Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to start with a little bit of perspective on the judiciary, and I would like to respond a bit to the economic arguments I heard discussed over the last 30 minutes which are sort of not in touch with reality, certainly not in touch with the reality of those folks who live and work in New Jersey and those across the country.

Let's start with a simple proposition that there are 172 nominations before the Senate. The commonsense reality is, 168 have been confirmed, 4 have been held up. I hear this view that people should not have the ability to express their point of view about judicial philosophy, temperament, the perspective of the individual judges. But I don't know what we are here for if we are not supposed to exercise our judgment and work within the rules as established. One hundred sixty-eight to four seems to be a pretty favorable ratio by most human standards anywhere across America, when you look at judgments about the quality of folks you would interview for a job. It is sort of common sense.

In my own State of New Jersey, we are six for six, including a circuit court judge. We worked very carefully with the folks at the White House about background, worked in a cooperative sense. That has not happened across all of America. That is what people are arguing is now the case with the four who are on this board. There is a legitimate right to debate one's judicial philosophy. The rules of the Senate are very clear and have been used many other times.

This idea that there have been no filibusters is blatantly false. We can go back to the Abe Fortas situation, and there are other situations where it may not have been the end game but it was certainly the starting point for holding back, going forward with judicial nominations. There are a number of them. I am sure these have been identified here on the floor, whether it was the Fortas nomination for chief justice; Rosemary Barkett, a judicial nominee, had a similar situation; Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer, Judge Paez, Lee Sarokin, and Marsha Berzon.

It has been argued and researched that 63 judicial nominees of the committee and 6 judicial nominees on the floor have been filibustered in the past. It is not something that is new. But what is really hypocritical, in my view, is we are focused on a technique that has been used to stop four judges many of us on this side of the aisle find extreme, when 55 Clinton nominees were not given hearings to be even discussed, 55. I could read the list of them. That is about, if my mathematics are correct, relative to the number, 30 percent stopped, cold dead stopped, without even having an opportunity to be reviewed, 55 Clinton nominees against 4 Bush nominees.

I don't know that it serves a useful purpose to say, we did this and we did that. The fact is we need to have a serious review of judges, and people ought to be able to express their opinions within the rules about whether they think they are qualified on the basis of standards that are generally accepted: Judicial philosophy, whether they will uphold the Constitution, settled law, all those kinds of issues.

The fact is in another time or another place, people primarily used the committee process to keep judicial nominees from even being reviewed.

What is the result? I want to reconfirm that 98 percent of those nominees President Bush has put forward have been confirmed. Only 2 percent have not. Again, that is an overwhelming commitment to moving judges through this process and significantly better than has occurred in previous administrations.

Again, the filibuster has been used as well. I just don't think we are reciting facts properly and history right.

There is another very fundamental situation here. Contrary to the claims we hear, we think there is some kind of vacancy crisis in our Federal courts. I would like to have 100 percent myself, but 95 percent of Federal judicial appointments are now filled. When we had a change of administration, because of that 55 and the process that went through, it was only 75 percent. There was a distinct process of holding back, pushing back with regard to what the folks on the other side were prepared to do when working with another President. That is why when people talk about 168 to 4, that perspective is not being brought to the discussion.

It is very simple: 55 folks stopped in the last 4 years, and there has been 4. People can argue that somehow from their perspective those 55 were outside the mainstream. Some were not brought up for discussion in the committee. But the process we are using here is to make sure the debate on the

floor brings out these extreme views, operating within the rules. I think we have facilitated a significant improvement in the ability of the courts to fulfill their function. That is what is the practical element. Those 168 are real because they are dealing with the issues the American public has to deal with. Our court system is actually functioning better than it has because we have been very facile in making sure judicial appointments have gone through. It is just a matter of perspective.

Certainly.

The Senator from Missouri maybe has reviewed all of the transcripts from those committees. I have not. I do know the President of the United States sent nominations here and in most instances they were. The 55 that I have, and there are a number of them I haven't reviewed, there was an attempt to try to get a number of those before the committee, and they were not allowed to be debated. It never got started. I can't speak to all 55. I have not reviewed all of the transcripts.

I appreciate the discussion with the Senator from Missouri.

What we have here, in my view, at 20 minutes of 4 on a Thursday morning, is a view that there were different techniques used by the folks on the other side of the aisle to restrict a President from having the kinds of judges and the number of judges they wanted to put into the courts which actually led to something that wasn't good for the American people; that is, a much higher vacancy rate in the Federal district courts than is the case today. I know in my own case and in the State of New Jersey, we are five for five on district judges and one for one on circuit judges, because we are working in a cooperative manner to try to get to a result that will allow the courts to have the judges to be able to deal with the cases. I think 168 is showing that happened across this country. So because there are three or four judges people believe are outside the mainstream--the special-interest stuff I have a hard time understanding. I am not a lawyer, but I read some of these cases where people don't believe in the incorporation of businesses and want to take away fundamental purposes of how that works in this world. That is outside the mainstream. That is difficult for me to understand. Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question whether that is an appropriate appointment to one of our most important appeals courts.

So, again, one of those four--or maybe it will be six, as the Senator talks about, by the time we get to whatever hour in the morning we vote on this stuff on Friday; maybe that will be the case. But I think it is important we as Senators review the record and, within the rules, use our judgment to decide whether someone is in the mainstream of judicial philosophy. Apparently, that was happening in previous administrations for 55 folks; they were just using a different technique as opposed to this particular one.

Again, I go back to the fundamental issue. It left a gaping hole in the ability of our courts to deal with the American public's needs in the Federal courts--the 75 percent fill ratio, or 25 percent vacancy ratio. Now we have a 4.8 percent vacancy ratio. I think, ultimately, somebody is going to say what is going on here? Are we actually dealing with the issues the American people need, which is having the judicial system that actually works.

I have to talk a little bit about the economy because I heard some other questions, and we talked about payroll employment versus other measures. Frankly, I don't know a single serious economist in America who doesn't say we measure the standard job performance of this economy, this country, by looking at payroll employment. It is accepted as the base standard by economists across the country. The kinds of comparisons to other standards, those are all well and good. I think they reflect, frankly, the growth in the population.

We are not creating jobs rapidly enough to actually reduce the level of unemployment. That is why payrolls have always been used as a basic issue, because it takes into account the growth of the population as well, which, by the way, we are at about the lowest--I think we had a little uptick, a minor uptick in the last 2 months in the percentage of Americans who are working out of the total population. The fact is we have lost something approaching 3 million payroll jobs under this administration. What is more important is to get to the basic fact, which is 9 million Americans are unemployed. That is the real deal. It is not whether it is growing--certainly, it is a painful experience for those who lost jobs, but there are 9 million Americans who want to work and cannot do it. It is up by 3 million since this administration took hold. Nobody is pulling that number out of the air. That is why we are trying to talk about those jobs versus the four judicial jobs within the perspective I tried to relate.

When you have 95 percent of the positions filled in the judiciary, I think somebody is doing their job filling those holes. But we are not doing the right things about creating jobs for Americans. That is just fact. It is not hyperventilation. Nine million Americans are looking for work and they don't have it. By the way, 2 million of them have been unemployed longer than 6 months. One could ask what are we doing about that. You know, we have not passed a minimum wage, we have not extended unemployment insurance for people who are now coming on the rolls of the long-term unemployed. We are not really creating a jobs program in a serious sense. We have certainly cut taxes and I guess--to go back to Econ 101, at some point if you throw enough money into the system, we will create some jobs. We have about a $300 billion budget deficit and a 1 percent interest rate, and we have had them for a very long period of time, at these stimulative levels. At some point, you are going to get job growth. Was it an efficient way to do it? I wonder, when we have created about $5,000 in debt for every individual in America. That doesn't seem to jibe with an efficient use of resources. It certainly is not a rampage of growth or a booming economy that we have for most Americans.

The latest economic statistics came out and everybody said how wonderful they were. They weren't too good in New Jersey. We lost another 11,800 jobs--11,800 manufacturing jobs in the month of August. We have a little bit of lag between when the State numbers come out and the Federal numbers. We are about to close our last two auto plants in New Jersey. We are closing the Ford plant for sure, in Edison, and we have the GM plant, which they are going to extend at about half production for the next 2 years, and they are going to look at shutting it down.

Every week, we get another major employer laying off manufacturing jobs in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey probably has had as strong an economy as anyplace because we have the pharmaceutical industry, which is growing. But our manufacturing base is out the window.

We don't talk about those 9 million jobs. We are talking about four jobs here, and I don't get it. I don't see what our priorities are. We are trying to talk about minimum wage and about transportation and we are trying to talk about a whole host of things that would allow us to have the opportunity to get this economy going and create jobs for those 9 million people--not these 4 folks, where we have already approved 98 percent of those interviewing for those jobs.

I don't know. I am sort of simple, but I think a 98 percent positive conclusion out of 172 folks interviewing for these jobs is pretty good. We have actually filled in the holes in the Federal judiciary, and we have a major problem with 9 million Americans who are looking for work. We don't spend any time talking about how we are going to create jobs here, except we are going to

have tax cuts every hour on the hour between now and the next decade, which will put debt on my kids and then their kids to follow. We may get some job growth as a function of doing this, but was it efficiently provided to the American people? I think that is very hard to say.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 224

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session and proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 3, S. 224, a bill to increase the minimum wage, that it be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Again, I think we have our priorities mixed up here. There are a whole bunch of folks in this country who benefit enormously from the minimum wage. When they go out and buy things, that will stimulate the economy. One of the great opportunities for us is to deal with some of these economic issues that we have, instead of haranguing. I think, unfortunately, about these four folks, about whom I think there is legitimate reason to have a debate--where they stand on judicial philosophy, and how their history is, or how their writings fit with settled law and from a constitutional perspective.

Again, we have put 98 percent of the nominees to work. We have not done anything about the 9 million Americans who don't have a job, who want to work. There are a whole bunch more who have dropped out of the system--I think about 4 million, if memory serves me correctly. It strikes me we have our priorities mixed up. I don't understand it. By the way, I will go through some other statistics. It is actually mind- boggling to me that we are spending so much time on four people, when the unemployment rate is 6 percent, and 9 million folks are without jobs. That is up from 4.1 percent 3 years ago. The poverty rate is up from 11.3 percent to 12.1 percent; I think that is 4 million people. The percentage of uninsured has gone up from 14.2 percent to 15.2 percent. About 2 million people have lost their health insurance in the last 3 years. The deficit has gone from a $236 billion surplus to a $304 billion deficit.

If somebody was running my company and they had a negative cash flow of 500 some odd billion dollars, I think I would find a new CEO. The national debt went from $5.6 trillion to $6.8 trillion. I guess that is for my grandkids to worry about, and it will be explosive. And judicial vacancies have gone down from about 10 percent to 4.6 percent. What is this picture? I just don't know where our priorities are in the scheme of things. We are talking about four people and we have 9 million Americans and a whole bunch who haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in 7 years. We cannot even get a vote on it and haven't been able to get a vote on it. They are not interested. Does that make any sense? I don't get it.

This is not the right priority where I come from, or for most Americans. I would rather fight like crazy for the 9 million people who want to work than just four judicial nominees out of the 168 judges who have already been approved. It is very important, in my view, that we have a proper prioritization and perspective on what is going on here, particularly when you look at it in the context of other techniques being used to hold up a whole bunch of judges at another period of time. We are talking about four here. I am no great legal constitutional scholar, but 168 to 4 is a pretty real number, and 55 folks left out by the other side is a real number.

I see my very good friend from Arkansas. It looks like he is chomping to go to work here. I would very much appreciate it if he has a comment on either of the things I have said, or I am sure he has more brilliant remarks to make.

I yield the floor to my friend from Arkansas.

I appreciate the discussion my colleague from Rhode Island brought up. I wanted to clarify one point of questions about an individual. Did you suggest Elena Kagan is now the dean of the Harvard Law School?

Was she unable to get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee when President Clinton nominated her for circuit court?

So she suffered from what you were suggesting, a pocket veto.

Yes.

As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, I was just inquiring myself to try to find out more about this. This is not one of those I was aware of. I have a whole list of folks who waited 1,454 days, 1,000 days for a hearing, 602 days. If somebody looked at one of those nominees who was not allowed to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote, at least a broad group of folks who review the qualifications of an individual, you are qualified enough to be the dean of Harvard Law School but somehow not qualified to have a vote on the floor of the Senate.

Certainly.

If the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania would allow, I don't know what elections have to do with confirming nominees, if they have gone before the Judiciary Committee and they are qualified. That seems disingenuous in the context of, we have qualified folks. They ought to be dealing with the circumstance of having an opportunity to be reviewed and brought to the floor. What we are debating is what is the technique that has been used at different times in our history--by the way, the pretty immediate history--to deal with a very simple question that some people want to understand the judicial philosophy and actions, how an individual will deal on the court. Sometimes when Republicans are not controlling the White House, they are willing to use the committee system to make that happen. Some of us on our side of the aisle sort of wouldn't mind debating folks on the floor, using the rules to make sure we bring out extremists' points of view.

I point out, 168 to 4. I will go through the circuit courts in a minutes.

Yes.

I appreciate the Senator from Rhode Island helping me respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania's question: 18 months, not 2 months; no hearing; no floor vote; someone who at least some folks who look at legal capacity and qualifications thought enough of, after she was not reviewed by the Senate either with a hearing or floor vote, to become the dean of the Harvard Law School.

Again, my point is, we seem to be talking out of a sort of surreal context. One hundred sixty-eight to four is on the face of it an important statement of how there has been cooperation. I went through in New Jersey five for five on district court judges and one circuit court judge. When people work together, you can get the positive results in this whole process.

The 168 to 4 shows we can have a positive result. Ninety-five percent of all judicial positions are filled. That, by the way, is in contrast with only 75 percent at the end of the Clinton administration, because there had been such a limited number of folks who had been able to actually get a hearing and ultimately a floor vote.

There is also the statement that we are somehow or another being far more restrictive. I do want to review that it is 10 times the number of nominees blocked by the technique of not giving hearings or allowing for nominations to be reported to the floor that occurred in the Clinton administration. It was 63 nominees blocked in the 1995-to-2000 period, against 2 percent so far in the 2001-to-2003 period of Bush nominees. There is something about the raw numbers of this that don't make sense and wouldn't to anyone if they actually focused on them in a commonsensical way.

I want to get to the circuit court judge issue. If you look back to the Carter administration on through, we heard it is roughly 10 circuit court judges a year per individual. This is sort of like figuring out when the best rate of return in the market is over the last 50 years. You can pick certain sections and everything looks wonderful. I would just like to look in this 1995-to-2000 period when Clinton nominees were languishing in the hearing room. Hearings held for judicial nominees averaged for the Clinton administration 9 versus 22 with respect to what is going on in the current situation. Judicial nominees given hearings, 43 versus 81. Circuit court judges, nominees given hearings, 9 under President Clinton, 19 circuit court. That is on average. The confirmation is 68 judges confirmed on an annual basis versus 38 in the Clinton years. That is 1995 to 2000. Circuit court judges, it was only 7, not 10 as we heard before, if you look at that 1995-to-2000 period. It is 12 judges under the current administration.

We can pick these numbers, any number you want, to try to make cases. But the fact is, we are approving more judges, we are dealing with the situation on a much more legitimate basis, on an ongoing basis than what occurred in the previous administration.

I just happen to have the yearbook of those folks who were left out in 1995 to 2000. There could be four we would have here supposedly under the current situation.

By the way, I happen to know one of these judges, Stephen Orlofsky, a district judge in New Jersey who was unanimously confirmed for district court judge and then never got a hearing. I happened to know the specifics of that because it was closer to home. Ultimately we just filled this position with Michael Chertoff who seems to me to be a fine appointment, one I recommended, stood by and pushed very hard for because people worked together. They cooperated, the White House, the folks in the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators from the area. I think this can be done. I think 168 to 4 shows it is being done. I would contrast that with the over 50 nominees, 1995 to 2000, who never got a hearing.

I am just going to point out two of these. Judge Helene White of Michigan was nominated to the Sixth Circuit, waited in vain 4 years, 1,454 days for a hearing. It may not be a filibuster on the floor, but for 1,454 days she couldn't get a hearing. I think it gets to the same result. We are not dealing with Presidential nominations. The fact is, there were 55 of these folks. In fact, we have only identified four who seemed to be so far out of the mainstream that a number of us are concerned about how that fits.

I could go through this. There is a James Beatty from North Carolina nominated to the Fourth Circuit. He didn't get a hearing either, waited 3 years, 1,033 days, never got a hearing. This went on. You could get on down into the weeds on a whole series of these folks. But these people never got a hearing. It is just a different technique. We are talking about four people. There is a legitimate view that their actions were outside the mainstream. Maybe they got votes once they got to the floor, but they never got out of committee. I think that is a major issue.

The other thing I will segue off into is the issue the Senator from Rhode Island talked about. What is really hard about this is there is an incredible agenda for America to be discussing. I think we could afford to spend 30 hours talking about how we put 9 million Americans back to work. I think it is pretty hard to understand how we got the priorities. We have 168 positive elements with regard to our judicial nominations accepted and only 4 turned down, but we have had 3 million lost jobs, 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs. We have had the deficit go from a $236 billion surplus to a $304 billion deficit. We have seen a $500 billion plus negative cashflow because we are managing the economy poorly. We have seen it hurt and bite real individuals, 9 million. Two million people have been unemployed longer than their unemployment benefits would allow; 4 million people have dropped off the rolls.

It is an incredible misprioritization, in my view, that we are talking about four judges when there are 9 million people that we ought to be figuring out how to get back to work.

I thank the Chair. We will be back.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for what I think is a very appropriate underscoring of the unprecedented nature of not working with the Senators from the State which the judge has been nominated.

I concur with the Senator from New Mexico. In New Jersey's case, we are 5 for 5 on district court judges because there has been strong cooperation back and forth between the White House and Senators from New Jersey. We are one for one on the circuit court judges where people work together to try to move things. That is how we ended up, frankly, in general with 168 to 4 because this process has worked a lot more smoothly than I think this 30-hour talkathon has indicated.

I want to use the last few minutes of my time this morning to talk about priorities.

One hundred sixty-eight to four--scratch that and make that six, if you want. The fact is that is about 97\1/2\ percent if it were 6 of all of the judges who come up have been approved. When there is an outreach toward cooperation, things work pretty well around here. For some reason that has worked pretty well in most instances, and we are trying to look at a very narrow segment of something I think reasonable people can have differences of view about--the qualifications of the individuals. That is exactly why the rules are being used the way they are.

I want to place this in context. It is really more important in how it plays off of what the Senator from New Mexico said.

We have real issues in this country right now. The fact is we have 9 million Americans unemployed. We can spend 30 hours here talking about four or six judges when we have 9 million people unemployed.

By the way, the statistics going down in national terms don't seem to fit New Jersey. The latest statistics we have show we have had 11,800 jobs lost in the last reported period. Unemployment has grown by about 258,000 since the year 2000. New Jersey has brought 55,000 manufacturing jobs in the Nation.

These are real people. At least when I go back to the streets of communities I represent, people are more interested in what is going on with their jobs and what is going on with the economy than whether we have a difference of opinion about four judges or five judges when we have confirmed 168.

It seems to me we have our priorities all messed up here when there are 9 million Americans left out of the economic system.

It is hard for me to understand why poverty is growing in this country. The number is up almost 1 percent--from 11.3 to 12.1 percent. In New Jersey, that is 69,000 people who have gone onto the poverty rolls who weren't there before the current administration's economic policies were put in place, and 148,000 New Jerseyans have gone off the rolls of those who have health care. These are real issues. These are the things that impact people's lives.

These 4 judges out of 172--it is pretty hard to understand why we are spending all night and all day talking about that when we ought to be doing something about health care in this country; when we ought to be doing something about prescription drugs, while we have been waiting for somebody in the dark of night to try to put together a bill. It doesn't make sense that we have the focus on something that is so narrow and is not even in the context of actual reality because we are actually filling those jobs. But we are not doing anything about the 9 million Americans who are losing jobs.

We can't get, by the way, an increase in the minimum wage. It has been 7 years since we increased the minimum wage around here. We can't get a debate on that.

Unanimous Consent Request

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session to proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I think you have spoken brilliantly tonight, about the idea of trying to divide us over something that is basically a disingenuous issue to start with.

You talk about the 98 percent. Over the last 24 hours, we have seen this 168 to 4 over and over. No one could speak more eloquently about the facts; 98 percent is a hell of a number.

Ninety-five percent of judicial positions in this country are filled. When President Clinton left office and President Bush took office, it was at 75 percent. The reason was because those 63 that the Senator from Louisiana was talking about never got a hearing, never got a chance to get a vote in committee, never got reported to the Senate to get voted on. Sixty-three

judges were blocked. It is a different technique under the rules of committees as opposed to here on the floor, no committees, no votes, no reports--63 qualified judges, at least in the opinion of the then- President, never had a chance to fill that void, and 25 percent of seats went unfilled. Now 95 percent are filled.

When there is cooperation--I can tell you there has been cooperation in New Jersey. We have had five district court judges and a circuit court judge, we worked with the White House and the Judiciary Committee, and it has worked very smoothly. It can work if we reach out and work with each other, which we have to do in this society if we are going to get good things done--not by dividing us.

You know, it strikes me that we spent a lot of time talking about four judges or six judges. One of those 63 judges--by the way, who couldn't get a hearing, it went on for a year and a half--is now the dean of the Harvard Law School. It is hard to understand how he wasn't qualified to be considered for the bench but is qualified to be the dean of the Harvard Law School.

By the way, this shows it in a pictorial sense. This is the list of 63. This is the 4. It is very clear.

I want to dwell on something else. The real issue is not 4 people who are not being approved on this Senate floor. The real issue are the 3 million people who have lost jobs since 2000, the 9 million Americans who do not have a job, the 2\1/2\ million Americans who have lost manufacturing jobs, and the real agony we have in the country because we are not creating jobs fast enough in this country.

We have gone fast enough to get 98 percent of the judicial positions filled, but we have not gone fast enough to take care of the 3 million Americans and the 9 million unemployed and the 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost.

I think we have our priorities wrong. We have been debating 4 people while there are 9 million Americans out of work. We have been doing that now going on 24, 26 hours. We are going to go on some more.

Americans know what impacts their lives: their ability to take care of their kids, their families, their grandparents, their future. They are interested in having a job. Jobs count. We are talking about 4 while 9 million are missing in action in our debates on the floor of the Senate.

I think it is disingenuous. I think it is clearly staged. I think we are off on the wrong target.

I point out today I went through some of the press reports that came out over the AP wire today. The U.S. trade deficit grew to $41.3 billion in September--$41.3 billion. We are going to have a $500 billion current account deficit in this country, and what we are going to have, more importantly, is a deficit in manufacturing jobs because they are all going overseas. We ought to have a debate here about economic policy that puts Americans to work--a $41.3 billion trade deficit this month. It is going to be $500 billion for the year.

We have had discussions in committee--which, by the way, we had to cancel all our committee meetings--about whether we have the proper trade policies, the proper positioning with China where we are losing jobs right and left across the manufacturing sector. We had the biggest trade deficit with China we have ever had in the month of September.

Why are we talking about 4 jobs when we are losing millions of jobs, 2\1/2\ million jobs, because we have an economic policy that is out of kilter with the needs of the American people?

If that is not enough, the poverty rate has grown 1 percent in this country in the last 3 years. That is about 1.7 million people. We have seen the uninsured in America, those without health insurance, go up a little over 2 million. We are having no discussion on issues that impact people's lives who are watching this debate. We want to have real debates that make a real difference in people's lives. We ought to be talking about these jobs. We ought to be talking about health insurance. We ought to be talking about that trade deficit, ripping out the heart of middle-class America's jobs.

I don't understand why we have our priorities on 4 people when we have a 98-percent positive ratio of confirming judges. It doesn't make sense, particularly when we can argue about whether they are mainstream or they have made the kinds of statements the Senator from Louisiana quoted from one of those individuals who is going to be considered tomorrow for confirmation. It doesn't make sense.

There are all kinds of things we could be doing right now. We could be raising the minimum wage. That would improve the lives of about 4 million Americans. We could pass a transportation bill that would create, by almost every estimate about 1 million jobs. It is lingering in committee. We don't want to talk about it on the floor, but it is a million jobs. It builds America; it invests in our future.

We could talk about increasing investment in higher education or maybe do something about making sure we don't take 8 million Americans away from having the opportunity to make overtime pay so they can operate and live in this community of America in a more secure way.

Then, the greatest tragedy, in the last 13 days we have had 42 Americans killed in Iraq. We have changing policies. We have generals in Iraq saying we are not living in the real world. We are not talking about it as if it is a war. General Sanchez today said we are not walking away from using the word; we are going to win this battle--no, we are going to win this war because the people back in Washington need a dose of realism in their debates about this issue.

Then we have a meeting to discuss the intelligence report that was leaked by someone with regard to what is happening on the ground in Iraq, and nobody shows up because we are debating 4 judges.

It strikes me we have our priorities wrong in this country when we are talking about 4 judges when we have 9 million people unemployed, when we have lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs, when we have 2 million people losing their health insurance. We have a tie-up on the prescription drug benefit bill and the Energy bill and we can't get these bills out. We have generals in Iraq saying we don't have a realistic view of what is going on in the debates we have here in Washington. There are real issues that matter to real people across this country, in the millions--in the millions, not 4--not when 168 are approved and 4 are not.

I don't know where our priorities are when we turn our attention to such an issue when there are real debates about whether they fit into the mainstream or not, whether we ought to have a real debate. By the way, other people used other techniques at another time when it was convenient to do it. It is disingenuous to say, use the rules of the Senate which are authorized under the Constitution. I hear all this ``unconstitutional'' view. That is not unconstitutional. We should change the rules if we don't like the rules of the Senate, just the same way that we can change the rules in committees.

It is not sensible that we are not putting our priorities on the loss of jobs and taking care of the American people in the way they expect us to--to debate and put in the time and effort.

This whole debate, which has now gone on for 26 or 27 hours, should be about jobs--not 4 but 9 million. It should be about the important issues that impact people's lives, the people who are uninsured, the people who haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in 7 years--7 years. We can't get a vote on that. We can't get a vote on the Transportation bill that would create a million jobs. There are all kinds of things we can't get votes on around here because people don't want to have them. They use the rules for those purposes.

Four out of 172, 98 percent have gotten votes. It is very hard to see how we have our priorities straight in this area tonight and have had properly placed priorities for the last 26 or 27 hours.

I hope we can get focused on something other than 4 jobs. We should get focused on the 3 million people who have lost them, the 9 million people who don't have jobs. We ought to be talking about extending unemployment benefits to the 80,000 people a day who are going to lose those in another 30 days when we are not in session.

It is incredible--our priorities. It is incredible. I believe as much as anyone else that we ought to cooperate. We have in many, many places. That is how we got 168 judges approved. That is how we got to a 95-percent fill ratio on the number of judges' slots that have

been filled. But we have major problems with employment and the economics of this country. It is time we get our priorities straight.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New York for making sure the fundamental issue is understood by the American public. The fact is, 172 nominations have come to the floor; 168 have been approved. Four have not been sustained under the rules of cloture. And 98 percent--you can talk about it any way you want. The numbers fit the commonsense judgment of the American people that something positive is going on here with regard to how we are dealing with the confirmation of judges. I go back to the practical reality that 95 percent of the judicial positions in the Federal courts, district and circuit and Supreme Court, are filled; 95 percent of them are filled. In 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration, only 75 percent of those positions were filled.

This is the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. The reason is very simple--168 to 4. It is not a complicated issue. It is not a complicated issue. Then you have to look at the four. The Senator from New York read this statement about the judge we will be looking at tomorrow, talking about ``when government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' I don't think that is what the American people would think--those people who believe in Social Security, those people who might think we ought to have a prescription drug benefit for all Americans, people who believe we ought to pull together an army to protect the American people from terrorism, the folks who think we ought to build highways, bridges, schools, and other things, which are generally done by the public. When the government advances--what is this? I want to say this right. ``When the government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' There is one out of the four. One wonders whether that is the mainstream of American thought.

A couple of judges in this four have serious issues some people think approach or have gone over the line of ethical violations. I have heard almost everybody say at some level they believe integrity is an issue. There are serious concerns about actions of several of the people who are involved--aside from their views. I will not even mention the judge. One judge said, in talking about the role of Congress:

Congress, for example, should not be in the business of public education, nor in the control of street crime.

That may be a view that is mainstream for some in this body, but I have a hard time understanding where many of us believe the role of Congress would prohibit us from being involved in the business of public education or the control of street crime. It doesn't sound to me like a mainstream thought. That is one of the judges.

Then another judge we will be considering tomorrow talked about privacy rights, threw out a case where someone was performing an operation on a patient, and it happened to be a female. The doctor had a male drug salesman attend without asking for that right of the individual. Then the judge said that wasn't a violation of privacy rights. That kind of thing--I am not a lawyer and I don't know all the details of this precedent, but it is kind of like 168 to 4. You would think if somebody is undergoing surgery and somebody asks you a question about who the person was who was observing you going through surgery, if you had a drug salesman overseeing that, you might think that was an invasion of privacy. That is sort of common sense to me.

I think there are reasons to debate these four and maybe the two, if we are going to get people who are not necessarily following precedent, settled law--I hear a lot of arguments about activism on the court. It sounds to me like there is an active view that is different than settled law with regard to privacy. There is a view that is outside settled law and precedent with regard to the role of Government, with regard to schools and crime in our streets.

I think there is a reason to question some of these four. Therefore, it is not inappropriate, when you think people are going to be out of the mainstream and may have ethical issues that are legitimate questions that people raise, that somebody ought to exercise that judgment here on the floor of the Senate when we are asked to vote on it. From my perspective, that is what guides my vote and one of the reasons I have helped make this 168 to 4 happen.

By the way, I am proud of the 168 and while we now have the highest percentage of occupancy of judicial positions in the last 13 years-- that looks to me like a pretty good track record. In most walks of life, it would be a pretty reasonable statement of cooperation and effort to make things happen. That is certainly, again, the perspective I want to start with, 168 to 4, filling up the judiciary.

Then we heard the argument raised that somehow we are trying to change the subject. This is changing the subject. We are talking about four folks, while we have 9 million people unemployed, 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost in America, and we have the rampaging trade deficit, budget deficit, a rise in the poverty rate, declining insured and health insurance coverage in America, no prescription drug benefit for seniors, no passage of the Transportation bill, no consideration of a minimum wage increase for 7 years. We cannot get it to the floor.

We don't want to talk about four judges when we have a war going on and all these economic issues before the country. They say we are changing the subject? I think we ought to change the subject. I would imagine the people watching this debate are changing the channel because they want to know what the heck is going on in the fundamental parts of their lives, their jobs, what their kids are doing in Iraq, what is going on with regard to jobs that are going to be created for the rest of their families. They want to know what is happening to their health insurance. They would like to know whether school class size is going to be 18 or 26. Those are things that matter, and we are debating four judges who, as I read some of the most extreme comments here--again, we are debating whether it is appropriate to have a filibuster about somebody who says ``where government advances''--it says ``advances relentlessly''--``freedom is imperiled.''

We are debating that, as opposed to worrying about whether 9 million people can get extended unemployment benefits, whether we can get a jobs bill to build highways and bridges and other things in this country, whether we can have an honest debate over intelligence operations in this country. It strikes me we have our priorities out of place. It just makes no sense in the world we are living in that we are debating 4 judges out of 172 and they have views like ``where government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' I don't think the American people--anyone you sat down around the kitchen table

with and you talked about this issue, with this language, and this perspective on judicial philosophy--would say I would rather you be focusing your time on the floor of the Senate at 5 minutes to 12, 29 hours and 55 minutes into a debate, saying it is more important that we are talking about that judge than we are talking about what is happening with our men and women in Iraq, or whether we have appropriate investment in our intelligence operations that protect them, or the 9 million people are getting the proper attention on their unemployment benefits. I don't get it. There is no comparison of the importance. It is not changing the subject. It is getting to the subject the American people want us to do. At least that is the way it is in New Jersey. I have not had one single person ask me about a judge, until today when we got a call-athon calling in--the first time we got a call with regard to whether the filibuster was holding up these rights. I had my people read back this: ``When government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' About half of the people said I don't know whether that is somebody I want to stand with because I don't know that that is a position that really fits with the American Constitution, in my view, of what the American democracy is about. It is very hard for me to understand where we have our priorities.

Lastly, I want to bring up a point that filibusters weren't only used to stand in the way of civil rights acts by Democrats back in the 1930s or 1940s. On February 3, 1991, a filibuster was executed on this floor on the Family and Medical Leave Act. There were no Democrats who voted for that cloture. Let's see. Handgun violence prevention on November 19, 1993. I think that is the Brady bill. Let's see. Goals 2000, to educate America on March 24. I have a list of about--something that approaches about 50--maybe a little more than that--60 filibusters that were executed, including a couple with regard to judges, where judges withdrew their nominations that were executed by the other side of the aisle.

Filibusters have been used. No one was calling them unconstitutional when you were trying to deal with family and medical leave, or nobody was calling them unconstitutional when we were talking about the Hatch Act. Funny how that comes up. No one was calling them unconstitutional when we were dealing with judges at an earlier time when they withdrew their names. I want to make sure we keep the right perspective here because we are making all kinds of statements. Frankly, I think all of it is irrelevant. It makes no sense when we should be talking about the 9 million Americans who don't have jobs and we are talking about the 2 million people who have lost health insurance in the last 2\1/2\ years, when we are talking about the 1.7 million people who slipped into poverty in the last 2\1/2\ years, when we have gone from a $250 billion budget surplus to a $375 billion budget deficit, a $550 billion negative cashflow swing in this country because we are not handling our finances right, and we have a war going on and the generals are saying we are having unrealistic views about it back here.

I don't know, maybe we should not change the subject. We should just talk about these four judges. I wonder if the Senator thinks that is the right prioritization. It strikes me it is out of touch with America, and we are now 29 hours and 59 minutes talking about 4 judges.

The Senator from New York is right; 168 to 4 actually expresses what the debate about judges is all about. But one could think we ought to be talking about the 9 million Americans or, by the way, the 130,000 troops we have on the ground who are in harm's way. It strikes me, the discussion we have had for these 30 hours is missing a very major point to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the importance of the Veterans Day commemoration ceremonies and private remembrances, both formal and informal, being observed today by Americans around the Nation and across the world.

Given the many demands on this body and the hectic pace of modern life, it is all too easy for the Senate, as well as for all Americans, to fail to give this day--Veterans' Day the attention it demands. It is all too easy to let the date on the calendar pass without stopping and reflecting.

But, as citizens, as well as public servants, we must never fail to commemorate, honor, and remember in our hearts our veterans and their sacrifices and what those sacrifices have meant to our country.

A mere once a year we are called to publicly applaud and honor the many Americans, living and deceased, men and women of every ethnic group and walk of life, who have given of themselves, their time, their youth, their sweat, and, all too frequently, their blood, and their lives. Their sacrifices have kept us free and enabled us to remain the last best hope of the world.

About this nation's revolution, Thomas Paine wrote:

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer

soldier and the sunshine patriot will shrink from the service

of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the

love and thanks of man and woman.

In observing Veterans Day today, we offer our love and thanks to those Americans, over the course of our history, who did not shrink from the service of their country.

Most came to military service willingly, even eagerly, many with good humor and high hopes, some more reluctantly, and more than a few who, frankly, would rather have been elsewhere.

I can remember myself some years ago, as a young marine humping an 81-millimeter mortar tube across the California desert, wishing very sincerely to be elsewhere at that moment.

What they all have in common, and what we all honor today, is that they did not shrink from the service to their country, and still don't.

As they did not shrink from service during World War II in the Pacific and in Europe, in long and bitter wars in Korea and Vietnam, in Lebanon and Grenada, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and, today, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, on hundreds of ships in every ocean of the world; in Minot, ND; and in Fort Dix, NJ; on Diego Garcia and in Misawa, Japan; at Ft. Benning, GA; on Paris Island, SC; and at Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital here in Washington.

They responded to a sense of duty, obligation, and a desire to belong to or strive for something separate and apart from personal ambition.

They may not even see or clearly understand at the time their own motivations, but they do not shrink from service all the same, and our country is the better for it.

A simple choice on the face of it--the willingness to serve--but one that, given the unparalleled abundance of choices that Americans today enjoy--we must recognize, honor and support.

As we stop to honor our veterans, we must go beyond rhetorical support.

We must provide for those who have served the rest of us so well, and we need to do so in practical and concrete terms, for our debt to our veterans' demands that we respond to their needs and their concerns, and demands that we deliver the benefits they have earned through their service and sacrifice.

First, full accountability for all MIA/POW's, without exception. There is no higher obligation for a country than to keep faith with those of its fighting men and women who may still be in enemy hands. We must not turn away.

In this regard, I urge the administration and the Defense Department to continue their search for CAPT Michael Scott Speicher, United States Navy, whose family is from New Jersey and whose aircraft was shot down over Iraq in 1991.

Then-Commander Speicher was reported as the first American service member killed in action in Desert Storm. His status, however, was changed by the Department of Defense from killed in action to MIA and then, in 2002, to POW. More indications suggesting Captain Speicher may have survived his 1991 shoot-down came to light after our liberation of Iraq.

The Defense Department's search for him, with the urging of my Senate colleagues and me, must continue until Captain Speicher's fate is fully accounted for.

Turning to the VA health care system, tens of thousands of veterans now must wait six months and more for appointments. Some find they have to wait as long as one to two years to be seen.

This kind of delay and lack of access to healthcare is unacceptable and yet is all too common. It is also completely unnecessary. The difficulties faced by our veterans are caused by chronic underfunding of the VA health system.

The VA system relies on the annual appropriations process, a process which is contentious and unpredictable and which makes it all too tempting to slash current year funding regardless of how this affects our veterans.

This year, for example, veterans organizations estimate that the VA health system needs $1.8 billion more than the President requested.

As a result, veterans advocates have once again found themselves playing catch-up.

The solution is mandatory funding of VA health needs so that veteran's benefits are no longer subject to the politics of the annual appropriations process.

Without such a mechanism, the VA system will remain chronically underfunded, and veterans needing care will continue to have to wait disgracefully long periods of time.

I also wish to note that today I am introducing the Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, to provide increased testing and care for veterans at risk of or infection with hepatitis C.

Most veterans who have hepatitis C don't even know it, and often don't get treatment until it's too late.

Yet despite recent advances in care, the VA still lacks a comprehensive approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus.

The legislation I am introducing would improve access to hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and set new, national policies for hepatitis C care.

I have also introduced and will continue to push for a measure to lower the retirement age for reservists to 55.

This measure is a way to ensure fairer treatment for reservists in their career planning and to make a reserve career more attractive to military members who might otherwise opt out of further service.

We need to think about equity for reservists, and about the attractiveness of Reserve careers as our global strategy comes to rely ever more heavily on reservist citizen-soldiers.

We also owe our veterans full concurrent receipts.

There should be no conflict between a veteran's right to receive his or her retirement benefits and a disabled veteran's right to disability income. And yet, incredibly enough, disabled veterans continue to pay what is, in effect, a tax on their disability payments. It is time-- once and for all--to eliminate this tax.

Ensuring that all veterans have access to quality healthcare is a small repayment for the contributions veterans have made in service to this Nation.

Unfortunately, the current Veterans Administration healthcare funding formula--VERA--puts veterans in high-cost areas, such as New Jersey, at a severe disadvantage in getting adequate medical care.

Vets shouldn't be forced to wait months for an appointment at a veterans medical clinic or to shoulder excessive fees because of a quirk in the formula that funds VA health care.

That is why I introduced legislation to make VA healthcare funding fairer by accounting for the distinct financial challenges confronting veterans and healthcare providers in different parts of the country.

This legislation, S. 1014, would replace the national income threshold for classification as a low-income veteran--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This adjustment would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and help ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISN's, receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.

In thinking about our veterans, we must also consider the brave men and women fighting for us now in Iraq and in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

As we honor their service, we must never forget what we owe them--now and when they return.

With so many Guard men and women and Reservists serving, it is critical that we extend to them the benefits they deserve.

One benefit for which we have had to fight is the extension of TRICARE coverage to all reservists. We have succeeded in getting this critical benefit for a year. We will, therefore, be revisiting this issue next year. I and like-minded colleagues remain advocates of extending such coverage to reservists.

As we asked our young citizens in the past, we are again today asking them to do extraordinary things, and we need to see that they have the proper care and assistance when they come home. There is no excuse for failing them.

We all remember that Veterans Day began as a commemoration of the Armistice which ended World War I, a catastrophic event which this body described as ``the most destructive, sanguinary and far reaching war in human annals'' to that point.

We pause and remember, and we again commit ourselves to honor and to stand by the veterans of the Great War and of all America's wars, past and present.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate companion. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, and yet fewer U.S. sanctions apply to Syria than to any other country on the list. This Act will authorize a range of sanctions against Syria, prohibiting exports to Syria of dual-use items and requiring the President to choose from a set of other sanctions, including prohibitions on exports of most U.S. goods to Syria and on American investment in Syria, restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the United States and on U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria, prohibitions on Syrian aircraft in the United States, and blocking of transactions in Syrian government property.

These sanctions are appropriate, and, in my view, long overdue. Despite recent U.S. efforts to engage in dialogue with Syria, Damascus has refused to renounce its support for terrorism. It provides terrorist organizations with political and material support. It has turned away from negotiations with Israel. And it continues to occupy southern Lebanon, where its forces destabilize the Middle East by supporting Hezbollah and undermining Lebanese sovereignty.

Syria acts as the safe haven for a broad array of terrorist organizations and Palestinian groups committed to the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command are all active in Damascus. The Syrian government has not only refused to sever ties with these organizations; it has defended their use of Syrian territory to disseminate propaganda that attacks Israel, thereby undermining efforts to bring peace to the region. Worse, the offices maintained by these groups provide operational support for terrorist activities, notwithstanding the Syrian government's claims that they are engaged only in political and informational activities. These activities include the deadly and despicable suicide bombings, conducted by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against civilians in Israel.

Syria is also a supporter of Hezbollah, which is responsible for the killing of hundreds of Americans and is one of the biggest obstacles to our efforts to combat global terrorism. Throughout much of southern Lebanon, occupying Syrian forces support and protect Hezbollah, allowing it to deploy thousands of rockets that threaten Israel and destabilize the region, and to launch attacks against civilian targets in Israel civilian areas. Syria also permits Hezbollah to receive assistance from Iran.

The Syrian occupation of Lebanon represents a long-standing threat to stability in the Middle East. While Syria has reduced its forces in recent years, it still maintains as many as 20,000 troops and security personnel in Lebanon. In addition to harboring Hezbollah, those forces exert undue influence in Lebanon and prevent the Lebanese government from deploying its own troops to southern Lebanon, as required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. It is long past time for Syrian forces to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to cease to be a refuge for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah.

Syria has not moderated its unrelenting hostility to Israel, nor has it demonstrated a commitment to negotiations. Moreover, it has used its position on the world stage and within the Arab world to undermine efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. As a frequent sponsor of U.N. resolutions related to the conflict in the Middle East, Syria has consistently promoted a perspective that castigates Israeli security measures without condemning the terrorist threat faced by Israel.

While I have long supported this act and welcome its passage, I believe that our ability to influence Syria's behavior and deter its support for terrorism also requires a multilateral strategy. The effect of this act will unfortunately be limited by the lack of support for sanctions against Syria among our friends and allies. It is critical that the administration demonstrate global leadership on this issue as well as other aspects of the war on terrorism. By reaching out to the international community and by appealing to our common interest in curtailing global terrorism and achieving peace in the Middle East, we can ensure that the sanctions we are imposing today are truly effective.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on Veterans Day to introduce the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would fundamentally change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs is addressing the growing Hepatitis C epidemic, and would create a national standard for testing and treating veterans with the virus.

Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver caused by contact with the Hepatitis C virus. It is primarily spread by contact with infected blood. The CDC estimates that 1.8 percent of the population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and that number is much higher among veterans. Vietnam-era veterans are considered to be at greater risk because many were exposed to Hepatitis C-infected blood as a result of combat-related surgical care during the Vietnam War. In fact, data from the Veterans Administration suggests that as many as 18 percent of all veterans and 64 percent of Vietnam veterans are infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). For many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and death.

And yet, most veterans who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Despite recent advances in treating Hepatitis C, the VA still lacks a comprehensive, consistent, uniform approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. Only a fraction of the 3.5 million veterans enrolled nationally with the VA Health Care System have been tested to date. Part of the problem stems from a lack of qualified, full-time medical personnel to administer and analyze the tests. Most of the 172 VA hospitals in this country have only one doctor, working a half day a week, to conduct and analyze all the tests. At this rate, it will take years to test the entire enrolled population--years that many of these veterans may not have.

To address this growing problem, I am introducing the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This legislation will improve access to Hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated Hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and sets new, national policies for Hepatitis C care. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen from New Jersey has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill would improve testing and treatment for veterans by requiring annual screening tests for Vietnam-era veterans enrolled in the VA system, and providing annual tests, upon request, to other veterans enrolled in the VA system. Further, it would require the VA to treat any enrolled veteran who tests positive for the Hepatitis C virus, regardless of service-connected disability status or priority group categorization. The VA would be required to provide at least one dedicated health care professional--a doctor and a nurse--at each VA Hospital for testing and treatment of this disease.

This bill would also increase the amount of money dedicated to Hepatitis C testing and treatment, and would make sure these funds are spent where they are needed most. Beginning in FY04, Hepatitis C funding would be shifted to the Specific Purpose account under the Veterans Health Administration, and would be dedicated solely for the purpose of paying for the costs associated with treating veterans with the Hepatitis C virus. The bill would allocate these funds to the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) based on each VISN's Hepatitis C incidence rate, or the number of veterans infected with the virus.

In addition, this bill will end the confusing patchwork of policies governing the care of veterans with Hepatitis C throughout the nation. This legislation directs the VA to develop and implement a standardized, national Hepatitis C policy for its testing protocol, treatment options and education and notification efforts. The bill further directs the VA to develop an outreach program to notify veterans who have

not been tested for the Hepatitis C virus of the need for such testing and the availability of such testing through the VA. And finally, this legislation would establish Hepatitis C Centers of Excellence in geographic areas with high incidence of Hepatitis C infection.

As I've said, many veterans do not even realize that they may be infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and the VA is doing little to encourage them to get the critical testing they need. The VA currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy for combating this deadly disease. With the passage of the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, veterans will finally be provided with the access to testing and treatment that they have more than earned and deserve. Additionally, the Federal Government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders.

The VA has known about the problem of Hepatitis C among veterans since 1992, but they have not acted. We must address this critical issue for the brave men and women who have placed their lives in danger to protect the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today on Veterans Day to introduce the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would fundamentally change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs is addressing the growing Hepatitis C epidemic, and would create a national standard for testing and treating veterans with the virus.

Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver caused by contact with the Hepatitis C virus. It is primarily spread by contact with infected blood. The CDC estimates that 1.8 percent of the population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and that number is much higher among veterans. Vietnam-era veterans are considered to be at greater risk because many were exposed to Hepatitis C-infected blood as a result of combat-related surgical care during the Vietnam War. In fact, data from the Veterans Administration suggests that as many as 18 percent of all veterans and 64 percent of Vietnam veterans are infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). For many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and death.

And yet, most veterans who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Despite recent advances in treating Hepatitis C, the VA still lacks a comprehensive, consistent, uniform approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. Only a fraction of the 3.5 million veterans enrolled nationally with the VA Health Care System have been tested to date. Part of the problem stems from a lack of qualified, full-time medical personnel to administer and analyze the tests. Most of the 172 VA hospitals in this country have only one doctor, working a half day a week, to conduct and analyze all the tests. At this rate, it will take years to test the entire enrolled population--years that many of these veterans may not have.

To address this growing problem, I am introducing the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This legislation will improve access to Hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated Hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and sets new, national policies for Hepatitis C care. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen from New Jersey has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill would improve testing and treatment for veterans by requiring annual screening tests for Vietnam-era veterans enrolled in the VA system, and providing annual tests, upon request, to other veterans enrolled in the VA system. Further, it would require the VA to treat any enrolled veteran who tests positive for the Hepatitis C virus, regardless of service-connected disability status or priority group categorization. The VA would be required to provide at least one dedicated health care professional--a doctor and a nurse--at each VA Hospital for testing and treatment of this disease.

This bill would also increase the amount of money dedicated to Hepatitis C testing and treatment, and would make sure these funds are spent where they are needed most. Beginning in FY04, Hepatitis C funding would be shifted to the Specific Purpose account under the Veterans Health Administration, and would be dedicated solely for the purpose of paying for the costs associated with treating veterans with the Hepatitis C virus. The bill would allocate these funds to the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) based on each VISN's Hepatitis C incidence rate, or the number of veterans infected with the virus.

In addition, this bill will end the confusing patchwork of policies governing the care of veterans with Hepatitis C throughout the nation. This legislation directs the VA to develop and implement a standardized, national Hepatitis C policy for its testing protocol, treatment options and education and notification efforts. The bill further directs the VA to develop an outreach program to notify veterans who have

not been tested for the Hepatitis C virus of the need for such testing and the availability of such testing through the VA. And finally, this legislation would establish Hepatitis C Centers of Excellence in geographic areas with high incidence of Hepatitis C infection.

As I've said, many veterans do not even realize that they may be infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and the VA is doing little to encourage them to get the critical testing they need. The VA currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy for combating this deadly disease. With the passage of the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, veterans will finally be provided with the access to testing and treatment that they have more than earned and deserve. Additionally, the Federal Government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders.

The VA has known about the problem of Hepatitis C among veterans since 1992, but they have not acted. We must address this critical issue for the brave men and women who have placed their lives in danger to protect the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

I thank the Chair. I appreciate very much the comments of the Senator from Michigan, particularly in informing the Senate that the charge of the Intelligence Committee includes the use of intelligence as part of its mission.

Frankly, this whole discussion of this leaked memo today only reinforces my own view that we need an independent, bipartisan commission because it is now becoming a political debate about whether there is politics inside the Intelligence Committee.

I listened to the earlier discussion on the floor. People are talking about Presidential politics and talking about how inappropriate it is for people to talk in a thoughtful manner about how processes may occur over a period of time. We are missing the point.

There are men and women who are dying in Iraq because either the development or the use of our intelligence is not at a level where we are protecting the people of America and the men and women in uniform.

The issue is not whether this is a political debate. The issue is whether Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons.

It is whether Iraq had links to al-Qaida or whether Iraq attempted to acquire uranium. It is an issue of whether we are going to turn loose the names of our intelligence operatives because there is political use of the need or want to discredit someone who might challenge some of the answers to the questions I just raised.

We have a fundamental question right here and now of whether we are going to have an intelligence operation that informs policymakers so they can make good decisions or whether we are going to have an intelligence operation that is used to justify policy decisions already taken.

The idea that we are going to debate whether this is a political issue or not really does argue in the strongest terms that we need to have an independent, bipartisan approach to understanding whether the development of our intelligence was appropriate and whether the use of that was even consistent or whether it was designed to justify as opposed to inform.

When men and women are dying, I don't understand why we are even thinking about this in the context of politics on either side of the aisle. The real issue is, we ought to get to the bottom of it. What led to decisions that don't match the reality we have come to find on the ground in Iraq?

I have over and over again--and will again--asked for an independent investigation, a bipartisan investigation, a commission to understand why we don't know what we should have known when we entered into this. It seems to me that is the essence and the most important issue we ought to be discussing, not some memo that wasn't seen by anybody else in the committee, developed by a staffer as a concept memo. That really diverts from the fundamental issue of protecting our men and women, protecting the people of the United States.

By the way, there is some reason to believe we are not getting all the information, whether it is in the Intelligence Committee. We know the independent commission studying 9/11 has said they have been stonewalled. People from both sides of the commission, as far as political background, have said that. They had to subpoena information from the FAA to be able to get information to move forward to investigate.

We are missing the point. One of the reasons I do believe we need an independent, bipartisan commission is so we don't have the kind of discussion we had on the floor today, so we can get to the facts that actually will protect the American men and women in uniform. It is high time we put our priorities right, which is understanding how our intelligence operations develop and how they are used, not whether we have a political issue that can be talked about on the talk shows at night.

I find it very hard when senior people in the State Department, who have worked there 25 or 30 years, say, speaking about folks, that we have a faith-based approach to intelligence, that we are developing intelligence to show what we want to conclude.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators Bennett and Kohl for their leadership on this appropriations bill for Agriculture and related agencies for fiscal year 2004.

I would also like to take a moment to engage my colleagues Mr. Kohl and Mr. Bennett in a colloquy.

Mr. President, it has come to my attention that in Title III of this bill, a new program in renewable energy has been added to the bill. the Senate committee report accompanying this bill identified a number of worthy projects under this program.

I hope that the conferees to this bill will consider adding to this list a promising project from my State. The State of New Jersey has entered a partnership with Garden State Ethanol, a consortium of farmers that wants to provide the farmers of New Jersey and surrounding States with an alternative

market for their field corn, while generating a profit for its investors and producing a domestic, renewable transportation fuel. They plan to create an ethanol plant in order to provide a new opportunity for area producers to sell their grain, and to employ directly significant numbers of farmers and laborers. In addition, this project will create jobs related to the construction/renovation of the plant, generate an increase in wages, and increase the output of the regional economy.

With a strong commitment to agriculture combined with its close proximity to high-value markets, New Jersey makes an excellent location for an ethanol production plant.

I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for their interest in this project and for their outstanding leadership on this essential appropriations bill.

tree assistance program

Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation currently being considered, ``The National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003.''

Before I get into the substance of the legislation, I would like to acknowledge the stewardship and leadership of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes in developing this bipartisan proposal--which passed unanimously out of the Senate Banking Committee. Their efforts, and the work of their respective staff, are to be commended.

Through a series of six hearings they took a thoughtful, deliberative approach toward the myriad issues involved in fashioning this legislative proposal. In those hearings we heard from a variety of sources--regulators, industry participants, consumer advocates, and most importantly consumers themselves. Those hearings proved an invaluable tutorial to me and I imagine all the other members of the Banking Committee. More importantly, those efforts, and the comity shown by Senator Shelby, created an environment of bipartisanship in the effort to enhance our national consumer credit reporting system-- which is embodied in the bill now before the full Senate.

The Fair Credit Report Act has been central to the provision of credit in America. It has improved access to credit, and enhanced the security and accuracy of consumer financial information used in assessing creditworthiness. The expansion of our credit system, which the FCRA has helped drive, has proved enormously beneficial to our nation and our economy. It provides consumers with the ability to finance purchases of a car, pay a child's college tuition, purchase a new home, open up a new business or pursue some other lifelong dream.

Credit is the grease that makes the wheels of the economy turn-- particularly our consumer-oriented economy which accounts for nearly 10 percent of our overall GDP. And the FCRA has provided millions more Americans, many of whom lacked the financial resources to pursue their dreams and those who historically have been shut out, with access to our credit system--particularly minority and low-income households.

But we should not lose sight of the fact there's a great deal more that we can do before we claim that the playing field is truly level. With several of its provisions set to expire at the end of this year, it is imperative that Congress act now to reauthorize the FCRA, lest we risk a severe disruption to our economy that could result from a breakdown in our national credit system.

This legislation does that. In fact, it does more than just reauthorize the FCRA--a worthy objective in its own right. It enhances the obligations of those who use and store consumer credit information, it strengthens consumer control over their personal financial and medical information, it strengthens consumer protections against identity theft, and importantly it promotes consumer financial literacy. And this legislation includes important provisions that will strengthen consumer protections against the serious, and growing, threat of identity theft.

It's a serious crime and is rapidly becoming an epidemic. In fact, identity theft is the single largest consumer crime in America, as reported by the Federal Trade Commission. People whose identities have been stolen can spend months or years, at considerable cost, cleaning up the mess thieves have made of their good name and credit record. And while doing so, victims lose employment opportunities, can be refused loans, education, or even be arrested for crimes they didn't commit.

This bill directs federal banking regulators to develop guidelines and regulations to fight identity theft. It allows consumers who have, or may have, been a victim of identity theft to put banks and others on notice to guard against the continued use of their stolen identity through the use of ``fraud alerts.'' It prohibits debts resulting from identity theft from being sold or transferred for collection, and it enhances criminal penalties for identity theft. It requires financial institutions to disclose when their customer data systems have been compromised. And the bill provides consumers with access to one free credit report per year from the credit reporting bureaus.

This access will allow consumers to monitor the accuracy of the information contained in their credit files and ensure that information resulting from identity theft does not end up destroying their financial reputation. These are all important provisions, and they are sorely needed.

I also want to speak to an element of this bill that has received little public attention, but will, I believe, be particularly beneficial in the long run--that is the provisions of the bill which promote consumer financial literacy. The Chairman and Ranking Member of

the Banking Committee noted the importance of the financial literacy provisions in their opening statements. They, and others, including Senators Stabenow, Akaka and Enzi, deserve recognition for their commitment to improving the financial literacy of Americans young and old.

This bill seeks to harmonize the currently fragmented approach the federal government has taken towards promoting financial literacy. It establishes a Financial Literacy and Education Commission to streamline and improve financial literacy and education programs of the Federal Government, including curriculum development, for the benefits of all Americans.

And by providing consumers with a free credit report, and access to the information used by creditors to judge their creditworthiness, this bill equips consumers with the tools to competitively shop for sources of financing and will lead consumers to make better informed, more judicious, credit-related decisions. And, I might add, improved financial literacy will also help consumers protect themselves against identity theft.

The various elements of this legislative proposal that I've just outlined will prove beneficial to consumers, our credit system and our economy. It's a bipartisan bill that does a lot of very good things, and was put together in a balanced manner. Is it a good piece of legislation? Yes. Is it perfect to me? Certainly not. I personally think more can be done to give consumers greater control over the ways in which financial institutions share their personal information with their affiliates, for marketing, solicitations and other purposes. And I think we will need to revisit FCRA at some point to look at issues related to the increased use of credit scores as a determinant of one's suitability to gain employment, obtain car or medical insurance or rent an apartment.

In that regard, I want to thank Chairman Shelby for graciously incorporating into this bill language I offered in committee that calls for a study of the impact credit scores and credit-based insurance score have on the availability and affordability of financial products so that we can explore this issue more broadly as we move forward.

But whatever issues I, or other members, may wish to raise with regard to S. 1753, there is no doubt that this legislation makes significant improvements to current accuracy and security standards of our consumer credit reporting system and our efforts to fight identity theft.

The standards contained in the legislation will make our credit system more robust and provide access to credit to even more Americans who seek it. In doing so, this legislation will prove beneficial not only to consumers, but also more broadly to our nation's economy.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1753 when it comes up for final passage.

Madam President, I have a couple of general remarks about the overall legislation and I have an amendment at the desk which I call up, No. 2064.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I understand the amendment will be agreed to by both of the managers but let me first say that this amendment is about disclosure of breached customer data that may exist in our system. Frankly, 85 percent of businesses that have sophisticated computer systems have identified breaches in their system. My amendment asks for the reporting of those breaches to the FTC so we can get a database and understand it.

I appreciate that recognition.

The reality is the chairman and ranking member showed great stewardship and leadership to get this bill in a position where it has broad support in this body. It is going to make a big difference in the financial marketplace for consumers.

Both the reauthorization and additional elements embedded in this bill have truly improved our credit system, which is already the finest in the world. I thank the ranking member. I want to make sure the chairman knows that I appreciate the bipartisanship, the cooperation, and comity that has accompanied the framing of this bill. I very much appreciate the inclusion of the disclosure of breached consumer data as part of the bill.

There are some elements of this bill that I will highlight that others have given emphasis to. It is particularly important to strengthen the controls on personal, financial, and medical data in this bill; however, nothing is more important, in my view, than someone having the ability of requesting a credit file on themselves from the credit agencies once a year. People ought to be able to understand how they are being viewed in the system, if ever they are going to correct issues. That, to me, is one of the most important controls.

Very much to the credit of the ranking member, there is emphasis on promoting financial literacy embedded in this legislation that creates a real foundation for how we can talk to the general public, teach the principles of proper financial management, which is one of the most important elements in individual personal finances. When citizens find they are on the short end of their credit reports and they are in court to solve a bankruptcy, they wish they had learned more in school regarding managing personal finances.

The identity theft issue, which is part of why I have offered the breached customer data amendment, is so important. This is an epidemic in our society. The number of breaches, the number of extraordinary cases of individual pain that has come from people breaching our technologically connected world today is overwhelming. The protections we have started to talk about--fraud alerts, limitations on transfer of debt, and this free credit report a year--will go a long way toward trying to shape it up.

We could go further in this area, in my own view. As the Senator from New York discussed, this is an important piece of legislation. I wish we had done a little more to control the use of financial information, particularly among affiliates in some of our most complex organizations where there are 1,000 or 1,500 affiliates, some spread out but not as broadly controlled as some Members might think relative to what I know is in the case of the world financial markets.

But that said, this is a fine piece of legislation. The manager and ranking member should be congratulated, as should all of the members of the committee, including the Presiding Officer.

With that, I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take just a few moments of the Senate's time to discuss a provision included in the manager's amendment that will authorize acquisition of open space in the Highlands Forest that runs through New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and my state of New Jersey.

First of all, I express my great appreciation to the managers of this bill, Senators Cochran and Harkin, for agreeing to include this amendment. I also recognize and congratulate Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen for his success in getting an identical version of this bill passed unanimously by the House Resources Committee yesterday. Congressman Frelinghuysen and I have worked together closely on this matter, and I know he has worked hard for many years on behalf of the Highlands and has played a key role in bringing needed conservation funds to the area.

The amendment included in the managers' package is a modified version of S. 999, the Highlands Stewardship Act, which I introduced earlier this year with Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd, Lieberman and Specter. The goal of this bipartisan legislation is to preserve one of the last open space treasures in our densely populated region, the Appalachian Highlands Forest.

The Highlands region stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. It encompasses more than two million acres of forest, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park, where George Washington had headquarters during the American Revolution, and the United States Military Academy at West Point.

The value of the natural, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. In a study of the New York-New Jersey Highlands region alone, the Forest Service found that 170 million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. 247 threatened or endangered species live in the New Jersey-New York Highlands region, including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, and great blue heron. According to the U.S. Forest Service, over 14 million people visit the NY-NJ Highlands for outdoor recreation, more than Yellowstone National Park and our most heavily visited natural treasures.

But the values and benefits of the Highlands are not limited to the four states that share them. A 1992 study and recent update by the United States Forest Service describes the Highlands as a region of ``national significance''--one that is within 2 hours of travel for 1 in 9 Americans.

Unfortunately, the supply of federal, state, local and private money that has gone to protect the Highlands over the years has not kept pace with development in the area. According to the Forest Service, more than 25,000 acres of forest and farm land in the New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands have been lost annually to development between 1995 and 2000, and nearly 300,000 acres of land critical to future water supplies remain unprotected.

I represent the most densely populated state in the country. The pressures we face from development are intense. In New Jersey, the Highlands region lies in close proximity to New York City and is valued for housing development. New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania face similar development pressures. We need to do more to protect this national treasure.

The amendment that I hope the Senate will approve today is modeled after the successful federal-state partnership used to protect much of Sterling Forest, a crown jewel of the Highlands. The legislation would facilitate similar conservation partnerships to protect critical treasures threatened by sprawl throughout the region. The amendment would enable us to build upon the legacy of Sterling Forest, but it will take a strong commitment and partnership between the Highlands states and the Federal Government to safeguard this region.

The amendment calls on the governors of the four states to recommend conservation projects within certain threatened areas identified by the Forest Service. It also would authorize $100 million over the next 10 years for easements or acquisition of land within those areas. As in the preservation of Sterling Forest, the money would come from the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I would note that the land and water conservation fund generally is not used for open space acquisitions in my state and the other Highlands states. That is because the fund only can support acquisitions to expand existing Federal parks, forests and recreation areas. While this works well for states with a significant amount of federal parks and forests, it does not help states like New Jersey with comparatively less Federal land. This amendment would help to make sure that New Jersey and the other Highlands states get their fair share of open space funding.

The only land to be acquired would be land owned by people who want to sell. This amendment would not force anyone to sell, nor interfere with any other property right. Nor would the amendment interfere with any local zoning ordinance or local government land use plan. Nor would it create any new federal ownership or management responsibilities. Title to the land or easement purchased would belong to the state where it is located.

Finally, the amendment is designed to conserve land that has been identified as having a high conservation value by the Forest Service and which is not currently protected from development under any existing law. This is land that serves as the habitat for animals, or provides a source for water supplies, or that is simply unusual in its natural beauty.

In conclusion, the Highlands are a national treasure, and it is critical that they be preserved. I again thank the managers for their cooperation, and their support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Akaka as a co- sponsor of the College LIFE (Literacy in Finance and Economics) Act.

Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, most American college students do not have the skills they need to spend and save wisely. Most do not understand the details of managing a checking account, paying their taxes, or even using a credit card sensibly. College students must be given the tools they need to maintain good credit and make informed decisions about investments and savings so that they can ensure themselves a successful future.

The importance of financial education cannot be understated, and this bill effectively addresses this critical issue by establishing grants that would allow institutions of higher education to provide their students with personal finance counseling and planning services. The bill also contains provisions that would encourage colleges to develop personal finance courses, giving students greater access to financial education. Finally, the bill would create a three-year pilot program in five institutions of higher education across the Nation to provide annual counseling for financial aid recipients.

Financial literacy has been a priority of mine since the start of my tenure in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, I believe that financial literacy should be a lifelong goal. Last Congress, I successfully added a provision to the No Child Left Behind Act to give elementary and secondary schools access to funds that will allow them to include financial education as part of their basic educational curriculum. This Congress, I have introduced the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2003, which would provide grants to non-profit organizations and State and local agencies for programs that would enhance financial and retirement knowledge for America's seniors. The bill also aims to reduce financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. Finally, I am the sponsor of a bill that would provide welfare recipients with greater access to financial literacy skills in order to help them achieve self-sufficiency.

I know that Senator Akaka has a deep interest in this issue as well, and I am honored to join him in introducing the College LIFE Act, to ensure that college students have access to the financial knowledge that they need to make the right decisions about their futures.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Akaka as a co- sponsor of the College LIFE (Literacy in Finance and Economics) Act.

Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, most American college students do not have the skills they need to spend and save wisely. Most do not understand the details of managing a checking account, paying their taxes, or even using a credit card sensibly. College students must be given the tools they need to maintain good credit and make informed decisions about investments and savings so that they can ensure themselves a successful future.

The importance of financial education cannot be understated, and this bill effectively addresses this critical issue by establishing grants that would allow institutions of higher education to provide their students with personal finance counseling and planning services. The bill also contains provisions that would encourage colleges to develop personal finance courses, giving students greater access to financial education. Finally, the bill would create a three-year pilot program in five institutions of higher education across the Nation to provide annual counseling for financial aid recipients.

Financial literacy has been a priority of mine since the start of my tenure in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, I believe that financial literacy should be a lifelong goal. Last Congress, I successfully added a provision to the No Child Left Behind Act to give elementary and secondary schools access to funds that will allow them to include financial education as part of their basic educational curriculum. This Congress, I have introduced the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2003, which would provide grants to non-profit organizations and State and local agencies for programs that would enhance financial and retirement knowledge for America's seniors. The bill also aims to reduce financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. Finally, I am the sponsor of a bill that would provide welfare recipients with greater access to financial literacy skills in order to help them achieve self-sufficiency.

I know that Senator Akaka has a deep interest in this issue as well, and I am honored to join him in introducing the College LIFE Act, to ensure that college students have access to the financial knowledge that they need to make the right decisions about their futures.

Mr. President, I wish to commend the work of Steve Picco, who is retiring after 8 years as a board member of the Northeast-Midwest Institute. A two-term chairman of the Institute's Board of Directors, Steve served with leadership, vision, and wit.

Steve has had a distinguished career in New Jersey, with more than 20 years of experience as a regulator and practitioner in the areas of environmental and energy law. He served as Assistant Commissioner in both the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Department of Energy and as a member of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and the Delaware River Basin Commission. He currently is a partner with Reed Smith Shaw and McClay in Princeton.

The Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalitions and Institute strive to promote the region's economic vitality while preserving its environmental quality. A goal served by our States working together to influence legislative policy important to the region. Steve Picco deserves much praise for his efforts on behalf of the State of New Jersey and for ensuring that the Institute's work is relevant to the key policy issues affecting Northeastern and Midwestern States.

Madam President, exactly 1 year ago tomorrow, October 25, our Nation lost Senator Paul Wellstone, a truly great American and a hero to many. I remember that tragic day as if it were yesterday. The initial shock and pain of losing Paul has been transformed into a profound sadness akin to losing a parent--a brother. You never forget what they meant to your life. A year ago and to this day, millions of Americans still grieve and share this deep sense of loss.

I served with Paul for only 2 short years, but in that brief time, he became one of my closest friends. His enthusiasm was infectious, his values, uncompromised and his honor, unquestioned. His loss was a personal and painful one for me, and I miss him every day.

Indeed, Paul's loss was a tragedy for the entire United States Senate. As most would agree, there was no Senator quite like Paul Wellstone. He was unique. He left a void in this body that no one will ever fill.

What was it about Paul that made him so unique? It's hard to point to any one thing.

Perhaps it was his sincerity. Paul was a real, genuine person who never tried to be someone other than who he was. He said what he thought. He was the same man in the back rooms as under the glaring lights of the Senate floor. Paul was Paul.

Perhaps it was his humility. To say that Paul didn't put on airs would be an understatement. There simply wasn't an ounce of pretense to Paul--none. He wasn't trying to impress anyone. He wasn't impressed with himself. He should have been, but he wasn't.

Perhaps it was his empathy. Paul cared about other people, and he cared deeply. He spent his life helping others. It's what made him tick. It's what drove his politics. It's how he lived his life.

Perhaps more than his sincerity, more than his humility, and even more than his empathy, what made Paul--Paul was his passion.

To this day, Paul Wellstone was the most passionate public servant I have ever met. In a day and age when it is difficult to reconcile a public servant's actions with their statements, Paul was truly unique. His stirring words--``We should never separate the lives we live from the words we speak'' were the compass by which he set his course. He didn't just speak about helping others, he did it. He didn't just preach about righting wrongs, he did it. He wasn't just talking about the need for social justice, human rights, civil rights, workers' rights, health care, education, environmental protection, and political reform. Paul was the most committed, compassionate, and tireless advocate for these causes I have ever met.

Paul's passions defined him as a human being, and you could not be around this Chamber for long without witnessing those passions first hand. He would come to this Chamber to speak, and it wouldn't be long before his voice would rise, his fist would pound the desk, and his finger would jab the air. When Paul spoke, he dominated the Chamber, and we listened.

No, we will not see another person like Paul Wellstone for a very long time. And this body, and our Nation, will be the worse for it.

In many ways, Paul was the conscience and soul of the Senate. When he saw something that wasn't right, he would speak out. He didn't wait for a cadre of his colleagues to approve. Often, that meant he upset some of us. Frequently, it meant he upset lobbyists and special interests. But, for millions of working Americans, Paul was the one voice on which they could always depend. And, they were grateful for him. Sometimes, all it took was Paul Wellstone to raise a wrong--to bring it into the sunlight for all to see--for it to be made right. He truly was our conscience and our soul, and he made a difference.

That is why I wanted to come to the floor to honor Paul's memory. These speeches are not what he would have sought. He probably would have been embarrassed. That said, he would have hoped we would come to advocate his causes--none more personal, none more passionate, than his quest for mental health parity.

Paul Wellstone was not only a hero. He was a model for all of us who are representatives of all the people. It's only right that we honor him here in this Chamber--where he stood for so many. Remembering who he was and what he stood for can only make us better Senators.

Sadly, unavoidably, it also reminds us of the terrible loss that this Senate and our Nation suffered on that heartbreaking day 1 year ago.

Paul--like all of us--I was blessed to know you and will always remember that you said, ``Politics is what we create by what we do, what we hope for and what we dare to imagine.'' Thank you for daring to hope and imagine. I miss you. We all do.