Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two monumental pieces of legislation that are coming this way and, hopefully, will be passed in the next 48 hours. I am hopeful that we will pass the Energy bill. The House has passed this Energy bill. I have heard a lot of discussion about it. It was a very hard-fought bill.

Since coming to the Senate 10 years ago, I have tried to have a part in passing energy legislation that would make our country self- sufficient. Ten years ago, I said we were too dependent on foreign oil. We were dependent upon foreign oil for about 50 percent of our energy needs. Today, 10 years later, it is 10 percent more. We are 60 percent more dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs.

It is a very important issue for our economy. Our economy is not the most stable right now, but it is in a recovery. We are dependent on energy for our factories, for our businesses, for our economy to remain stable, and for us to be able to continue to increase the number of jobs in our country. Having more energy self-sufficiency

will be very important for our country to be able to strengthen our economy, put people back to work, and go into a full recovery.

The bill we will have before the Senate in the next 48 hours is not a perfect bill, but it is a bill that I am very hopeful will pass so that we can start the process of having an energy policy that includes conservation, incentives for production, incentives for nuclear power. We have not had a nuclear powerplant built in America since 1978. It is our cleanest source of energy and it is energy that has the capacity to meet our needs. I am very hopeful we will pass this bill and we will work to fix some of the things not fixed in the bill.

I am hopeful also that we will pass Medicare prescription drug benefits. That is a bill in progress. We are going to have an incredible ending to this legislative session if we are able to work those bills out and pass them, including the jobs created in the Energy bill and to begin the process of providing our seniors a prescription drug benefit.

I see the Senator from the State of Oregon is on the Senate floor, and I yield to him up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Oregon, and then I will yield up to 8 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi. He was on the conference committee. He worked hard, knows how hard the compromises were. I appreciate his leadership because we can't depend on foreign countries for 60 percent of our energy needs and have a stable economy and keep the jobs we have and create more jobs for our recovery. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon also has been a leader in this field. I appreciate so much his remarks and his leadership in this area.

I ask how much time remains in morning business?

I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

I object.

Madam President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriations conference report for the Senate's consideration. This bill provides $9.316 billion for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure activities for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004.

The negotiations over this conference report were uncharacteristically long and difficult for a military construction bill. This difficulty stemmed from two sources. First, and quite simply, there is less money this year for military construction. The administration's request was $1.6 billion below the amount appropriated last year. Even with an allocation slightly above the President's request, this conference agreement provides $1.4 billion less than last year.

Compounding this difficulty were two very different points of view about military construction on the part of the Senate and House this year. The administration is in the midst of the most sweeping restructuring of our overseas basing structure since the end of World War II. This restructuring will involve the closure of hundreds of installations, the construction or expansion of perhaps dozens more, the return of significant numbers of U.S. troops to the continental United States, and major changes to the way our Nation stations and deploys its armed forces. This plan is still very much a work in progress. In testimony and briefings by Defense Department officials and military commanders this year--at this time--the scope, timing, and cost are not yet determined.

In the face of this uncertainty, the Senate was unwilling to commit prematurely to all of the new construction proposed for U.S. facilities in Europe and Korea, and instead chose to shore up badly needed investment in U.S. military facilities in the United States.

The House chose a different approach, voicing many of the same concerns as the Senate but agreeing nevertheless to fund most of the overseas construction. To pay for that construction the House made significant cuts to the President's priorities for domestic military construction spending, including nearly $50 million from already underfunded programs for the National Guard. These different priorities set the stage for the difficult conference we have just concluded.

Fortunately, I believe we have crafted a conference agreement that accommodates the most pressing authorities of both chambers and the administration within the funding we were allocated. The Senate agreed to reinstate a number of projects in Europe for which our commander there, General Jones, made personal appeals. After hearing from General LaPorte, we also provided funding for two additional barracks projects in Korea on the condition that a facilities master plan and cost- sharing arrangements with the Korean government are completed before construction on these projects begins. Funding for domestic projects was decreased somewhat but we were successful in reinstating $108 million in cuts made by the House to the President's budget request, including over $42 million for sorely needed Guard projects. The conferees also agreed to create a commission that will study the structure of our overseas bases in light of changing political and military circumstances and provide Congress an independent assessment of our future basing requirements overseas.

In short, the conference agreement represents what conference agreements usually do--a respectable compromise among competing priorities.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the ranking member on the military construction appropriations subcommittee, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. We have worked extraordinarily closely throughout this process--and through two supplemental appropriations bills passed this year--and I have appreciated her counsel as we have faced these difficult issues. Her staff, Christina Evans and B.G. Wright, worked hand in hand with my staff, Dennis Ward and his assistant, Sean Knowles. I don't think a better cross-party working relationship exists in the Senate. This truly has been bipartisan effort. They have worked together to make the very best military construction bill that could possibly be made.

I thank Senator Feinstein for her engagement and willingness to work together for our military.

I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction appropriations conference report and recommend its adoption by the Senate.

Madam President, I call the question and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, just to get an understanding, after that 2 minutes 20 seconds, then it goes to the Democratic side for 30 minutes and then back to the Republican side? Is that the way it is?

Mr. President, in the 2 minutes that I have, I say I think the junior Senator from Texas made a very important point and that is the importance of the delicate balance of powers that was put in our Constitution. I think it is important that we do not say, well, 98 percent of the time we adhere to the Constitution. We need to adhere to the Constitution 100 percent of the time.

The Constitution has always said, from its beginning, that we would have a majority required to confirm the judicial nominees of the President. Now, this is by implication, because when the Constitution meant to have a supermajority, it so stated. We have always had a majority, and that is what, by its silence, the advise and consent part of the Constitution has required for judicial nominees, until last year.

In fact, I think the President is losing his constitutional right to appoint Federal judges. I think this whole situation is going to deter good people from offering themselves for the bench,

and the judiciary must have good people if we are going to keep that very strong separation of powers with three separate but equal branches of Government.

In his first 2 years of office, President Bush was able to get 53 percent of his circuit court judges confirmed. The previous three Presidents each had 91 percent in the first 2 years of their office in the very important circuit court judge appointments.

Now, the circuit court, of course, is the next step below the Supreme Court. So a 53 percent record in the first 2 years is something that I think should not be accepted. It is very important that we try to get votes on these judges.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, Senator Hatch will be on the floor shortly. Before he gets here, I want to talk about one of the nominees who we will be voting on, once again, with cloture votes on Friday. That is Justice Priscilla Owen. Justice Priscilla Owen has had a vote in the Senate. She has had four or five votes in the Senate.

If we were adhering to the Constitution of the United States, she would be sitting on the Fifth Circuit today. There are three vacancies on the Fifth Circuit. They need to fill their bench. She should be sitting there because she has gotten more than 51 votes. But Priscilla Owen is not sitting on the Federal bench today because we have a new standard that has been put in place for the first time since 1789. Last year, we started having a 60-vote standard for Federal judges.

So Priscilla Owen, although she has repeatedly and every time, gotten over the required 51 percent, is not sitting on the Federal bench today. No. Instead, this very qualified supreme court justice of the State of Texas is doing her job, doing it very well, serving as a supreme court justice in the State of Texas, even though she has gotten the requisite number of votes on repeated occasions to be confirmed as a Federal judge by the standards of this Congress from 1789 until 2002, until the rules were changed because we are now filibustering Federal judge nominees.

Priscilla Owen was endorsed by every newspaper in Texas when she ran for reelection. Priscilla Owen made the highest grade--the highest grade--on the bar exam when she took it. She graduated at the top of her class from Baylor Law School. She has had an exemplary record both as a supreme court justice for the State of Texas and as a practicing lawyer. She is experienced. She is qualified. She was rendered qualified by the ABA system, the committee, and she has been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans throughout Texas. She has been endorsed by Democratic supreme court justices with whom she served on the Supreme Court of Texas.

The former chief justice of the supreme court, a Democrat, named John R. Hill, who also was a Democrat attorney general in the State of Texas--a very fine one, a very respected lawyerNOTICE

If the 108th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 21, 2003, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 108th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Monday, December 15, 2003, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-410A of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Friday, December 12, 2003. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 15, 2003, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``[email protected]''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov/ forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60 of the Capitol. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. ROBERT W. NEY, Chairman.

in Texas; supreme court chief justice and attorney general of our State--said Priscilla Owen is unqualifiedly the best we could have for this court. She is a person who ought to be on the Federal court.

In fact, he came up here and tried to meet with Democratic Senators to talk about how qualified she is. That Priscilla Owen is not sitting on the Fifth Circuit today is a tragedy, and it is not right.

She is not the only one who has been asked to meet this higher standard. Look at Miguel Estrada, who came to our country as a boy and did not even speak English, who studied so hard that he was able to go to Columbia and become a Phi Beta Kappa, and then to Harvard Law School, where he graduated, again in the top of his class.

Miguel Estrada, the American dream; Miguel Estrada, who sat here since May of 2001, who got the requisite number of votes to be confirmed for the DC Circuit--well over 51--time and time and time again, but he is not sitting on the DC Circuit. He finally said: I can't take this anymore. I have to get on with my life. In September, he said: Take my name off the list.

Why? Why have we set a higher bar for Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada--these two perfectly qualified people, with great academic standing, with great records, with experience, everything you would want on the Federal bench?

What are we going to do to the people who would ask for Federal benches in the future? I am very concerned that after watching this process so many of them are going to say: Please, don't throw me in that briar patch.

So, Mr. President, I do not think we should change the Constitution of the United States without going through the process of a constitutional amendment. Have we had a vote on the floor that got a two-thirds majority saying that we will have a 60-vote requirement for confirming Federal judges? Have we done that? That is the process for amending the Constitution of the United States.

But I do not think that since I have been here I have seen a vote that would say: No, it is not a 51-vote margin; it is 60. No, Mr. President, we have not had that vote. But, in fact, the amendment to the Constitution is being put forward without going through the process. Because we now have six people nominated to the circuit court bench who are having to meet a higher standard than 51. And that is not right.

To date, our President, President Bush, has had 63 percent of his nominees to the circuit court confirmed. The previous three Presidents have had 91 percent of their circuit court judges confirmed by this time in their terms.

So I am going to turn the floor over to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee who has done a wonderful job trying to get these nominations through the process. He has done a magnificent job in trying to bring these great nominees to the floor.

But we are standing here tonight because this is a constitutional issue, and it is important. It is important that these good people, who have submitted themselves for this process to be confirmed as Federal circuit judges, be able to, with dignity, have a vote up or down with the same standard that we have had since 1789; and that is a 51-vote margin.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I am happy for the Senator to go forward and then we will come back at the end of the hour.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I object.

No, Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is now the majority's time, as I understand it. The minority time has finished.

That is right, but Senator Sessions and Senator Schumer took equal amounts of time. Wouldn't the majority time follow since the minority time----

Will the Senator yield?

I want to clarify a point because the Senator from New York tried to equate a filibuster with a hold. I was hoping the Senator from Alabama would show the difference between a hold and a filibuster. If we start calling a hold a filibuster, then we have really changed the rules around here because holds are used for a variety of purposes. They are used for negotiation, and they may or may not lead to a filibuster, and usually they don't.

To say that someone put a hold on someone and then there was an effort through extended debate to get those holds taken off is a filibuster is a misreading of the rules; would the Senator agree?

Mr. President, I wanted to tell the rest of the story on Judge Carolyn Kuhl because I think a misimpression was left by the Senator from California regarding the case of the woman who was having a breast exam, and when she left the office, she asked who the doctor was, and the receptionist said: That wasn't a doctor, that was a pharmaceutical company representative.

When I first heard about that, I definitely wanted to hear more because that did not sound like the kind of judge I would want on the bench, a judge who would dismiss the case against the pharmaceutical company for having a person in the room when the patient was not even told this person was not a doctor or who this person was. I, in fact, did look at the rest of the story and I found a very different story. In fact, the plaintiff sued both the pharmaceutical company and the doctor. The doctor was sued for negligence in not informing the patient and asking the patient's permission, or having the patient have the right to say, no, I do not want that person in the room. The plaintiff sued the doctor, the doctor's firm, and the pharmaceutical company.

Judge Kuhl allowed the case to stay open, which she dismissed against the pharmaceutical company, because the case against the pharmaceutical company was common law intrusion upon seclusion, which was not settled law in California at the time, but she kept the case against the doctor for his failure to consent. The judge allowed the cause of action, the trial, to go forward against the doctor and the medical partnership for failure to obtain consent, and the plaintiff did recover. The plaintiff should have recovered, and the plaintiff did recover. Judge Kuhl allowed that to happen by keeping the lawsuit open against the doctor who was the person negligent in this case.

I think it is very important that when we know the full story it shows Judge Kuhl, in fact, was very sensitive to this woman's claim and allowed it to go forward. She made sure it went forward, and, in fact, the woman did settle for a full recovery.

I just wanted to set the record straight because I thought there was a misimpression in the record about Judge Carolyn Kuhl, and I would hope we would acknowledge she did let this case go forward and there was a recovery.

I think Judge Kuhl is an outstanding judge. After looking at her record very fully, I am very pleased to support her. I am very aware she is supported in a bipartisan way by many people in California, and most certainly when we talk about needing some balance on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals I think Judge Carolyn Kuhl would be an excellent addition to bring some balance to this circuit that is the most reversed circuit in the entire United States of America. Of all the circuit courts of appeal in the United States of America, the Ninth Circuit is the most reversed by the Supreme Court. I think that would tend to show we need some balance on this court, and I would hope Judge Carolyn Kuhl would get a fair vote, because if she does, she will get the majority in this body. They will look at the facts in her record. They will see how qualified and balanced she is, and she will get confirmation if she has a fair shot.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for letting me bring out the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, and make sure the record is complete on behalf of Judge Carolyn Kuhl.

I thank the Senator from Texas, my colleague, for being here most of the night, as most of us were, and for carrying this debate as a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee who is maybe the only Member of the Senate--I am not sure--he is the only Member I know who has been a member of a supreme court of his State, Texas, and the attorney general of his State. I am very pleased that he has been such an active participant in this debate.

I wish to talk a little bit about the issue of the filibuster as it pertains to judges. We have had a lot of debate about what is a filibuster and did one occur, previous to this, a filibuster on a judicial nominee.

Well, there is an argument about one, and that is Justice Abe Fortas who was promoted to Chief Justice and was turned down by the Senate. ``Turned down'' might not be the right words, but whether or not there was a filibuster is in debate.

There is no debate that there have been no other filibusters of judicial nominees because Members of both parties have tried very hard not to filibuster until 2002 because they know it is the nuclear option. Once it starts, it is going to promote partisanship in this very important constitutional responsibility.

I want to read a letter from former Senator Robert Griffin, who was a Member of the Senate during the Fortas debate. He quotes an Associated Press piece which, in discussing the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to replace Chief Justice Earl Warren, said:

Republicans filibustered the nomination and Johnson backed

off.

Here are his words:

Whether intended or not, the inference read by many would

be: Since the Republicans filibustered to block Justice

Fortas from becoming Chief Justice, it must be all right for

the Democrats to filibuster to keep President Bush's nominees

off the appellate courts. Having been on the scene in 1968,

and having participated in that debate, I see a number of

very important differences between what happened then and the

situation that confronts the Senate today.

First of all, four days of debate on a nomination for Chief

Justice is hardly a filibuster.

Now, we are talking about people who have been nominated for over 2 years, who have had numerous cloture votes. That is a big difference. He goes on to say:

While a few Senators, individually, might have contemplated

use of a filibuster, there was no Republican party position

that it should be employed. Indeed, the Republican leader of

the Senate, Everett Dirksen, publicly expressed his support

for the Fortas nomination shortly after the President

announced his choice. Opposition in 1968 to the Fortas

nomination was not partisan. Some Republicans supported

Fortas; and some Democrats opposed him.

When on October 1, 1968, a vote was taken on the first and

only cloture motion, the count was: 45 in favor of the motion

[for cloture] and 43 against. Of course, those opposed to the

nomination were jubilant, not only because the count fell far

short of the \2/3\ then required to impose cloture but, after

reviewing the leanings of the absentees, we were more

confident than ever that we had, or would achieve, majority

support for our position [against Justice Fortas]. Of course,

it also demonstrated that the White House could not produce

the showing of a majority in favor of the nomination. Even if

four days of debate were to be characterized as a filibuster,

it could not be claimed that our debate was thwarting the

will of the majority. Needless to say, that picture stands in

stark contrast with the tactics employed these days by Senate

Democrats.

President Johnson the next day withdrew the nomination.

The difference here is, there was not a partisan filibuster. There was not a majority that could be counted, and if anyone knows former Senator Lyndon Johnson, who was President of the United States, they know he was a vote counter. The Senator, now President Johnson at the time, withdrew the nomination because he did not have the majority vote for the nomination. So there has not been this kind of partisan filibuster. Both parties have refused to allow it to happen for good reason, and I would hope it would end today as well.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask consent that the Senator modify her request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes be vitiated, the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive

votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no intervening action or debate.

Then I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I certainly understand the sentiments of the distinguished deputy leader. We do all want to be able to do that, and we will be able to go in shifts. All Members are very interested in what is going on and very pleased that there is action by the United States to make sure that we do everything possible for the stability of Iraq. But we are in a very important debate. We are debating a constitutional issue. I would have to object.

To follow along with what the distinguished Senator from North Carolina was saying, Justice Priscilla Owen, a personal friend of mine who I have known for years, isn't it true that she was endorsed by every newspaper in Texas when she ran for reelection to the Supreme Court of Texas, every single one?

It was really phenomenal. In fact, isn't it true that she got the highest number of votes of any person running for the supreme court that year?

I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: There are not enough hours in the universe that would be sufficient for debating Justice Owen's nomination. I thought that was very interesting because, the fact is, if we had 1 more minute of debate, it wouldn't matter, because she already has a majority vote in the Senate. Isn't that true?

If she has the majority vote on the floor of the Senate, and the Constitution says that advise and consent is not a supermajority, that is what it implies because it didn't ask for a supermajority, then why isn't she sitting on the Fifth Circuit bench right now?

You know, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina is a graduate of Harvard Law School. She went through when it was very tough. I am a graduate of the University of Texas Law School, and there were five women in my class of 500. So we know what it is like to go through those hard times and graduate from law school. Frankly, we would have a hard time finding a job.

Priscilla Owen went through that. She has known the tough times. She has known herself to be superior. That is why I appreciate the Senator from North Carolina talking about my friend, Justice Owen, and why I am standing up for her today, because I know what she has been through. She has come out on top. She has come out on top in everything she has done, and she would have gotten a majority vote on the floor of the Senate. She deserves to be sitting on the Fifth Circuit today.

I will ask this final question. Why in the world would the Senate put a blemish on the record of a woman who has high moral standards, who has faced the electorate and won overwhelmingly, who has been endorsed by every newspaper in Texas, and got the highest number of votes the year she ran? Why would the Senate keep her from getting the appointment she is so qualified for?

I thank the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I think in hearing the debate, the most egregious misrepresentation I have heard is about Judge Carolyn Kuhl and a case she had, where there was a woman who was being examined who had breast cancer, and there was someone in the room who was not a doctor, a person from a pharmaceutical company. It was said she callously let the pharmaceutical company be dropped from the case. Isn't it true, though, there was also an action against the doctor who was negligent, and she kept the lawsuit alive so that woman could have a recovery?

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the senior Senator from Alaska.

I yield up to 7 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.

Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.

I yield up to 4 minutes to the senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

I yield up to 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.

I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici.

I yield up to 1 minute to the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to take up to 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable men and women who have, over the years, placed their lives in danger to preserve ours. On this Veterans Day, we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. We express sincere gratitude for those who continue to serve and protect our freedom, and we honor those families who also contribute every day in service of our country.

On the heels of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, this Veterans Day is particularly significant. As we speak, American and allied soldiers continue to fight and die in defense of our liberty. Many are face to face with danger at this very moment.

It is these remarkable men and women, past and present, who embody the democratic ideals that are the foundation of our great Nation. I would like to share with you the story of one soldier who recently lost his life in Iraq. The following commentary was written by LTC John Kem, a former Army legislative fellow who worked on the Subcommittee on Military Construction during his year here. He wrote:

There are very few events more poignant than a memorial

service for a fallen Soldier. The service finishes with a

final roll call by the company first sergeant of the

Soldier's squad members. Each Soldier in turn responds:

``Here, first sergeant.'' Then, three times in a row, the

first sergeant calls out the dead Soldier's name. Finally,

after the third silent pause, waiting for a response that

will never come, a lone bugler sounds Taps.

This evening [he said] I went to a memorial service for

Private Second Class Jonathan Falaniko. Jonathan was killed

on Oct. 27 in Baghdad by a rocket-propelled grenade. As you

would expect, the memorial service was sad, but it was also a

profound lesson on faith, selfless service and a family's

love.

Jonathan's unit, the 70th Engineer Battalion, is part of

the Army's 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade. The senior

enlisted soldier in the brigade happened to be Jonathan's

father, Command Sergeant Major Ioakimo Falaniko.

After the company commander and a few of Jonathan's friends

spoke at the memorial service, the command sergeant major

stepped forward and spoke. He spoke about Jonathan as both a

soldier and a son.

Sergeant Major Falaniko read from a few of Jonathan's

recent letters.

For a point of reference, Jonathan was a new soldier who had been in the Army less than 6 months. He attended basic training beginning in May 2003 and deployed to Iraq in August of this year. The following quotes are from some of his letters in the last few months of his life:

Dad, I love being in the Army and I love serving my

country.

Dad, this is where I belong, and this is where I need to be

with you and the other iron soldiers.

Dad, I push myself hard because I know the drill sergeants

expect a lot out of me.

Dad, Iraq is a mess and I am glad we are here to fix it.

Sergeant Major Falaniko finished by sharing from his heart talking about the kind of kid his was; the kind that loved his sisters and sent them money on every payday just to let them know he was thinking about them.

He concluded by saying to the hundreds of soldiers there at their memorial service, from the three-star general to the private:

What our country brings to Iraq is a chance for freedom and

democracy . . . making a difference every day. My son died

for a good cause . . . he answered the Nation's call like a

typical American soldier. Jonathan was accomplishing his

mission, doing what he was supposed to be doing. He had a big

heart and he was proud to be a soldier.

Then, First Sergeant Allen called:

Private Falaniko.

And there was silence.

Again, he called:

Private Jonathan Falaniko.

And finally:

Private Jonathan Ioakimo Falaniko.

Silence prevailed.

Jonathan Falaniko was a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice. Both he and his father are examples of what makes our Army and our country great.

The Army and our Nation mourn his death. That young man--a soldier for not even a full year--was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on Friday.

On this Veterans Day, I think we should reflect on the wonderful young men and wonderful fathers who would put service to country above all else, for they are the ones who are protecting the freedom that we enjoy today.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask what the allocation of time is.

Mr. President, let me ask the Democratic Senator in the Chamber if that is enough time for them to finish. We need to be through at 12:15.

How much more would that extend the time on the other side? How much more time would

that give us if we equally divided that, our 5 minutes plus the extra?

Mr. President, I do not think we need 28 minutes. I was going to ask for 5 minutes for the Senator from Alabama, which we have left on our side. I think if you wanted----

Fifteen?

Mr. President, if I could ask a unanimous consent request and see if this is what people want: that there be 15 minutes divided on the Democratic side as they wish and 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, for a total of 20 minutes from now. Is that an acceptable unanimous consent request to all on the floor?

Mr. President, Charlye O. Farris was licensed to practice law by the State of Texas on November 12, 1953.

She was the first African American woman licensed to practice law in Texas.

On July 7, 1954, when Charlye O. Farris became a special county judge in Wichita County, TX, she became the first African American to serve in the South as a judge in any capacity since Reconstruction.

Charlye O. Farris is a native of Wichita Falls, TX, and a graduate of Booker T. Washington High School and Prairie View A&M College. She earned her Bachelor of Laws degree from Howard University in May, 1953, and has overcome significant and numerous barriers in order to practice law. She is the recipient of the Gertrude E. Rush Award of the National Bar Association for her service and achievements as an African American lawyer.

Charlye O. Farris received the Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award from the Commission on Women in the Profession of the American Bar Association, which recognizes women who have excelled in the legal profession and helped pave the way for other women entering the field. Her accomplishments as a woman, African American, lawyer, and community leader have made her a role model for countless Texans. Senator John Cornyn and I congratulate

Charlye O. Farris on the occasion of her 50th anniversary as a lawyer practicing in Texas.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to implementing the mandatory country-of-origin labeling, also known as COOL.

This Legisition would devastate the U.S. meat industry, cost thousands of American jobs and raise food prices for the customers the law purports to benefit.

The USDA recently found the U.S. livestock industry would incur significannt costs and virtually no benefits from mandatory COOL. It concluded there was little evidence that mandatory country-of-origin labeling would lead to an increase in demand for commodities bearing the U.S. label, nor would it result in increased food safety. Rather, it found that COOL would impose up to $4 billion on ag industries in the first year and up to $600 million annually after the program had been in place for a decade. Inevitably,

these costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the supermarket.

A recent Texas A&M University study estimated that changes brought about by mandatory country-of-origin labeling would cost nearly 2,000 jobs in south Texas alone. Mandatory COOL would force many small producers with fewer and than 50 head of cattle out of business entirely. This would be a devastating blow just when our economy is beginning to show signs of recovery.

In addition to the impact on consumers and the American meat industry, the imposition of COOL raises serious trade ramifications that could invite retaliation from important trade partners. In the midst of negotiating free and fair trade agreements with nations around the globe, imposing severe restrictions such as COOL hamper our efforts to break down trade barriers and grow the global economy.

No one disputes that food safety is critical. But both supporters and opponents of COOL have stated this is a marketing issue and not one of food safety. When questioned by Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas in a recent House Agriculture hearing on this issue, every witness, including supporters such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union agreed COOL should not be associated with food safety, but with the marketing of agriculture products.

U.S. agricultural industries provide the highest quality products in the world. Congressional actions should help, not hinder, their efforts. Imposing severe, costly restrictions that amount to nothing more than a marketing ploy is not the way to proceed.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the sense-of-the-Senate amendment and commit to a thoughtful and thorough debate on this important issue.

Madam President, there is an additional 5 minutes on our side. How much time remains on our side with the additional 5 minutes?

Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to allocate up to 5 minutes to Senator Craig, up to 10 minutes to Senator Cochran, and the remaining time to Senator Santorum.

Madam President, I think it is very important that all of us look for ways to create jobs. We are very concerned about jobs not keeping up with the recovery. That is why we are trying to pass an energy bill. It is why we are trying to make sure we keep the tax cuts so that people will spend the money they have. That is why we have seen an increase in the value of the stock market. It is very important that we continue to focus on jobs. And I assure you, the President and the Congress are going to do that.

Thank you, Madam President.