named the Kentucky Professor of the Year.

The Professor of the Year Awards are the only national awards that recognize college and university professors for their teaching. Since 1981, the Professor of the Year awards have been given to professors who exhibit dedication to teaching and commitment to their students.

Dr. Dugi has exhibited great commitment to his students at Transylvania University. As a professor for political science, Dr. Dugi is tasked to mold our Nation's future leaders. Being honored with this award Dr. Dugi sets an example of excellence for the rest of the faculty and for his students.

Mr. President, I now ask my fellow colleagues join me in thanking Dr. Dugi for his dedication and commitment to the education of America's future. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have professors like Dr. Dugi in our colleges and universities.

Mr. President, I pay tribute to Margaret Ann Hoffman of Walton, KY on being recognized as one of America's top principals in the 2003 National Distinguished Principal Program by the U.S. Department of Education.

The annual National Distinguished Principals Program was established in 1984 to honor elementary and middle school principals who set high standards for the pace, character, and quality of the education their students receive.

Ms. Hoffman, a principal at Fort Wright Elementary School, in Covington, KY, has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for her tireless work in exhibiting excellence at Fort Wright Elementary School and has made outstanding contributions to the Covington community. Ms. Hoffman sets an example of excellence for the rest of the faculty, and the faculty follows that example. She inspires her students to achieve academically and contribute to the community.

I know ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Margaret Ann Hoffman for her dedication and commitment to the education of America's future. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have principals like Margaret Ann Hoffman in our schools, and communities, and lives. She is Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. As we all know, reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a very important issue for the financial services industry and for consumers. When I talk to my friends in this sector, it is always the first thing they ask about. It touches everyone and their money and our national economy. It is critical that we act on it before adjournment. I believe that the Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman Shelby has created a fair, bipartisan bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

We have been talking about this issue for several years. We have held a number of hearings on it. We looked it over pretty thoroughly, and I think we have come up with a reasonable approach. Most importantly, we have to act now because this bill is also important to our overall economy.

Last week we had great economic news. Our economy is roaring back and that is good news for everyone. But if we fail to pass this bill, it could end up being a serious speed bump on the road to a better economy. If there is one thing that markets hate, it is uncertainty. They want to know where we are and where we are going. For better or worse, the markets think we are going to pass this bill. They think we are going to outline a stable path for financial institutions when it comes to the sharing of information. Any talk or any sign from Congress that makes the markets think that we aren't going to pass this bill would create a great deal of uncertainty in the financial markets. Now that our economy is really coming to life, that is the last thing we need. If the markets think we are going to let the FCRA lapse, they are going to get very jittery very quickly. I can understand that. This is a sensitive, complicated area. I don't think any of us wants the FCRA to lapse.

We need Federal preemption in this area. I think it would be a mistake to let States and localities all try to impose their own privacy rules. There are trillions of dollars at stake. We have to be very careful. But if we fail to pass this bill, we open a Pandora's box of States and localities writing their own rules, and the markets and financial institutions just are not prepared for that. We can't let that happen. We don't need that uncertainty now. Who knows what would happen.

On a personal note, I am very pleased that the bill contains strong identity theft and privacy protections, including my amendment on Social Security number truncation that will help prevent thieves who go ``dumpster diving'' or try to steal credit reports from mail boxes. Identity theft is a growing problem in America. The Internet is making it easier for thieves to obtain consumer information. My amendment will help fight this growing menace. Under this bill, consumers can block out their Social Security number on their credit reports. It is just the sort of simple, commonsense approach that will help consumers without burdening business.

I would also like to talk about the amendments that are going to be offered by my colleagues from California. They are based, in large part, on a California bill, SB1. I am sure California has a fine legislature. And I am sure their representatives try their best to represent their California constituents. But I do not think the California legislature represents the people of Kentucky or the other States very well. That is not their job. If we adopt the amendments to be offered by my friends, it would have the effect of imposing California's rules on the rest of the Nation. That is a bad idea that will only lead to the economic uncertainty we have to avoid.

If California wants to try to craft their own rules and work with Federal regulators, I say more power to them--but not if it puts a crimp on the national economy or starts rewriting the rules for the other 49 States. Our credit system is a national system and it needs a national standard. Standards that may work in California or Kentucky may not work for the country as a whole. Usually I am all for taking power away from Washington and sending it back to the States and local government. But on this bill we cannot ignore the fact that credit rules and markets and money are all part of a broader, national economy that requires a unified, Federal approach. To let States undermine that would be a recipe for disaster.

S. 1753 is a fair and balanced bill that sets a fair and balanced standard for our entire Nation. It is bipartisan, it is common sense, and it is a prudent solution to a pressing problem for our financial institutions.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003.

As we all know, reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a very important issue for the financial services industry and for consumers.

When I talk to my friends in this sector, it is always the first thing they ask about. It touches everyone and their money and our national economy. It's critical that we act on it before adjournment.

I believe that the Banking Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Shelby, has created a fair, bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues go support it.

We have been talking about this issue for several years. We have held a number of hearings on it. We looked it over pretty thoroughly, and I think we have come up with a reasonable approach.

Most importantly, we have to act now because this bill is also important to our overall economy.

Last week, we had great economic news. Our economy is roaring back and that is good news for everyone. But if we fail to pass this bill, it could end up being a serious speed bump on the road to a better economy.

If there is one thing that markets hate, it is uncertainty. They want to know where we are and where we are going.

For better or worse, the markets think we are going to pass this bill.

They think we are going to outline a stable path for financial institutions when it comes to the sharing of information.

Any talk or any sign from Congress that makes the markets think that we are not going to pass this bill would create a great deal of uncertainty in the financial markets.

Now that our economy is really coming to life, that is the last thing we need.

If the markets think we are going to let the FCRA lapse, they are going to get very jittery very quickly. I can understand that. This is a sensitive, complicated area. I don't think any of us wants the FCRA to lapse.

We need Federal preemption in this area. I think it would be a mistake to let States and localities all try to impose their own privacy rules.

There are trillions of dollars at stake. We have to be very careful.

But if we fail to pass this bill, we open a Pandora's box of States and localities writing their own rules, and the markets and financial institutions just are not prepared for that.

We can't let that happen. We don't need that uncertainty now. Who knows what would happen.

On a personal note, I am very pleased that the bill contains strong identity theft and privacy protections, including my amendment on social security number truncation that will help prevent thieves who go ``dumpster diving'' or try to steal credit reports from mail boxes.

Identity theft is a growing problem in America. The internet is making it easier for thieves to access consumer information.

My amendment will help fight this growing menace. Under this bill, consumers can block out their social security number on their credit reports.

It's just the sort of simple, commonsense approach that will help consumers without burdening business.

I would also like to talk about the amendments that are going to be offered by my colleagues from California. They are based, in large part, on a California bill, SB1.

I am sure California has a fine legislature. And I am sure there representatives try their best to represent their California constituents. But I do not think the California Legislature represents the people of Kentucky or the other States very well. That's not their job.

If we adopt the amendments to be offered by my friends, it would have the effect of imposing California's rules on the rest of the Nation.

That's a bad idea that will only lead to the economic uncertainty we have to avoid.

If California wants to try to craft their own rules and work with Federal regulators, I say more power to them--but not if it puts a crimp on the national economy or starts rewriting the rules for the other 49 States.

Our credit system is a national system and it needs a national standard. Standards that may work in California or Kentucky may not work for the country as a whole.

Usually I am all for taking power away from Washington and sending it back to the States and local government. But on this bill, we cannot ignore the fact that credit rules and markets and money are all part of a broader, national economy that requires a unified, Federal approach. To let States undermine that would be a recipe for disaster.

S. 1739 is a fair and balanced bill that sets a fair and balanced standard for our entire Nation.

It's bipartisan, it's common sense, and it's a prudent solution to a pressing problem for our financial institutions.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I speak today in support of Judge Charles Pickering and his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Pickering was unanimously confirmed to be a Federal district judge in 1990, where he has served honorably ever since. He graduated first in his law school class at the University of Mississippi while serving on the Law Journal and Moot Court. In addition to practicing in a law firm, Judge Pickering was both a city and county prosecutor and a municipal court judge. Judge Pickering continued his public service in the Mississippi State Senate. He also has served his fellow man by helping others through organizations like the Red Cross and the March of Dimes. Judge Pickering has also devoted his life to Christ, serving at the First Baptist Church in Laurel, MS, as a Sunday school teacher and a deacon.

Those things tell us much about the man that Charles Pickering is. But there is much more. You see, Judge Pickering has spent his career as a leader in race relations in Mississippi. What is truly telling, however, is he spent his whole career tearing down barriers for minorities in the South, including during the 1960s and 1970s. Those actions did not make him a popular man among many in Mississippi at the time.

I remember the 1960s and 1970s. I regularly traveled around the country during those years and I remember what race relations were like in the South and throughout America. I remember what it was like as professional baseball gradually accepted then embraced minorities. It was a tumultuous time in our country and many brave men and women willingly staked their careers, their reputations, and even their lives on doing what was just and right. Charles Pickering was one of those men.

The stories of how Judge Pickering stepped above the fray and reached out to bring racial equality to Mississippi have been told many times. In recent years Judge Pickering has served on race relations committees in Mississippi including the Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi. He has spent time working with at-risk minority children.

Those actions are laudable in and of themselves, but the actions that tell the true story of who Charles Pickering really is come from the 1960s and 1970s, those years when racial tensions were at their highest and the South was so volatile. In 1967 Judge Pickering was Prosecuting Attorney Pickering in Jones County, MS. Knowing it was to his own personal detriment, Charles Pickering took the witness stand to testify against the ``Imperial Wizard'' of the Ku Klux Klan in a trial for killing a black civil rights activist in a fire-bombing attack. By standing up for equality and justice, Prosecuting Attorney Pickering put himself and his family in danger and lost his reelection.

You can never really judge the strength of a man's convictions until standing up for those beliefs costs him something. Judge Pickering's willingness to stand up against racial violence cost him his job as a prosecutor. But that did not dissuade him from continuing to fight for racial justice. Possibly the most contentious race issue in the 1960s and 1970s was the integration of the public schools. Integration came to Laurel, MS, in 1973. Integration has been fought for years and creating a plan was not an easy task. The black and white communities in Laurel were split and Charles Pickering worked to bring them together and create a plan to integrate the schools. In the end many white families still moved their children to private schools to avoid integration and Judge Pickering easily could have done the same with his kids. Instead, he believed in integration and kept his children in the public schools.

Unfortunately, the reason Charles Pickering has been singled out by the radical left has nothing to do with the man or his qualifications. It has everything to do with ideology and the remaining adherents of a failed liberal orthodoxy holding on to their last vestiges of power in this Nation--the courts.

A radical liberal minority in this country is scared of Judge Pickering. They do not think he will do a bad job because he is unqualified. After all, the American Bar Association rated Judge Pickering ``well qualified.'' Last I had heard, the liberal minority obstructing Judge Pickering's nomination called that rating their gold standard for judicial nominees.

The reason the liberal special interests are scared of Judge Pickering is that he is a judge who knows his role, who follows the law, and has a stellar civil rights record. These special interests have lost out in the public opinion and mainstream politics. They cannot successfully achieve their goals in the normal course of governance so they turn to the court system, which they have successfully used to roll back traditional values, traditional roles of Government, and individual rights. A judge with a proven record of following the law and understanding the difference between the legislature and the judiciary is a roadblock in their path of legislating through the judiciary.

I really believe Judge Pickering was singled out because of his stellar record on civil rights. It seems to me the liberal special interest groups that seem to be dictating the moves of the minority party in the Senate needed a test case to see if they could stop President Bush's nominees at will. They researched all his nominees and picked one who would be impossible to defeat on the merits and decided to distort his record and assassinate his character. They needed to see if they could get away with it. So last year they gave it a shot. And it worked. These special interests found willing accomplices in the Senate and in the media. Facts became irrelevant as lies flew and Charles Pickering was demagogued. But that was only a preview of what was to come.

While the filibustering by a minority of the Senate of Judge Pickering is an abdication of constitutional responsibility of the Senate, the wholesale assault on President Bush's nominees is truly egregious. Judge Pickering is not alone. The minority has taken aim at Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice

Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and Henry Saad. Each nominee has a fantastic story and a stellar record. Each has been singled out for his or her adherence to the law and the traditional roles of government.

Radical liberals have long fancied themselves as the champions of women and minorities in this country, and I have no doubt that many on the left do strive for equality for all Americans. But the radical left has achieved its power through the politics of division. A conservative Hispanic or conservative woman or conservative Arab or conservative black woman or conservative religious man is anathema to their dominance of these issues. Rather than celebrating the achievements of these gifted human beings ascending to the job for which he or she was selected by the President of the United States, these ultra liberals would rather defame their characters and demagogue their beliefs.

There seems to be no end in sight to these tactics and political showdowns. But I hope and pray that day will soon come.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation,