Floor Statements

Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes off the side of Senator Leahy.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss Leon Holmes' nomination to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution imposes profound responsibility on the U.S. Senate to advise and consent on appointments of individuals to lifetime positions.

I rarely voted against a judicial nominee or even opposed one under President Clinton. I have never opposed one under President Bush. On the rare occasion when I did oppose a judicial candidate, it was because a nominee had failed to show proper judicial temperament, or if questions about judicial philosophy arose, and there was no judicial record on which to base a vote of confidence.

I take very seriously the responsibility of confirming an individual for a lifetime appointment. These Federal judges do not answer to anyone after they take office. So when someone's views raise a question or concern and there is no record as a judge to show he or she can set personal views aside, I believe caution is warranted. For my vote, such is the case with Leon Holmes.

Dr. Holmes is a gifted man and a capable attorney. He has had a strong career and demonstrated commitment to his community. His rich spiritual conviction and work ethic are traits for which he is commended. I have listened to Dr. Holmes' supporters. I read statements in support of his candidacy presented by the Department of Justice. I know his distinguished career. I have read carefully his writings and public statements, including those for which he has subsequently clarified or apologized. I met Dr. Holmes to talk about his nomination.

Mr. President, we have made mistakes like this in the past. Last month a judge on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a judge who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 1994 with my vote, made a disturbing public speech. In it, he compared President Bush's election in 2000 to the rise of power of Mussolini. The judge has, of course, apologized. We have all made remarks we wish we had not made. But in this case, coming from a judge, the blatant partisanship and political bias revealed by this remark, reduced the value of the subsequent apology. Now, it is a fair question, if a Republican-oriented litigant comes to the Second Circuit, can he or she be assured of an impartial justice by that judge?

In 1980, Leon Holmes wrote:

The concern for rape victims is a red herring because

conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same

frequency as snowfall in Miami.

I differ with him absolutely on this issue.

If one rape victim is pregnant, she deserves protections and rights. She is a victim our society must acknowledge. What of the 14-year-old pregnant girl--a victim of incest from her father? Should she be cast aside as inconsequential? If you talk to any person who has served on a grand jury, in any urban area of our country, they have seen such a case. It happens. Thousands of rape victims in our country become pregnant every year. The Houston Chronicle recently reported that the American Journal of Preventive Medicine estimates 25,000 rape-related pregnancies occur annually. Are these victims to be ignored by our laws and society?

To his credit, Dr. Holmes has acknowledged that these comments were insensitive, but in conjunction with his other writings, that isn't enough for a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship.

My vote will not be in any way related to his views on abortion or his personal religious beliefs. It is based on his body of statements over a 25-year period that lead me to conclude he does not have a fundamental commitment to the total equality of women in our society.

I have supported all of President Bush's previous nominees. In each instance, if there has been a controversy, I have tried to make an independent judgment without employing a litmus

test, and without employing my own discrimination based on the nominee's personal practices or ideologies. In each case, I felt the candidate met the requirements. But I have a constitutional role that I must, in good conscience, uphold as I see it. I believe in the overwhelming majority of cases, the President should be granted his appointments to the bench. The role given to the Senate was to allow all possible information about a nominee to come forward to assure that a person is fit. Personally, I doubt that the writings of this nominee were known to the Administration when the appointment was made. But since his statements have come to the attention of the Senate, we must use our judgment about the overall ability of this nominee to give impartial justice in all cases.

I conclude that I cannot provide my consent for Leon Holmes.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to concerns related to cancer care reimbursement.

Today, many oncology services are paid for through drug administration reimbursement because most are not

covered by Medicare. These services include specially-trained oncology nurses and supportive care services important to performing first rate cancer care. Although the new Medicare law increases reimbursements to physicians and provides much needed compensation for oncology nursing, it reduces how much Medicare will reimburse for chemotherapy beginning in 2005. While I support the sound and innovative advancements the Medicare law provides, it is important not to jeopardize cancer care through decreases in reimbursements.

Congress understood the impact the Medicare law would have on patient access and included a temporary one-year increase in physicians' practice expenses. However, this provision will expire in 2005 and could reduce access to care.

The ``Ensuring Quality and Access to Cancer Care Act of 2004'' would extend the one-year transitional period already established in the law for an additional year. It allows a compromise so Congress has the time it needs to further debate this issue, ask important questions regarding the impact of payment reductions and better understand how Medicare should reimburse for services provided to cancer patients.

Mr. President, the nominee we are going to vote on, Jane Boyle, has served our country in so many positions: U.S. magistrate, where she had an outstanding record, as our U.S. Attorney, where she had an equally outstanding record. She has shown fairness, a judicial temperament, and great leadership in every position she has held.

Mr. President, I am proud to have recommended her nomination along with my colleague, Senator Cornyn, and before that, Senator Gramm. We have never been disappointed in Jane Boyle's performance, and know she will be an outstanding judge.

I urge a vote for her nomination.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an American legend, President Ronald Reagan. Like all Americans, I was saddened to learn of his passing over the weekend. I had left our Republican State convention at a time when it was moving across the floor that he might be in his final hours. Of course, all of us started reminiscing. It was a moment of great loss, but yet a recollection of his humor, his contagious optimism, and the historic accomplishments he made for our country really were comforting and engendered so many wonderful moments.

Although I was not a Member of this body while he was in office, I have lived and served under his conservative principles and ideologies. He was in his political prime when I was just beginning in politics. During his first campaign, my husband Ray was chairman of the Texas Republican Party and spent many hours traveling with him across Texas. In 1992, I was honored to be temporary chair of the Republican National Convention in Houston, TX, when he delivered his very important message that turned out to be his goodbye to America. It was there that he left us with these final thoughts:

Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I

hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not

your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts.

My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with

liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm

steadying your way. . . . May each of you have the heart to

conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to

execute works that will make the world a little better for

your having been here. . . . My fellow Americans, may every

dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening

bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

At a time of great despair in our Nation, Ronald Reagan came into office and restored hope. He was an unequaled champion of freedom, smaller Government, and market-oriented principles. His philosophies guided our Nation to become the economic and military superpower it is today. Of course, he was often called the Great Communicator for his ability to give a rousing speech that could both rally the troops and yet make an individual in the crowd of thousands feel as if they were having a heart-to-heart talk.

Beyond his optimism, his confidence, and graceful charm was a man of action who implemented great change in the United States of America. Under his leadership, our Nation sowed seeds of prosperity and reduced regulatory burdens on small business. He lowered taxes for all Americans, including reducing the top marginal rate from an oppressive 70 percent to approximately half that, offering new incentives to create wealth and jobs and rebuild America.

He encouraged Americans to embrace their own destiny and realized that Government was not the answer to social ills; people were. Good people working in concert to better their communities and their fellow man could accomplish far more than bureaucracy, from his vantage point.

Perhaps most important, President Reagan took the steps to ultimately win the cold war. He pursued peace through strength and achieved an overwhelming victory that was inconceivable to a generation that was raised with fallout drills and backyard bunkers.

Who can forget the famous challenge he laid down when he cried, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''? They were indeed great, dramatic words but more importantly words of action. Two and a half years later, what once seemed a permanent divider through the heart of Berlin was torn down piece by piece, section by section, until it was reduced to a pile of rubble.

Visitors to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC, can view a section of that wall donated by the people of Berlin in honor of the President and in recognition of his leadership. The segment, which is over 9 feet high and weighs almost 3 tons, is from a section of the wall near the Brandenburg Gate where President Reagan issued that challenge. It stands as a stark reminder of the great shift in global politics that spread freedom in Europe and encouraged new generations to pursue democracy.

Today, we again find ourselves in a fight for freedom. This generation, like their World War II grandparents and cold war parents, has been called to stand and fight for freedom. Today, we are grappling with a new threat: global terrorism, an enemy with no borders, no uniforms, no respect for traditional rules of war, and more importantly no respect for human life.

World War II took bitter years of fighting and sacrifice. The cold war took decades of dedication and patience. This battle against terrorism

requires all that and more. The question is: Will our generation meet the test? Will we have what it takes to win the peace? I believe we do. I believe the strength, perseverance, and patriotism that Ronald Reagan embodied will help see us through.

In 1987, he addressed a joint session of Congress saying:

Let it never be said of this generation of Americans that

we became so obsessed with failure that we refused to take

risks that could further the cause of peace and freedom in

the world.

Since learning of his passing last weekend, elected officials, former Cabinet members, and newspapers across the world have been penning eulogies, remembrances, and tributes to the beloved President.

James Baker, his former Chief of Staff and Treasury Secretary:

President Reagan restored America's source of pride and

confidence in itself. He was a wonderful person to work for

and a truly great President. His willingness to stick to his

principles changed the world.

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:

He will be missed not only by those who knew him, and not

only by the nation that he served so proudly and loved so

deeply, but also by the millions of men and women who live in freedom today because of the policies he pursued. To have achieved so much against so many odds and with such humor and humanity made Ronald Reagan a truly great American hero.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served as his National Security Adviser, said:

President Reagan fueled the spirit of America. His smile,

his optimism, his total belief in the ultimate triumph of

democracy and freedom, and his willingness to act on that

belief, helped end the Cold War and usher in a new and

brighter phase of history.

Mikhail Gorbachev, once Reagan's adversary, called him:

A true leader, a man of his word and an optimist . . . He

has earned a place in history and in people's hearts.

Finally, his Vice President, later our President, George H.W. Bush, has been giving interviews about how much fun he was and how they had lunch every week together and sometimes they would talk substance, sometimes they would talk policy, and sometimes they would just have a good time. They were very close, and yet he never lost that laser beam focus on the big issues, the things that really mattered that would move us one step toward the peace through strength that was his guiding principle.

Indeed, his lasting place in the hearts of all Americans has been evidenced by the outpouring of love and admiration that we have seen across the Nation and around the world. Ronald Reagan was a leader who touched people with his words, inspired them with his actions, and led by his example.

On November 5, 1994, nearly a decade ago, President Reagan announced to the world that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, the illness that would ultimately take his life. His poise and hopeful spirit, even in the face of the heartbreaking years ahead, were remarkable. He said:

. . . Let me thank you, the American people, for giving me

the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president.

When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will

leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and

eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that

will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for

America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Thank you,

my friends. May God always bless you.

Standing by his side through good times and bad, his beloved wife Nancy, a beautiful woman, very slight in stature but strong as steel. Theirs was a partnership in every respect and one of the great love stories of our time. Ronald Wilson Reagan was a great President. He left an indelible impression on our country. As we say farewell, our thoughts and prayers are with Nancy and his family. We thank them and we thank the Lord that he gave us Ronald Reagan at a time when our country needed him the most.

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

Certainly.

Madam President, it is my pleasure to introduce our guest chaplain, Dr. Prentice Meador, from Dallas, TX, the minister at Prestoncrest Church of Christ. Dr. Meador hails from Nashville, TN. Our majority leader and Dr. Meador have known each other for a long time.

He is a graduate of David Lipscomb College and holds a Ph.D from the University of Illinois. He and his wife Barbara, a registered nurse, have three married children and 10 grandchildren.

Dr. Meador served at the South National Church of Christ in Springfield, MO for 14 years before moving to Dallas in 1988. There he started serving as a pulpit minister for the Prestoncrest Church of Christ.

Not only did our distinguished leader come over to say hello to our chaplain this morning, but also Senator Bond from Missouri, who when he was Governor worked with Dr. Meador on a summit for children. Dr. Meador has been very active in that regard as well.

So we came in today, and not only was he there with me as his hometown Senator but also the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri came to greet him, which I think shows what a great impact he has wherever he goes.

Dr. Meador has in fact adopted a wonderful philosophy of the modern church. He offers grace to imperfect people. He doesn't want to save the world and lose our own families. He offers God to people entangled in the web of today's culture.

That take on the urban church has attracted large audiences of young adults. In fact, the average age in his church in Dallas is 28. Dr. Meador has done an excellent job of cultivating their interest by emphasizing relationship building, mentoring, and accountability groups.

He is a member of the board of trustees of a great university, Abilene Christian University in Abilene, TX, and he is on the chancellor's council of another great university, Pepperdine University in California. Dr. Meador is listed in ``Who's Who in Religion'' as well as ``Who's Who in the Southwest.'' He has spoken throughout the world and has given frequent lectures throughout the United States.

He is an accomplished author who has written several books, and has been the managing editor of 21st Century Christian magazine starting in 1992. He is a regular television contributor, including as a weekly panelist on the American Religion Town Hall, which is a national program.

Dr. Meador has received numerous awards for his leadership and citizenship. It is an honor to have him with us today.

I was so pleased to be able to be with him this morning. We had a good visit at our prayer breakfast about what we do in the Senate. I thank Dr. Meador for sharing his blessing on us at a very important time in our country.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore flexibility to small communities in the use of Federal transit funding. As chairman of the Senate's Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I recognize the value of mass transit. Public transit is the first choice of transportation for many Americans. Local options such as buses, light rail and subways are affordable, friendly to the environment, and reduce traffic congestion.

I know the limited availability of Federal funds for the Nation's extensive transportation needs requires creative solutions. For this reason, I have introduced this bill to correct an inequity in current law. The 1998 TEA-21 bill phased out operating assistance for mass transit except in small communities, using a population of 200,000 as the benchmark. Nationwide, more than 30 cities that are generally considered small transit communities because they operate fewer than 100 buses at peak hours exceeded that threshold in the 2000 Census. In Texas, the city of Lubbock is caught in this discrepancy. The 2000 Census also treated metropolitan areas composed of two or more adjacent cities as one statistical unit, and many of these units, such as Denton and Lewisville in Texas, subsequently ceased to qualify as small transit communities without increasing the size of their transit systems.

This bill would allow the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to a transit system for mass transportation operating costs in an urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 if such transit system operates less than 100 buses. Smaller communities have always relied on Federal operating assistance for public transportation. Although bus systems may generate profits, the revenues of such limited offerings are not enough to finance administrative and other overhead costs not associated with capital purchases.

While Congress works to reauthorize highway and other surface transportation programs for another 6 years, the need for this technical correction cannot be ignored. To ensure quality mass transit in States, small transit communities operating fewer than 100 buses should be permitted to use Federal funding as needed for capital investments or operating expenses.

I am proud to offer this bill that provides an important correction for small transit systems, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore flexibility to small communities in the use of Federal transit funding. As chairman of the Senate's Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I recognize the value of mass transit. Public transit is the first choice of transportation for many Americans. Local options such as buses, light rail and subways are affordable, friendly to the environment, and reduce traffic congestion.

I know the limited availability of Federal funds for the Nation's extensive transportation needs requires creative solutions. For this reason, I have introduced this bill to correct an inequity in current law. The 1998 TEA-21 bill phased out operating assistance for mass transit except in small communities, using a population of 200,000 as the benchmark. Nationwide, more than 30 cities that are generally considered small transit communities because they operate fewer than 100 buses at peak hours exceeded that threshold in the 2000 Census. In Texas, the city of Lubbock is caught in this discrepancy. The 2000 Census also treated metropolitan areas composed of two or more adjacent cities as one statistical unit, and many of these units, such as Denton and Lewisville in Texas, subsequently ceased to qualify as small transit communities without increasing the size of their transit systems.

This bill would allow the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to a transit system for mass transportation operating costs in an urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 if such transit system operates less than 100 buses. Smaller communities have always relied on Federal operating assistance for public transportation. Although bus systems may generate profits, the revenues of such limited offerings are not enough to finance administrative and other overhead costs not associated with capital purchases.

While Congress works to reauthorize highway and other surface transportation programs for another 6 years, the need for this technical correction cannot be ignored. To ensure quality mass transit in States, small transit communities operating fewer than 100 buses should be permitted to use Federal funding as needed for capital investments or operating expenses.

I am proud to offer this bill that provides an important correction for small transit systems, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, last weekend thousands of Americans flocked to our National Mall to pay tribute to the ``greatest generation.'' It was the dedication, as we all know, of the World War II Memorial.

It has now been 59 years since the end of the Second World War, and at long last our Nation has a place that honors the 16 million who served in our Armed Forces, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions who supported the war effort here at home.

I was touched that those who served at home also were honored because that war brought our Nation together as we had never seen before, and perhaps since.

I can think of no more appropriate honor than to recognize their commitment, dedication, and sacrifice with a permanent memorial to the men and women who fought to secure our freedom and stamp out Nazi tyranny.

Today we are honoring those Members of this esteemed body who fought for our freedoms in World War II. Of the 114 Senators who have served in the war, I have been privileged to serve with 15 of them. Six are here with me today.

Danny Akaka served in World War II with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a welder-mechanic.

Ernest Hollings graduated from The Citadel in 1942 and received a commission from the U.S. Army. He served as an officer in the North African and European campaigns in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.

Frank Lautenberg enlisted in the Army straight out of high school and served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II.

Ted Stevens, during World War II, was a pilot in the China-Burma- India theater, supporting the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force. He received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Air Medals, and a medal awarded from the Republic of China. Today he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee.

John Warner entered the Navy at age 17, and served on active duty in World War II. He went on to serve as a marine in the Korean War, and served in the Department of Defense for 5 years during the Vietnam war. Later, he served our country as Secretary of the Navy, and now serves as the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate.

Danny Inouye served in combat with the legendary ``Go for Broke'' unit in World War II, achieving the rank of captain and earning the Nation's very highest award for military service, the Congressional Medal of Honor. He also earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart with cluster. He is the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Committee.

Two of Texas' recent Senators, Lloyd Bentsen and John Tower, were both proud Texans and veterans of World War II.

Three of our Nation's Commanders in Chief, who served in the Senate-- Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon--also fought as part of the ``greatest generation.''

For anyone who has read Tom Brokaw's book ``The Greatest Generation,'' the stories of those who fought the bitter and brutal fight and then returned home to their families and went about their lives as if it were no big deal are today still sources of great inspiration to all of us because they had the commitment to do what was right, to answer the call to duty, to return without a complaint, with no second guessing, no protests. That was the mark of the ``greatest generation.''

Some of them went back to the factories and the fields, and back to their desks, and they did not even expect praise or admiration. Some went into public service. Those we have mentioned today did and are doing a wonderful job carrying the mantle of public service. They brought with them the scars of war, and they carry the mantle of freedom.

Bob Dole, with whom all of us served as well, what a great leader and what a great hero of World War II.

Strom Thurmond, once chairman of the Armed Services Committee, served, at the age of 40, in World War II and had to miss the 50th anniversary of D-day because his son was graduating from high school. What a legend.

I am honored to stand here and look around this fabulous room, these hallowed halls, and pay tribute to every one of you who gave me the right to stand here, and who will be forever in my heart because you are continuing to do so much for our country. I want you to know I believe without the great leadership you provided, neither my children nor I would know the freedom we know today. We do stand on the shoulders of giants, and we salute you.

Madam President, my distinguished colleague, the Senator who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said I forgot President George Bush, who also was a hero in World War II. That is certainly a huge omission, and I apologize, and thank you, I say to the Senator, for letting me set the record straight.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Madam President, how much time remains?

Madam President, I would like to be notified at the end of 5 minutes, after which I will yield the remainder on our side to the Senator from New Mexico.

Madam President, we just heard a wonderful talk by the President of the United States. He talked about our commitment and reminded us once again that our commitment to winning in Iraq is everything. There is no alternative. The President talked about the commitment of winning the war on terrorism.

That means we must stabilize Iraq. We must begin to show the people in the Middle East what freedom, free enterprise, economy and jobs can do, and an educational system that includes boys and girls, giving them hope for the future.

He reminded us of the commitment we must make to see the war on terrorism through. This is not going to be a war that goes exactly the way it was planned. Name for me a war that did. Name for me a war that we said, Here is what is going to happen, and it happens just that way. This is war. We have been attacked. Thousands of Americans have been killed by fanatics. Nick Berg was assassinated on videotape in a brutal manner by terrorism. This will continue to happen if we lose our resolve. There is only one way that we can lose; that is, for America not to see this through.

It means winning the immediate war. It means stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. It means sowing the seeds of freedom and representative government in those countries to show how it can be done where people have not lived in freedom for years. We must see it through. But it means more than just the next year in which we have the big important war on terrorism that we see evolve before our eyes. It means we are going to have to stick with it for 25 or 30 years because it is going to take that long to show education can give children hope for the future, so you will not be able to brainwash a child to think life is not worth living, that the best thing one could do with their life is to give it up by killing other people in a suicide bomb.

The only way to warp children to believe a suicide bomb is their best hope in life is by failing to give them an education. An education gives them hope for a future, for a job, for a family, for a quality of life that is worth living.

The President of the United States is laser-beam focused. He is focused on winning the war on terrorism for the security of the American people and for the ability for freedom to live throughout the world. If America does not carry the beacon and the flag for freedom in the world, who will? Who has the capacity and the will to do it? If freedom dies in America, it will not flourish for very long anywhere else on Earth. That is why the President is so focused on the security of our country by finding and winning the war on terrorism.

We see people wringing their hands, asking, What can we do. We see the assassination of Nick Berg on videotape and we ask, What can we do to get out of this. We can make sure the violent death of Nicholas Berg is not in vain, that the hundreds of Americans who have died in this cause do not die in vain, that they are dealing with an America that has the leadership to stand up for our country and our security and our freedom and see it through. That is what the President of the United States is doing for our country today. We must not lose focus.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by David Brooks from the New York Times.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided between the two votes.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been asked for?

I ask for the yeas and nays on the first vote.

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