Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Arkansas's and America's preeminent educators, Dr. Tom Goodwin of Hendrix College. Dr. Goodwin was honored last week with a United States Professor of the Year Award as the Outstanding Baccalaureate College Professor of the Year by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He was one of four, in the entire Nation to be honored for their dedication to undergraduate education and teaching and their commitment to students.

It is not often, that one gets recognized for one's life's work. It is even less often that the recognition comes when the recipient is still at the height of his career. I wish to congratulate Dr. Goodwin on behalf of all Arkansans for this wonderful accomplishment. Dr. Goodwin has dedicated his entire professional life, over 25 years, to the education of young people. During a time when many are concerned with publishing, research, and the advancement of their own careers, Dr. Goodwin has remained focused on the reasons he entered academia-- the fostering and development of the leaders and great thinkers of the next generation. And I, for one, agree with him. He has done what so many teachers try to do. Some are more successful than others. Some are outstanding researchers who make wonderful discoveries that further the scientific knowledge of mankind. Some are great administrators who manage the machinery from which these great discoveries are churned. Still, Dr. Goodwin has made the greatest discovery of all. He has discovered that all of the advancements of the human race, all of the great mechanizations from which these advancements come mean nothing without the continuity of people teaching other people. Knowledge in a vacuum, doesn't further the human condition. For the human condition to move forward, to change for the betterment of all, we must learn. We must teach. ``For the end of man is to know.'' That's one of my favorite literary quotes, from Robert Penn Warren's All The King's Men. The end of man keeps moving farther, just beyond the outstretched reach of our hands. To reach the ends, man must continue to know. Dr. Goodwin has found the best way to accomplish this; the best way to achieve the end is through a partnership between teacher and student. The disbursement of knowledge; what it is, how to get it, where to find it, becomes the primary objective for a multigenerational team working together. Dr. Goodwin has achieved this elusive goal. A seamless partnership between professor and student, with both benefiting from the contributions of the other, both contributing toward the end of man.

But don't take it from me. His colleagues and his students realize the impact Dr. Goodwin has had on the minds and motivations of young people. They refer to him not only as teacher and scholar, but also as mentor and friend. Dr. John Churchill, secretary of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and former Dean of Hendrix College notes, ``To see Tom Goodwin with students is to feel the power of his expectations. It is also

to feel the warm, personal support, extended toward their efforts. He epitomizes the tension of the best undergraduate liberal arts professors: demanding rigor and providing support. He takes a wide- ranging interest in his students' education. He helps them grow into well-rounded intellects.'' His colleagues in the Chemistry Department at Hendrix College, Dr. Liz Gron, testifies to the amount of time and attention Dr. Goodwin gives his work. ``He wants every student to succeed and he provides a number of different venues in order to support different learning styles. Tom schedules four help sessions a week, as well as time-independent exams to accommodate students that synthesize concepts more slowly.'' His students agree. ``Dr. Goodwin offered many, many hours of his personal time, both in the laboratory and the classroom, to help me conquer the very difficult subjects I was studying,'' says Daniel Mwanza, a former student at Hendrix. Many other former students agreed and wrote statements similar to Mr. Mwanza's in support of his nomination for this award. So you see, this man is important to his students, important to his colleagues and institution, and important to education across this country. I am proud to serve him and I am proud he is my constituent. Dr. Goodwin represents the highest tradition of education in this country. He inspires his students to achieve more than they would alone. He is deeply deserving of this award, and I wish to congratulate him for this monumental achievement.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the 2004 Defense authorization conference report. Even though there are some provisions I am disappointed in--some of the environmental matters and how those issues got worked out, and a few other issues, and I don't want to dwell on the negative--there are two reasons I signed on to the conference report and why I encourage my colleagues to vote for this conference report.

Those two reasons are sitting right in the front, Senator John Warner and Senator Carl Levin. They have demonstrated a true spirit of bipartisanship. It has been a great model for me as a new Senator to sit on this committee and watch these two Senators fight for their causes but do it in a very fair and open manner and deal with each other in such a constructive way. I thank them for their leadership.

They worked through dozens and dozens of very difficult issues. Nobody got their way completely. But they showed great leadership and great stewardship. I want to publicly acknowledge them and thank them, especially Chairman Warner because he has been extremely fair to the minority.

Again, we don't always get our way, but I think he has demonstrated the camaraderie and the comity that we should have in the Senate.

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

Mr. President, in this 2\1/2\ minutes, I would like to thank some people for tonight. I would like to thank the staffers who are here on both sides. I would like to thank the Senate staff, the Sergeant at Arms staff, the doorkeepers, the cloakroom staff, all the various people who make the trains run on time around here, because I certainly understand they have families to go home to, that they have lives outside of these halls. I know the sacrifice they are making tonight to be here.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their viewpoints. We may differ on some of these issues, but I appreciate their opinions and respect their viewpoints and the zealousness by which they approach the subject at hand.

I want to thank colleagues on my side who are here in the wee hours of the night and will be here throughout the day tomorrow to talk about these issues that are very important to the people of this country. I know members of the Senate on our side of the aisle are equally passionate about these issues. Some of this is a matter of opinion. Some of it is a matter of fact and history and tradition. Certainly people on this side of the aisle are very passionate about this.

In the couple of minutes I have remaining, I want to acknowledge some of the hard work the people in this institution and around this institution have put into this 30-hour filibuster or marathon debate, whatever one wants to call it, because it has come at quite a sacrifice to the members of the staff in this body.

Do I have any time remaining?

I would again thank my colleague from Arkansas. We have a great tradition in our State of sending strong Senators to Washington, and certainly Senator Lincoln is one of those. She shows great leadership not just for the State but for the Nation. I want to thank her for her contribution tonight.

Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleague from South Dakota, who has done such an outstanding job tonight, and always.

Tonight I would like to read a portion of a book that won the Pulitzer Prize recently. It is called ``Master of the Senate.'' It is about Lyndon Baines Johnson as a Senator, not as President. It was written by Robert Caro. It is 1,040 pages. I assure you I am not going to read all thousand pages tonight. I am just going to read a few excerpts from chapter one. Chapter one is entitled ``The Desks of the Senate.'' I am only going to read a small portion of chapter one. I will be starting on page 3. But I think it is important for us to all put this in context and remember what the Senate is all about and how it works and how it is designed to function within our constitutional system. So, if I may start midway down, on page 3.

When a person stood on the floor of the Senate Chamber,

however--in the well below the dais--the dais was, suddenly,

not plain at all. Up close, its marble was a deep, dark red

lushly veined with grays and greens . . .

In fact, on this pilaster behind me you can see those colors Mr. Caro is referring to here.

. . . and set into it, almost invisible from the galleries--

We have a number of people in the gallery tonight.

. . . almost invisible from the galleries, but, up close,

richly glinting, were two bronze laurel wreaths like the

wreaths that the Senate of Rome bestowed on generals with

whom it was pleased, when Rome ruled the known world--and the

Senate ruled Rome.

From the well, the columns and pilasters behind the dais

were, suddenly, tall and stately and topped with scrolls,

like the columns of the Roman Senate's chamber, the

columns before which Cato spoke and Caesar fell, and above

the columns, carved in cream-colored marble, were eagles,

for Rome's legions marched behind eagles. From the well,

there was, embroidered onto each pale damask panel, an

ornament in the same pale color and all but invisible from

above--a shield--and there were cream-colored marble

shields, and swords and arrows, above the doors. And the

doors--those seven pairs of double doors, each flanked by

its tall columns and pilasters--were tall, too, and their

grillwork, hardly noticeable from above, was intricate and

made of beaten bronze, and it was framed by heavy, squared

bronze coils. The vice presidential busts were, all at

once, very high above you; set into deep, arched niches,

flanked by massive bronze sconces, their marble faces,

thoughtful, stern, encircled the Chamber like a somber

evocation of the Republic's glorious past. And, rising

from the well, there were the desks.

Let me pause here because these desks have a lot of history. In fact, I think it is safe to say almost all of American history in some way or another has flowed through the Senate. I don't think that is an overstatement.

The desks of the Senate rise in four shallow tiers, one

above the other, in a deep half circle. Small and spindly

individually, from the well they blend together so that with

their smooth, burnished mahogany tops reflecting even the dim

lights in the ceiling so far above them, they form four

sweeping, glowing arcs. To stand in the well of the Senate is

to stand among these four long arcs that rise around and

above you, that stretch away from you, gleaming richly in the

gloom: powerful, majestic. To someone standing in the well,

the Chamber, in all its cavernous drabness, is only a setting

for those desks--for those desks, and for the history that

was made at them.

The first forty-eight of those desks--they are of a simple,

federal design--were carved in 1819 to replace the desks the

British had

burned five years before. When, in 1859, the Senate moved

into this Chamber, those desks moved with them, and when, as

the Union grew, more desks were added, they were carved to

the same design. And for decades--for most of the first

century of the Republic's existence in fact; for the century

in which it was transformed from a collection of ragged

colonies into an empire--much of its history was hammered out

among those desks.

Daniel Webster's hand rested on one of those desks when, on

January 26, 1830, he rose to reply again to Robert Hayne.

I am not going to go into that story because it should be known by most people who follow Senate history, one of the more famous exchanges in the history of the Senate. Let me skip on to page 7 and talk about what I really think is important for us to consider this morning:

The long struggle of the colonies that were now become

states against a King and the King's representatives--the

royal governors and proprietary officials in each colony--had

made the colonists distrust and fear the possibilities for

tyranny inherent in executive authority. And so, in creating

the new nation, its Founding Fathers, the Framers of its

Constitution, gave its legislature or Congress not only its

own powers, specified and sweeping, powers of the purse (``To

lay and collect Taxes . . . To borrow Money on the credit of

the United States . . . To coin Money'') and powers of the

sword (``To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal

. . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and

maintain a Navy . . .'') but also powers designed to make the

Congress independent of the President and to restrain and act

as a check on his authority: power to approve his

appointments, even the appointments he made within his own

Administration, even appointments he made to his own Cabinet;

power to remove his appointees through impeachment--to remove

him through impeachment, should it prove necessary; power to

override his vetoes of their Acts. And the most potent of

these restraining powers the Framers gave to the Senate.

While the House of Representatives was given the ``sole power

of Impeachment,'' the Senate was given the ``sole power to

try all Impeachments'' (``And no person shall be convicted

without the Concurrence of Two Thirds of the Members

present''). The House could accuse; only the Senate could

judge, only the Senate convict. The power to approve

presidential appointments was given to the Senate alone; a

President could nominate and appoint ambassadors, Supreme

Court justices, and all other officers of the United States,

but only ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the

Senate.'' Determined to deny the President the prerogative

most European monarchs enjoyed of declaring war, the Framers

gave the power to Congress as a whole, to House as well as

Senate, but the legislative portion of the power of ending

war by treaties, of preventing war by treaties--the power to

do everything that can be done by treaties between nations--

was vested in the Senate alone; while most European rulers

could enter into a treaty on their own authority, an American

President could make one only ``by and with the Advice and

Consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators

present concur.''

I will skip to page 8. It is a discussion of James Madison, the primary designer of our constitutional system of government. Certainly it was a committee effort, but James Madison has been historically credited with playing the major role in its creation, in its design:

How, Madison asked, is ``the future danger''--the danger of

``a leveling a spirit''--``to be guarded against on

republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of

interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded

against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in

the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and

virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of

justice by throwing its weight into that scale.'' This body,

Madison said, was to be the Senate. Summarizing in the

Constitutional Convention the ends that would be served by

this proposed upper house of Congress, Madison said they were

``first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly

to protect the people against the transient impressions into

which they themselves might be led.''

``The use of the Senate,'' Madison said, ``is to consist in

its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with

more wisdom, than the popular branch.'' It should, he said,

be ``an anchor against popular fluctuations.'' He drew for

parallels on classical history, which, he said, ``informs us

of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate.'' In two of

the three ``long-lived'' republics of antiquity, Sparta and

Rome, and probably in the third--Carthage (about whose

governmental institutions less was known)--senators served

for life. ``These examples . . . when compared with the

fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics,

[are] very instructive proofs of the necessity of some

institution that will blend stability with liberty.'' Thomas

Jefferson had been in Paris during the Convention, serving as

minister to France. When he returned, he asked George

Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a

two-house Congress. According to a story that may be

apocryphal, Washington replied with his own question: ``Why

did you pour your tea into that saucer?'' And when Jefferson

answered, ``To cool it,'' Washington said, ``Just so. We pour

House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.''

The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed

to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or

dissent.

And to ensure that the Senate could protect the people

against themselves, the Framers armored the Senate against

the people.

One layer of armor was bolted on to allay the fears of the

states with fewer people, that the more populous states would

combine to gain a commercial advantage or to control

presidential appointments and national policies; the small

states were determined that all states should have an equal

voice in the Congress, so, in what became known as the

``Great Compromise,'' it was agreed that while representation

in the House would be by population, in the Senate it would

be by states; as a result of that provision, a majority of

the people could not pass a law; a majority of the states was

required as well. But there were other, even stronger,

layers. One was size. ``Numerous assemblies,'' Madison

explained, have a propensity ``to yield to the impulse of

sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious

leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.'' so the

Senate would, in Madison's phrase, be ``less numerous.'' Each

state, the Farmers decided, would be represented by only two

senators; the first Senate of the United States consisted of

just twenty-six men.

Now I am going to skip to page 10.

Senators would also be armored against the popular will by

the length of their terms, the Framers decided. Frequent

elections mean frequent changes in the membership of a body,

and, Madison said, from a ``change of men must proceed a

change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change

of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is

inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect

of success.'' What good is the rule of law if ``no man . . .

can guess what the [law] will be tomorrow?'' Guarding against

``mutable policy,'' he pointed out, requires ``the necessity

of some stable institution in the government.'' Edmund

Randolph, as usual, was more blunt. ``The object of this

second branch is to control the democratic branch,'' he said.

``It it not be a firm body, the other branch being more

numerous and coming immediately from the people, will

overwhelm it.'' Senators, he said, should ``hold their

offices for a term sufficient to insure their independency.''

The term sufficient, the Farmers decided, would be six years.

Senators would hold office three times as long as the members

of the ``democratic branch.'' They would hold office longer

than the President held office. And around the Senate as a

whole there would be an additional, even stronger, layer of

armor. Elections for senators would be held every two years,

but only for a third of the senators. The other two-thirds

would not be required to submit their record to the voters

(or, to be more accurate, to their legislatures) at that

time. This last piece of armor made the Senate a ``stable

institution'' indeed. As a chronicler of the Senate was to

write almost two centuries after its creation: ``It was so

arranged that while the House of Representative would be

subject to total overturn every two years, and the Presidency

every four, the Senate, as a Senate, could never by

repudiated. It was fixed, through the staggered-term

principle, so that only a third of the total membership would

be up for re-election every two years. It is therefore

literally not possible for the voters ever to get at anything

approaching a majority of the members of the Institution at

any one time.''

Now I'm going to skip to page 11.

The coat of constitutional mail bolted around the Senate

was sturdy indeed--by design. Under the new Constitution, the

power of the executive and the power of the people would be

very strong. So to enable the Senate to stand against these

powers--to stand against them for centuries to come--the

framers of the Constitution made the Senate very strong.

Wanting it to protect not only the people against their

rulers but the people against themselves, they bolted around

it armor so thick they hoped nothing could ever pierce it.

And for many years the Senate made use of its great powers.

It created much of the federal Judiciary--the Constitution

established only the Supreme Court; it was left to Congress

to ``constitute tribunals inferior,'' and it was a three-man

Senate committee that wrote the Judiciary Act of 1789, an Act

that has been called ``almost an appendage to the

Constitution.'' The Judiciary Act established the system of

federal and district courts, and the jurisdictional lines

between them, that endure to this day, and established as

well the principle, not mentioned in the Constitution, that

state laws were subject to review by federal courts. And

when, sixteen years later, this new creation was threatened

by a concatenation of the very forces the Framers had

feared--presidential power and public opinion--the Senate

saved the Judiciary.

By the way, Mr. President, the Senate has a history of saving the judiciary in critical times. That should be a discussion for a later time. But there is no question that the Senate has served

as protector of the judiciary in our system of government.

The desks (there were thirty-four of them by 1805) had been

removed for this occasion, and the Old Senate Chamber had

been arranged as if it were a tribunal. In the center of one

wall stood the chair of the presiding officer, Vice President

Aaron Burr, as if he were the chief judge, and extending on

his right and left were high-backed, crimson-covered benches,

on which the senators sat, in a long row, judges in a court

from which there was no appeal.

Mr. Caro goes on to explain the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase; here again, the rule of law and the fact we are a nation of laws and not men built up by the Senate. It is the Senate's tradition to stand up for our liberty and for our law.

I wanted to bring this to the Senate's attention. I know my time is drawing to an end. At this point, I yield the remainder of my time.

I object, Mr. President.

I object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am not sure we have anybody in this Chamber or in this body who is more knowledgeable about the economy and economic principles than our colleague from New Jersey. He has proven himself on the field of battle on these economic issues.

How much time do I have left?

I want to spend the next few minutes talking about a man who was one of President Bush's nominees for a judicial post in the Eastern District of Arkansas. He is from Arkansas. While I was not consulted on his nomination, I do support his confirmation. Actually, this ties in a little with Senator Talent's question of a few moments ago. I notice Senator Talent did not accuse the Democrats of being obstructionists. Some have, of course, but I know he did not do that tonight.

This is, as Paul Harvey might say, the rest of the story, or at least a part of the rest of the story. Leon Holmes is a very distinguished lawyer in Little Rock. His academic accomplishments and his love of academia are more than evident when you look at his background and qualifications for office. He has been a clerk for the Arkansas Supreme Court. He has worked for some very prestigious, very well known Little Rock law firms. He has been appointed judge on a couple of occasions for the Arkansas Supreme Court. In fact, I had the privilege of practicing with Leon Holmes in Little Rock in a law firm called Wright Lindsay & Jennings, which is truly a wonderful place to practice law. I got to know Leon well there and saw his legal acumen up close.

I understand Leon's qualifications for office. He has won different awards. The American Bar Association gave him a well qualified/ qualified stamp. He and I may differ on some issues; nonetheless, he is very broadly supported by members of the Arkansas bar, and I support him.

Let me tell you a little bit about the nomination. He was nominated by President Bush on January 29 of this year. He went to the Judiciary Committee. He got out of Judiciary on May 1--over 6 months ago. He got out of Judiciary and he has been languishing on the Executive Calendar ever since. In fact, today I sent a letter to the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the Judiciary chairman, Orrin Hatch, inquiring about the status of Leon Holmes' nomination, asking them to bring his nomination forward. If I may, I would like to read a portion of this letter into the Record. It says:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the

nomination of Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

Mr. Holmes has garnered overwhelming support from the

Arkansas State Bar, of which I am a member, and received the

rating of Qualified/Well Qualified from the American Bar

Association. He possesses the skill, ability, and experience

to enable him to serve as a member of the judiciary. While

Mr. Holmes and I may differ on some issues, I believe he is

well able to carry out his duties according to the

Constitution and that he will apply established precedent as

judicial canons require.

The letter goes on basically asking the majority leader and chairman of the Judiciary Committee to bring his nomination to an up-or-down vote. There is no effort on the Democratic side to filibuster Mr. Holmes' nomination, even though I have no doubt a number of my Democratic colleagues will vote against him. I remain perplexed as to why he has not come to the floor yet.

I am puzzled why the Republican leadership has yet to bring up his nomination. I hope I will receive a response to the letter soon. So as Paul Harvey says, that is the rest of the story.

One reason I wanted to tell this story is because I receive phone calls in our office from Arkansas and around the country asking me to vote for certain of President Bush's nominations. Our staff will tell them: Senator Pryor already voted for 67 of President Bush's judicial nominations, and their response is, ``no, he hasn't.''

Well, sure I have. See, the rest of the story is not being told. I think a lot of people around the country perceive we are blocking every single judicial nomination that comes down the pike, but that is not true. As Senator Corzine mentioned a few minutes ago, the 168 nominations is a historically high number, just like the 98 percentage number is a historically high percentage for approved judicial nominations. I don't think you will find that repeated in American history.

We need to keep this in context. Here I am from Arkansas, and I support one

of the President's nominees, but I cannot get him to the floor. There is no obstruction on Mr. Holmes, and there is not going to be a filibuster. I have talked to many Senators on our side and on the Republican side. Yet he has not come up for a vote yet.

There is one other thing I want to mention in the time I have remaining, and that is, back in April, I signed a letter with a number of my Republican colleagues, freshman colleagues, about this judicial nomination process. I asked the leadership, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, to try to work together with the White House to try to make sure we don't get to this point where we are this morning--that is, gridlock over some of these nominations.

There is enough blame to go around, and the last thing I want is a 30-hour blame-a-thon. I don't want to participate in that. But I do think we need to revisit what we are doing. I think we need to put things in the past and leave them there and move forward on these nominations. If it is payback upon payback, we are never going to get anything done. Both sides have some responsibility there.

Also, I say I believe a big portion of the responsibility rests with the White House. After all, the White House starts this process. The President is the one, under the Constitution, who does the nominating, and I know many of my Democratic colleagues feel they have not been consulted--I know I have not been. They feel they have not been consulted and, in fact, they have been deliberately shut out of the process. I think we need to work with the White House to try to make this better.

I think the White House has a responsibility. We all have some responsibility. I think if we work hard, we can make this process work much better.

How much time do we have on our side?

As I understand what just transpired, his additional 5 minutes or so will be applied to the next hour so I still have 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their zealousness on the issues that are present here with regard to these judicial nominations. I know my colleagues on the Republican side have very strongly held opinions and viewpoints they are very sincere about holding. I may differ with them on some of the particulars and some of the conclusions, but I respect their opinions and I respect their zealousness and their commitment to their cause.

Likewise, on the Democratic side, I have a number of colleagues over here who have done a very good job of poignantly discussing these issues and trying to present the other side of the story. I think they are equally passionate.

In some of the finest traditions of the Senate, this august body, this Chamber, is like an arena where maybe two great competitors come in, hash it out and fight it out. That is how the Senate is designed. It is almost like in the Bible, the Book of Proverbs, as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another. I just hope that is the process we are going through, that we are sharpening the other, that we are making this engine better and we are progressing as a people and as a nation.

I appreciate the Presiding Officer being here. It is the second night in a row the Senator has had the graveyard shift. Someone with your seniority, I am surprised to see down here two nights in a row. I know you are doing your duty for your colleagues and for your Nation. Certainly there are untold numbers of staff people who work for the various Senators, who work for the Senate itself, the Capitol Police, the C-SPAN team. I have been watching some of this at home or in my office and C-SPAN has done a great job. Periodically when a term will come up that may be unfamiliar to the viewers around the country, they will flash up a definition of that term, such as what a filibuster is, what a hold is, whatever the case may be. They have been taking this opportunity to use this as an instructional time for viewers back home to help understand their Government and help understand their Congress.

I thank the cloakroom staff on both sides. I could go down the long list. The stenographers are doing double duty. There are so many people who should be thanked for allowing this marathon to go on. It has put strains on people. I am very sensitive to the fact they have families they need to get home to and they have lives outside of what goes on here on Capitol Hill. I express a deep and sincere debt of gratitude to those people.

Let me talk about the judicial nomination process. Both my colleagues across the Chamber know I signed on to a letter with them this spring about trying to make this process work better. One thing I was concerned about in signing that letter is we might come to this point today where we would lock horns and have some gridlock on a few nominees. I hope we do not get to the point of gridlock overall in this process.

As to the numbers, since we have been here this Congress, I believe we have confirmed 68 of President Bush's nominees and 4 have been blocked. Last Congress, there were an additional 100, so I believe the grand total is 168.

We have seen a lot of charts with numbers and percentages, but I hope the whole process does not bog down. So the people around the country understand, we are talking only about a select few of the nominations, not the overall nomination process.

One thing I was concerned about and one reason we wrote that letter several months ago was because we wanted to try to make the nomination process better.

We want to try to make it more constructive and more productive. To me, a lot of that responsibility rests with the White House. We talked about that very briefly in that letter. I feel strongly that since the President, under the terms of the Constitution, is the one who begins the process of nominating, he and the White House staff need to try to get the Democratic and Republican leaders involved and sit down to try to work through some of these controversial nominations and try to figure out how we can do this better as we move forward.

One thing I am concerned about is we, around here in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, probably more than the House, are so focused on tradition and history and how things have been done in the past that it is human nature, I guess, that we oftentimes cannot put aside the things that happened in the past. Sometimes those things are perceived to have been ill-willed or for whatever reason perceived to have been unfair, unjust, whatever the case may be. Of course, I have said many times that I have a concern that in this judicial nomination process there is sort of partisanship and gamesmanship, and it is just counterproductive for the people.

So, again, I hope we can move forward. I want to try to continue to work with President Bush on his nominations. I believe I voted for 66 of his nominations of judges. In fact, I was talking to my staff the other day, and I said: Well, the people who are calling in about some of these controversial judgeships, what are they saying to you? They say they want Senator Pryor to vote for candidate X, whoever that may be. The staffer will say: We appreciate your call. But we also want you to know he voted for 66 or 67 of President Bush's nominees. Invariably, the person on the other end of the line says: No, he hasn't. Because they are not hearing the other side of the story, that, again, we are only talking about a small percentage of the nominees who are not getting through.

If you look at the numbers and the percentages that President Bush has accomplished since he has been President, they are historically high numbers.

So I want to continue to work with the President and find that common ground. I believe we all have the constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominations. Mostly what I am hearing on the other side--mostly--people believe the Senate should not be a rubberstamp. I think the vast majority of Senators believe the Senate should not be a rubberstamp and an automatic approval process for the President.

I think we have a responsibility to the Nation to look at these-- again, the concept of iron sharpens iron, the President and the Senate sharpening each other, because he knows we will review and look very carefully at the nominations he puts forward. He puts

forward a higher quality nomination than if it was just a rubberstamp. That accountability is a positive thing for the people and for the Government. I take this responsibility seriously. I know all Members of the Senate do take their responsibility very seriously.

Another thing I wish to say is that when I look at judges I kind of have a criteria. I have kind of broken it down into four parts. We try to be consistent in our office when we look at these four factors.

One is just a starting point: Is the nominee qualified? Most of the people who make it through the committee are qualified. I think, again, there is a weeding out process there, but I start with the presumption that if they get to this stage in the process they are qualified.

The second thing I ask myself is, can they be fair and impartial? I think that is an extremely important criteria. Admittedly, it is somewhat subjective. Reasonable minds can differ about if someone can be fair and impartial, and reasonable minds do differ.

Again, that is one thing we get back to in the Senate. Someone like either of my two colleagues, who have spoken here in the last few minutes, who are so articulate and so good, they look at some of those nominees and there is no doubt in their minds, they are going to be fair and impartial. I look at them and I have some doubts. Again, that is how the process works. I am proud that their two States have sent them to the Senate. They are here to do their duty as God gives them the right to do it. I feel like I am here to do the same.

So reasonable minds can differ about being fair and impartial. But regardless of how you come out on the conclusion, that is one of the criteria I use. I think it is extremely important for a judge.

There is another, a third, element I look at; that is, has the nominee demonstrated an ability to exercise and to show the proper judicial temperament? For all the lawyers out there, and all the parties out there, if you have been in court before, you understand how important the judicial temperament can be in cases. Literally these judges oftentimes hold life or death in their hands for a criminal defendant. Or they may hold a business's solvency or whatever the case may be. It is very important. Their temperament oftentimes is determinative in how the case will come out. So again it is subjective, but I try to look at their judicial temperament.

Then the fourth criteria is sort of the elastic clause. The Constitution has an elastic clause, so part of my criteria is kind of an elastic standard--and I don't say standard but elastic consideration--and that is, are there other factors or other circumstances, when you look at these nominees, that should be considered? And, boy, that is just open-ended.

But I think, as Senators, we should consider the totality of the circumstances. We should look at these nominees in a historical context; it may be a social context; it may be something unique to that region or that State or that person. I think it is incumbent on us to look at those carefully.

Here again, it is subjective. Is that something you can really write down as criteria of how it is going to work in every single case? No. Maybe it should not be. Maybe it should be left elastic so it can be changed and be looked at from different perspectives with each particular nominee.

But regardless of that, I do take my role and my duties as a Senator very seriously. One of those roles that I believe very strongly about is the people of Arkansas sent me here to work with everybody else who is up here. If the people of this country want to elect George Bush as President, I am here to work with President Bush. Mississippi sends their set of Senators and Texas sends their set of Senators, and Massachusetts and California, and I believe my responsibility, as a Senator for Arkansas, is to work with who is here. That is what I have tried to do, and I will continue to try to do that.

One thing also we need to keep in mind is that these judicial nominations we are talking about today and that we always have under consideration here in the Senate are lifetime appointments. Only under extreme circumstances will these people be removed from office. It is very rare that happens in American history, but it can happen. But these are lifetime appointments.

I think it is critical that our judiciary is independent. I think that is the way our Founding Fathers set it up. We better get these nominees right on the front end because these people will serve for life.

Like I say, they hold justice in their hands. Their application of the law will be determinative for so many things during the course of their careers.

I think, simply put, people are entitled to know what nominees think. I think people are entitled to know about the qualifications. They need to have the assurance that these nominees under consideration by the Senate--the people need to have an assurance that if these people do put on the robe, do serve on the bench, that the integrity of the system will be there and that these people will do justice, as their responsibility requires.

I personally believe the people of America want a moderate and balanced approach. Personally, I think most Americans do not want to see the courts packed with judges with a conservative agenda or judges with a liberal agenda. I think most Americans want to see moderate, fairminded people on the bench. Because people understand that if you go into this with an agenda, then the courts will not be balanced and that judge and the court will have one dominant point of view. That is not good for our justice system.

I do think there has been a lot of discussion about some of these judges' records. Again, I think those are subject to interpretation. I am not going to try to get into all the particulars of those. We do not have time tonight, plus my colleagues, for the last several hours, the last 30-plus hours, have tried to do that. Many of them have done a very good job.

What I would like to do, if I can, is talk about one thing that does bother me, and that is the fact we are getting toward the end of our calendar year in the Senate and this is crunch time for the Congress to get its work done. In fact, right now our colleagues in the House, down the hall, basically are only meeting about 1 day a week, maybe 2, for votes because they have taken care of a lot of their legislative business--not all. They still have some things pending. But they have gotten theirs down to the point where they do not have to be in very many legislative days. In fact, a lot of what they are doing is waiting on us to accomplish and to finish our business.

Well, here we are spending 30-plus hours in a talkathon about these four judicial nominations that have been blocked. I think we need to keep it in perspective. Some of the Democrats have talked about 3 million jobs that have been lost in the last 3 years and what we are arguing about here are four judicial jobs. Well, that may be fair; that may not be. But I think there is some merit to that.

To keep it in perspective, 98 percent of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed. That is a pretty good percentage. You try to find another percentage like that in history, I am not sure you will find it. Also, when you look at Government and we look at anything involving human events, 98 percent is a pretty high percentage.

So again, I would encourage all of us to try to keep this in perspective. I heard one of my colleagues last night talk about 98 percent of this and 98 percent of that. In fact, it was Senator Chambliss of Georgia. He had a very humorous monologue about that. But the truth is, 98 percent in politics and in Government is a pretty doggone good success rate. In fact, I would go so far as to say I am not sure anybody in Washington ever gets 100 percent of what they want. Most people are happy to get 50 percent of what they want, if they can just get that done.

But regardless of that, I think most people I talk to back home understand that judges are important, and they understand that it is important that we have an independent judiciary, but they also perceive that these four nominations are not urgent to the welfare of our Nation. So that causes me to question why we are doing this right now. If this is a big issue, can't we put it off until another time? But regardless, we find ourselves here. That is just where we are right now.

I want to talk about one other thing that is a concern to people all over the

Nation; that is, losing jobs in the manufacturing sector of our economy. It was announced the other day that one of the great companies in the world, I guess--Michigan-based Whirlpool--plans to move some of its refrigerator production, which is made in Fort Smith, AR--they plan to move those jobs from Fort Smith down to Mexico. Very sad news.

Jim Pickens, who was, until very recently, Arkansas' economic development director, said that it is clear that some of the 4,500 Whirlpool jobs in Fort Smith will go.

The problem with this is it is not an isolated incident. It is a trend. It is something to which we in the Senate should be devoting our time. It is something that folks back home are very concerned about, losing these manufacturing jobs.

One thing that is of particular concern in the Whirlpool case is it was just a few months ago--about a year ago--when Whirlpool made an announcement they were going to actually add 700 jobs in Fort Smith. Of course, there was a lot of excitement about that announcement. Now there is a lot of disappointment about what Whirlpool has decided to do. I am not saying this to be critical of Whirlpool, but I am saying to my colleagues instead of spending this much time on these four judicial positions, let's spend this much legislative time in trying to figure out how to save our manufacturing sector. Because I think long term when you look at what is good for technology and good for this Government, good for this country, saving those manufacturing jobs is probably more important than these four judgeships we are talking about.

Another thing that I must tell you I experienced today is I went to Walter Reed Hospital, the Army hospital here in the DC area, and talked to men and women who had come out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Very sobering, very serious. These are patriots of the first order. Some of them will have lifelong injuries due to their service to this country.

One thing that was emphasized with us over and over is that Iraq is a very dangerous place right now. There again, I hope, and I sincerely hope, the Senate will spend this much time in deliberation and in consideration of how we should move forward in Iraq and what that future looks like for Iraq.

Mr. President, it does not bother me to work late. This is the second night in a row that I have had a late night slot. But it does bother me a little bit that we may have lost some perspective in that we need to keep these other important issues in perspective. No question that our judiciary is important. That is our third branch of Government. But we also need to keep it in perspective.

Mr. President, may I inquire, how much time do I have remaining?

How much time?

Let me read part of a letter from Robert Caro. He is the man who wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning book, ``Master of the Senate.''

``Master of the Senate'' is the story of Lyndon Johnson when he was a Senator. In June of this year, Robert Caro wrote a letter, not to me, but to Trent Lott and Chris Dodd, the two leaders of the Rules Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.

Mr. President, basically what Robert Caro points out in this letter is:

Several members of the Senate have asked me whether my

research on the history of the Senate sheds light on the

current debate over the role of the Senate with respect to

President Bush's judicial nominations.

Defining the right of extended debate is always tricky. If

it is being used against you, it is a vicious weapon of

obstruction whose use in a democracy is unconscionable. If it

is you who is using that weapon, it is a great one to have in

your arsenal.

I think right there we see the tension Mr. Caro captured so well in his book, but here again he has captured it and framed up the issue very well for us. The right of the filibuster or unlimited debate is something that is viewed very differently, depending which side of the filibuster you are on.

It has historically in this country been used time and time again for almost everything under the Sun--sometimes successfully, sometimes not successfully. One thing he talks about is:

Nonetheless, great care should be taken in placing new

restrictions on that right. Senators who are considering

doing so should understand that they will be taking a step

that has significant implications for the balance of powers

created under the Constitution, and also for another very

fundamental concern in a democracy: the balance between

majority and minority rights.

I have no doubt some of my colleagues on the Republican side genuinely feel the Democrats are out of line in using the filibuster in this context. Also, I have no doubt many of my colleagues on the Democratic side feel we are perfectly within our rights to use the filibuster. Here again, I encourage my colleagues to look at this letter from Robert Caro dated June 3, 2003, which brings a historical-- not a political, not a partisan, but a historical--perspective to what we are talking about tonight and what we will be voting on in the morning.

Again, I thank all my colleagues for being here. It is late-night duty. It is not easy. The staff has just done a fantastic job. My legislative director, Walter Pryor, has been with me every step of the way. I know he would like to get some normalcy back in his life, as do so many of us.

Has my time expired, Mr. President?

Mr. President, again, I thank you and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for all their hard work in bringing these issues to the forefront. I see my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, walk in. We went to Walter Reed Hospital today. I know he has had a long day. I look forward to listening to his remarks.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to again remind this Senate and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about one of the judicial nominees who happens to be from my State of Arkansas, Mr. Leon Holmes.

Leon and I practiced law together in Little Rock for a few years in the late

1980s or early 1990s. He is a very fine person, a very fine man, and a very fine lawyer. I am proud to count him as a friend.

Let me emphasis that Leon Holmes and I don't agree on every single issue. There is no doubt that there are some things he and I disagree on. But I am very respectful of his views because I know that he has arrived at those views through long consideration. He is a man of great integrity and great judgment. President Bush nominated him in January of this year to be a district judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Mr. Holmes is a practicing lawyer in Little Rock, and has been with a number of very prestigious law firms in his legal career. He is considered probably by most people one of the best lawyers in Arkansas, and certainly on certain types of cases would be considered among the best, if not the best. But at any rate, President Bush nominated him in January--if my memory is correct, January 25--and his nomination went to the Judiciary Committee. He came out of the Judiciary Committee on May 1.

For over 6 months now, Mr. Holmes has been languishing on the Executive Calendar. I am troubled as to why he has been languishing like that. I have talked to the Republican leader many times, to the Republican chairman of the Judiciary many times, and I have talked to my colleagues many times. Both Senators from Arkansas are quite puzzled as to why. We have had 30-plus hours of filibuster led by the Republican Party on some of these judicial nominations, and here we have a nomination that we want to proceed on. We want to move forward on that today. To date, there has not been anything scheduled.

Unanimous Consent Request

With that in mind, I would like to ask unanimous consent--I know that we will need a moment to allow someone to come out on the Senate floor--that at a time to be determined by the two leaders, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 165, the nomination of J. Leon Holmes of Arkansas to be U.S. district judge, that it be considered under the following time limitation: 5 hours for debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member, or their designees; that when the time is used or yielded, the Senate without any intervening action or debate vote on confirmation of the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I have worked for months on this nomination.

Let me emphasis that Mr. Holmes was not my nomination. He is President Bush's nomination. I wasn't consulted in any form or fashion before the nomination was put forward. I wasn't brought into the loop at all. The nomination was handed to me. Unfortunately, I continue to work on this and for whatever reason my efforts seem to be falling on deaf ears on the Republican side.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I would like to reiterate what the minority leader has just said. There is no hold on the Democratic side on this nomination. All systems are go on this side. I have talked to my Democratic colleagues and we are ready to vote Mr. Holmes up or down.

Quite frankly, I know on a personal level that Mr. Holmes is ready to be voted up or down.

Again, thank you, Mr. President, for the time. I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Veterans Day, our

national day of remembrance established to solemnly honor the sacrifices of American men and women who have served in military actions in behalf of our country.

We recognize these men and women for preserving our liberty, freedoms and democratic way of life. For me, as a first-year Senator representing the men and women of Arkansas, this is an especially noteworthy Veterans Day. Since September 11th, numerous Arkansans have engaged in our battle against terrorism, serving in Afghanistan and other points abroad. This fall, over 3,000 men and women of Arkansas, members of our 39th Infantry Brigade of the Arkansas National Guard, are preparing to travel to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Every day my prayers include the brave men and women of Arkansas who serve, and have served, in our armed forces. I pray that every single one of our brave Americans in uniform will return safely home to the loving arms of their families.

Sadly, many of our veterans have not returned safely home. Many of our veterans have paid the ultimate price, sacrificing their lives on the altar of freedom. We must never forget their sacrifices. We must never forget the cost of freedom paid by our veterans.

As he gazed on the battlefield at Gettysburg in 1863, Abraham Lincoln uttered, ``The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.''

I am in a similar situation today, unable to articulate anything which even comes close to capturing the debt of gratitude each and every one of us owes our veterans. No words can capture my gratitude, or the gratitude of Arkansas, towards our veterans.

Yet, as I mentioned, Veterans Day is a day of remembrance. This is a day to honor and remember those who have served in our armed service. Last week, I had the distinct pleasure and unique opportunity to talk with Johnie ``Chick'' Matthews. Chick, at 102 years old, is Arkansas's oldest living veteran.

Mr. Johnie ``Chick'' Matthews, a resident of Greenbrier, Arkansas, first answered the call to duty to serve this country in 1917. That was 86 years ago.

He was given the nickname Chick because he enlisted into the United States Army when he was only 16 years old. He was the youngest at his training facility at Camp Pike, AR.

His mother was a widow with mouths to feed and he realized that he needed to help shoulder the financial responsibilities of caring for his mother and brothers.

He went to Little Rock to enlist in the Army. He lied about his age. The recruiter said: We are not sure we believe you, so go home and get your mother to sign this document. When he went back home, he was scared to take it to his mother because he was afraid she would not sign the age waiver so he went to a neighbor woman and said: Mother hurt her hand and she cannot sign this. Can you sign this on her behalf? She did, and he was enlisted in the U.S. Army.

At the age of 16, he was the youngest soldier in his unit, probably one of the youngest in the Army. But when it was all said and done, as he ended his military career, Chick had completed 46 years of military service spanning World War I through Vietnam. That is truly remarkable. In addition, he served in four branches--the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marine.

When I talked to Chick, I was entertained and captivated by his stories, but most of all I was impressed by his sense of duty. In fact, when I asked him if he would recommend military service to others, he said: If they would let me in, I would be there tomorrow morning to sign up.

In addition to Chick Matthews, I recognize another veteran who is a bit younger, but no less committed, to his country and to the State of Arkansas. Randy Massanelli is a native Arkansan who dutifully served in the U.S. Army for 15 years. While in the Army, he rose to the rank of major and served in Desert Storm where he was awarded the Bronze Star. Now he serves as my State director in Little Rock. I am grateful for the knowledge, experience, and perspective he brings to the office as I work to do what is best, not just for veterans and the troops around the country and around the world, but also for the people of Arkansas.

I have known Randy since we were both at the University of Arkansas as undergraduates. I thank him today. He has shown me time and time again what true devotion to his country really is. I am lucky to have him on my team and I am proud to call him a friend. I honor him today as a great veteran.

Last, I want to recognize another veteran on my staff, Wayne Palmer, who also served in Desert Storm. Wayne is a tremendous asset to my office. I thank him for his service to our country.

Arkansans throughout the years have followed Chick's, Wayne's, and Randy's lead. I am proud to boast about my State's tradition of military service. As veterans continue to risk life and limb for us, I will work as hard as I can to make sure they are taken care of before, during, and after their mission is completed.

In the coming days, we will vote on the Defense authorization conference report. As a conferee, I was proud to work on this legislation, which includes a 3.7 percent across-the-board military pay increase, expands TRICARE coverage for the Guard and Reserve personnel and their families, and provides benefits and programs to improve the overall quality of the pay for our service men and women.

This legislation also authorizes disabled military retirees to collect their retirement pay and disability compensation, otherwise known as concurrent receipt. This measure would benefit millions of Americans who have served our country for years but have been prohibited from receiving both retirement compensation and VA disability benefits.

Correcting this inequity for our veterans is long overdue--in fact, 110 years overdue. I made a promise to take care of our service men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. This provision indicates Congress's intention to finally honor its word.

I am also looking forward to debating the VA/HUD appropriations bill where I have an understanding we will be looking to add $1.3 billion to veterans health care. We cannot discount the importance of this funding, especially as more veterans come home from Afghanistan and Iraq and the global world on terrorism. We must ensure that the Veterans' Administration has the resources it needs to look after those men and women who look after us.

Mostly, this Veterans Day fills me with a sense of security and pride because of my faith in the ability and skills of our men and women in uniform. This faith nourishes my hope for a peaceful future for my children and the children of Arkansas.

I know our men and women in uniform are the most capable fighting force on Earth. I know these individuals will willingly endure personal sacrifice and danger to defend our democratic values, just as our veterans of yesteryear endured personal sacrifice and danger to provide us the freedom and democracy we enjoy today. I know our Armed Forces will be victorious in their mission.

On this Veterans Day, I extend my gratitude and the gratitude of every Arkansan to our veterans and their families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has recently come to my attention that there is urgent need to construct a new medical facility with the associated water and sewer capability in Heber Springs in my home State of Arkansas.

Heber Springs is located in the medically underserved rural part of north-central Arkansas. It is the only hospital in Cleburne County and surrounding areas providing treatment for local citizens.

Yes, this 34-year-old facility is the only one in this county and surrounding areas. Secondary facilities are approximately one hour in driving distance. Additionally, the population of Cleburne County and secondary service areas have grown more than threefold during the past thirty-four years.

The emergency room experienced over 8,000 visits during 2001. This volume of patients cannot be managed safely or efficiently in a thirty-four year old emergency room with a four patient capacity. Additionally, the hospital operated on 851 patients in 2001 with only one small preoperative room available and three beds available for recovery. The volume of outpatients reached 13,649 in that year. The current facility has been found deficient by both the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Arkansas Department of Health.

I would request that this community be included in the conference report under the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) for the Community Facility Loan and Grant Program and the Water and Waste Loan and Grant Program for consideration of funding for a new facility with water and sewer assistance.

I thank you for consideration of these requests.

energy photovoltaics in rural areas

Mr. President, last month, this body overwhelmingly voted to stop unwanted phone calls from telemarketers. We put our foot down and stopped these uninvited guests from barging into our home, interrupting our family time and invading our privacy. I would like to think that families can enjoy a peaceful dinner now that we have allowed the Do-Not-Call list to move forward.

Today we address a similar problem--America's e-mail inboxes have been invaded by unwanted and deceptive e-mail solicitations. Not only is this practice annoying and frustrating to our constituents, but the practice is costing consumers and businesses valuable time and resources.

In a report dated January 22, 2003, the Federal Trade Commission indicated that at least 40 percent of all e-mail is spam, with more than half considered to contain false and deceptive information. This has been a problem in my State of Arkansas. The FTC recorded 2,048 fraud and identity theft complaints from Arkansas consumers who reported having lost $1.3 million to these scams.

In addition, businesses are losing money as employees spend time wading through unsolicited e-mail messages and are forced to continuously update their servers and software in an attempt to avoid spam and prevent worms and viruses that are submitted through spam.

One thing I have learned as Senator is that this body does not agree often on the root of a problem. But I know for sure that each of us can agree that we have better things to do with our time than delete dozens of emails about the latest diet craze or money scheme. Even more, I know none of the mothers and fathers in this body want their children to receive emails that contain inappropriate sexual material. Neither do the mothers and fathers in Arkansas.

Now is the time to crack down on deceptive and unsolicited spam once and for all.

This bill which I support has two strong elements:

First, it would require anyone sending unsolicited bulk e-mail directly, or through an intermediary, to provide each recipient with a valid ``opt-out'' process for declining any future spam.

Second, it would outlaw transmitting high-volume unsolicited e-mail sources if they contain false, misleading or deceptive routing information, or forged e-mail addresses.

I am pleased that this bill has been made even stronger with the inclusion of Senator Bill Nelson's RICO statute amendment. I am proud to be named as the provision's original cosponsor.

This amendment encourages the prosecution of those people who use spam to seek money illegally or who engage in other illegal acts by making use of the civil Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO.

RICO makes it illegal to acquire or maintain a business through a pattern of racketeering activity. This law lets authorities seize the assets of such an operation and allows victims grounds for recovery in civil court.

By adopting the amendment, this body has given the overall bill teeth, which will go along way toward punishing those scam artists who prey on the everyday trusting, law-abiding citizens of our land.

As Attorney General I fought to curtail mail fraud and I think some of the spam being sent to Arkansans online is in that same category. The only difference is that this type of fraud reaches many more victims in a shorter period of time.

I look forward to the completion of this bill, and I am pleased that we have again been able to work in a bipartisan matter to carry out the will of the populace.

Mr. President. I rise today to address the historic legislation before the Senate. I refer to S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004.

Let me begin with what seems to be the reaction of most Americans. I am captivated by the sheer sum of the bill--$87 billion.

Once beyond the initial sticker shock, I began to look at the content of this package. I was sent to the Senate by Arkansans in part to watch over the Federal budget so I wanted to know what Americans were getting for their hard-earned $87 billion--$87 billion that will propel our Nation even further into debt.

I want to go on record commending the work of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. They did the best that they could given the circumstances. I think that I am a fair-minded American but this $87 billion request was dumped in Congress's lap by the President on September 17, 2003.

Today is October 17 only 4 weeks since we have received this package. It takes most people longer to do their taxes than we have had to figure out an $87 billion package. And while we have heard testimony from the top brass in the Defense Department, we have not from any outside witnesses with views that might differ from the administration. For instance, would it not make sense to hear from the Iraqi Governing Council regarding this bill?

Regardless, here we are, and I have made every effort to fairly examine this package. This is what I have found.

The $87 billion package is broken down into two titles--National Security and International Affairs.

Title I, the National Security section of the bill, provides $66.5 billion to carry out the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee report accompanying S. 1689 says that these funds are for increased operational tempo, military personnel costs, military construction, procurement of equipment, increased maintenance and military health care support.

Title II, the International Affairs section of the bill, provides $21 billion to help secure the transition to democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee states that these funds are for enhanced security and reconstruction activities including border enforcement, building a national police service in Iraq, standing up a new Iraqi army and continued building of the Afghan National Army, reconstituted judicial systems, rehabilitation of Iraq's oil infrastructure, and provision of basic electricity, water and sewer services and other critical reconstruction needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let me tell you that once into the details, there is much in this bill that is straightforward and I wholeheartedly support.

For example, under the National Security section, this bill contains $1.2 billion for enhanced Special Pays including Family Separation Allowance, Imminent Danger Pay, and Hostile Duty Pay. The Senate Appropriations Committee should be commended for their decision to support the continuation of the Family Separation Allowance and the Imminent Danger Pay at the levels authorized for all of fiscal year 2004, rather than the Defense Department's request.

Title I contains other essential funding for personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, the Defense Health Program, and military construction that one would expect to support our obligations to the uniform services totaling around $62-$63 billion.

I support this funding. It is responsible. It is necessary and part of our obligation to our troops.

The National Security section further provides funding for the Iraq Freedom Fund, the Overseas Humanitarian account, the Disaster and Civic Aid account, drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, and the intelligence community management account. While I wish we had greater details about these programs, I will put my trust in this administration who believes that these funds are needed to support the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, I can only extend so much good faith and trust--which brings us to Title II of the bill. Title II or the International Affairs section of the supplemental is intended to help secure the transition to democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Its price tag is $21 billion.

Some of this reconstruction request makes sense to me, such as the $35 million to establish a U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the $90 million for emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service which includes reward funds to be paid for information leading to the capture or whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It is expensive, but we have to back the work that our troops have done and keep our commitment to the Iraqi people.

But overall I, along with many Arkansans, struggle to embrace the administration's obtuse and costly approach to reconstruction in Iraq.

I have followed the progress of the war in Iraq keenly. I have attended the administration's war briefings faithfully. I have gone to the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings consistently. I have had the benefit of firsthand accounts from Secretary Rumsfeld, Ambassador Bremer, and General John Abizaid, to name a few.

Yet I was not prepared for the strategy, or lack thereof, of rebuilding Iraq.

I was never told that the American people would be footing the entire bill for Iraqi reconstruction. Therefore, I understand the reaction of many Americans. I understand that they have questions and concerns. So do I, and they are reasonable questions:

We must ask: One, what reconstruction efforts should the U.S. be solely responsible for and what should the Iraqis pay for? Two, what does Iraq need, and what does Iraq need right now?

There are many reconstruction items that this administration is asking for that should be scrutinized so we can properly determine whether they are truly needed to stabilize Iraq. I fully understand that Iraq has needs, but Arkansas has needs, too.

The Senate has just had an important debate on this bill and I have used

this time to be open to fresh ideas. There have been a few good alternatives to consider and I have supported several alternatives. One such measure was Senator Byrd's amendment that would have split U.S. troop funding from the Iraqi reconstruction proposal and given Congress an opportunity to sort through some of the administration's more questionable funding requests.

I want to hold this administration accountable but I do not wish to hold our troops hostage. By separating this money, we can ensure our troops get the support they need while making sure we are spending taxpayers' money in a wise and effective manner.

I also supported Senator Dorgan's amendment that would have used Iraqi oil revenues to offset the U.S. direct grant payments. Unfortunately, both amendments failed.

I came to Washington to protect the best interests of my constituents and all Americans. In spite of the rhetoric that many Americans hear every day about the partisan nature of Capitol Hill, last night a vote was held on the Senate floor that demonstrates that my friends on both sides of the aisle take their commitments very seriously.

In the spirit in which this Nation was founded, last night the Senate adopted, with my support, a bipartisan agreement on Iraqi reconstruction. I am proud to support this bipartisan agreement sponsored by Senators Bayh, Ben Nelson, Ensign, Graham and Chambliss, to name a few.

Under the bipartisan agreement, the proposed $20 billion grant to rebuild Iraq will be divided into two parts: One, a $10.2 billion grant for security efforts in Iraq; and, two, a $10 billion loan.

Importantly, the $10 billion loan will be converted into a grant if 90 percent of Iraq's preliberation debts are forgiven. I am told that Iraq may have the largest oil reserve in the world, but is currently captive to more than $100 billion in foreign pre-war debt owed to countries such as Saudi Arabia, France and Russia. Even if the United States were to provide the $10 billion up front as a grant, Iraq will have a very difficult time recovering economically from the burden of the $100 billion debt. This amendment encourages the international community to forgive the debt incurred by Saddam Hussein by leveraging our negotiations for debt relief with the incentive that the United States will provide a $10 billion reconstruction grant--above the $10 billion already provided for in the supplemental--if the international community forgives 90 percent of its bilateral debt.

I support this proposal. It would help the Iraqi people and it would provide a long-term solution to rebuilding Iraq. More importantly, it helps the United States to move forward on our own important domestic spending, as the Iraqi debt issue will hopefully be resolved. I hope that the administration will join in supporting this bipartisan plan.

Wars must be paid for and I intend to honor our commitments. I will support the amended version of the $87 billion Iraq supplemental bill. It supports our troops and it starts to address a long-term solution for the economic viability of Iraq. I believe that this amended request offers a better solution than what was originally offered by administration. It is a small, but positive step toward meeting our obligations in Iraq while protecting the American taxpayer.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Cantwell's Truth in Deployment amendment. This amendment supports our reserve forces and corrects an error in our deployment process.

I am extremely proud of our reserve forces. The Arkansas Army National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade is beginning their mobilization in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 39th Infantry Brigade consists of over 3,000 soldiers who are ready to serve their country.

The 39th Infantry Brigade soldiers are going to sacrifice time away from their family, place their civilian careers on hold, and place at risk the greatest gift provided by our Creator, their very life, to protect the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear.

If the 39th Infantry Brigade and other reserve forces are willing to do so much without complaint, I believe it is not too much to ask that we provide them as much opportunity as possible to minimize the impact of overseas deployments on themselves, their families and their employers. This amendment provides for this opportunity.

This amendment is straightforward. It starts the deployment period for members of the reserve component as the date of activation. This has always been the standard practice, prior to the administration's shift in policy on September 9th. This amendment simply asks our Nation to remain true to the standard practice, tradition of considering the date of activation as the date of deployment for reserve members.

Nothing in this amendment weakens our ability to employ our reserve forces. In fact the exact opposite is the case. This amendment enhances the ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces by enabling them to plan their lives to reduce the inherent adverse impact of overseas deployment on their families, employers, and community. I thank my fellow Senators for supporting this amendment. It will enhance the ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces and support the men and women like those who serve in the 39th Infantry Brigade.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge our Nation's independent community pharmacists for their diligent work, expansion of services, and consistent high quality service.

Independent community pharmacies are a strong part of our health care delivery system and a significant part of local economies. In fact, independent pharmacies, independent pharmacy franchises, and independent chains represent a $67 billion marketplace. Clearly, independent pharmacies create jobs while providing high quality services to consumers.

Independent community pharmacies play a critical role in local communities, a role which has enhanced the level and quality of pharmacist-patient personal interactions and has led to high satisfaction rates from consumers. Independent pharmacies should be commended for their accessibility, immense knowledge about medications, and broad inventories of medications. These observations were validated by more than 32,000 readers surveyed by Consumer Reports, which found that ``more than 85 percent of customers at independent drugstores were very satisfied or completely satisfied with their experience.''

Pharmacists are health care professionals who consistently strive to improve care and promote the safe use of drugs. In addition to dispensing medications, many independent pharmacies offer other services to meet the needs of their customers. This includes providing health screenings, disease management information, and even home delivery.

I am honored today to recognize the achievements of independent pharmacies for their excellent job in serving the pharmaceutical and other health care needs of consumers in their communities. As Congress moves forward with enacting a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it is essential that we preserve the quality care being provided by community pharmacies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the October 2003 issue of Consumer Reports.

Mr. President, today the Senate will consider a bill that is very important to small business owners and their employees. I am referring to S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act. The purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the many needed initiatives at the SBA--from long-term loans and venture capital to help with accessing Government contracts-- that have helped create successful businesses that are now household names to many Americans. To name just a few, Callaway Golf, Ben & Jerry's, Winnebago, Apple Computer and FedEx. In Arkansas, last year, more than 305 businesses got loans through the SBA, and with them created jobs and contributed to the local tax base.

We on the committee have worked hard to review the services available to small businesses through the SBA and its lending and counseling partners. As

a result, this bill builds upon what works right at the SBA and improves upon areas that need to be updated. The changes are sensible and fiscally responsible. We also included an innovative provision to address workforce issues.

I offer my thanks and appreciation to Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry for giving me the opportunity to address my concerns regarding some of the provisions in the SBA reauthorization bill. One of my initial concerns was that we continued to actively support the SBA's 7(a) guaranteed business loan and 504 certified business development company loans programs.

Access to capital is one of the most critical issues facing new and small businesses alike, particularly for minorities and entrepreneurs in inner-city and rural areas who lack sufficient collateral or credit to get loans from banks, even when they have a good idea and repayment ability. I believe, and am hopeful, that the SBA Reauthorization Act will go far in satisfying this demand for capital to those who have traditionally been shut out. Additionally, I have endeavored to ensure that the SBA 7(a) and 504 programs continue unharmed. I encourage the SBA to work with the small business community--the trade associations for 7(a) and 504 lenders and borrowers, the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders and the National Association of Development Companies, to ensure they are not harmed.

Small businesses employ millions of people and provide the fuel for our Nation's economic growth. Although most economists aver that the recession has ended, employment figures continue to lag behind other economic data at a rate that continues to cause me great concern--21 months of straight job losses means we should be using every tool we have to create jobs. With the assistance of Senator Snowe, the SBA Reauthorization Act should help to spur job creation and increase access to much needed capital for our Nation's small businesses.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill because we need to enact this legislation before many of SBA's programs expire on September 30.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue. It is a very important issue for people all across the country.

Yesterday, I received the news that the Federal court in Oklahoma had decided that we had no authority over the Federal Do Not Call list.

I must tell you that as a United States Senator and as a former attorney general and as a lawyer and just as a citizen, I have all the respect in the world for our Federal courts and our judges and our legal system. I just happen to think they were wrong in this ruling.

At the same time, I am proud to join with my colleagues, both in the Senate and in the House, in efforts to try to

make sure the courts understand that very clearly there is authority for the Federal Trade Commission to establish a National Do Not Call list.

I think it is very clear that the people have spoken on this issue. Back in February of this year, the Congress passed what we thought was the authorization and the funding for Do Not Call. Then, just a few weeks later, President Bush signed it into law.

I know a lot of people have been sharing their stories about telemarketers. I can tell you from firsthand experience, from back in 1998 when I traveled the State of Arkansas extensively, running for attorney general--that is what I did before I was elected to this august body--everywhere I went, it seemed as though every community I went into, every group I talked to, it didn't matter who they were, what they had on their mind, they wanted to talk about telemarketing. They would say: Please, is there anything you can do to have these telemarketers stop calling us?

I said: Yes. We in Arkansas had one of the first--not the very first but one of the first--State do not call systems that we passed in 1999. It had very few exceptions to it. It was something we were proud of. We had to charge $5 because, where Congress appropriated some dollars for this Federal system, we did not have a State legislative appropriation for our State system. But regardless of that, even though we charged for it, we had thousands upon thousands of Arkansans sign up for our State do not call system.

I tell you, everywhere I go in Arkansas today, people still thank me for the State's do not call system.

One thing we learned during that process was that for most people, telemarketers' calls are an annoyance. People get tired of being bothered during dinnertime, when they are trying to do the homework with the children, when they are trying to put the kids down--whatever the case may be. But for some Americans, a small percentage, telemarketing also has the element of fraud to it.

Many people in this country--mostly seniors but not all, but many people in this country are taken advantage of via the telephone. If you look at the FBI statistics--I haven't seen the most recent round, but I was familiar with them in my 4 years in the attorney general's office-- it is a small percentage of fraud, but let me tell you, it is a lot of dollars every single year. It is millions upon millions of dollars that are swindled away from people by use of the telephone.

I want to touch on something that Senator Dorgan said a few moments ago. The telemarketing industry is not evil. They are just doing their job. We understand that. We appreciate that. It is a legitimate industry. It is an industry that has a lot of hard-working people in it. They do a lot of great things. We are not critical of the industry per se.

We know there are some bad actors out there. I think a National Do Not Call program will help clear up those bad actors, just like we have been able to do on a State-by-State basis, when the States pass these kinds of provisions.

But telemarketing is, for many Americans, an annoyance that they just do not want to have. After all, we are talking about the privacy of people's homes. They should be able to have some control over the types of calls they get.

If they get solicitations, if they don't want those, there should be some mechanism where they can shut those off on the front end. That is what the Federal Do Not Call program will do. That is why I think you have seen so many people in the House and in the Senate come to the respective floors today and argue that we should take this step that we are about to take today.

One last point. In the last few weeks, ever since it was announced with toll-free numbers and Web sites that there would be a Federal Do Not Call program, and how to sign up, et cetera, there have been about 50 million phone numbers added to this list. That is an amazing number. Fifty million Americans can't be wrong.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Yes. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, we all know that fraud can be very much a problem when it comes to telemarketing, but we also know a Do Not Call registry is a very positive consumer tool against fraud. By that I mean if you signed up for the National Do Not Call plan and you still get a call, you know something is up. That ought to be your first tip that something may be amiss with this call. This is another reason I thank my friend from New York for his very wise comments.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to support legislation that would clearly allow the Federal Trade Commission to move forward with its national do-not-call registry. I have submitted an amendment to that effect, amendment No. 1786 to the DC appropriations bill, as well as cosponsored S. 1652, a bill to ratify the do-not-call registry provision of the telemarketing sales rule. As we have heard today, the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma issued a decision that the Federal Trade Commission lacked the authority to develop its national do-not- call list. The court ruled that, although Congress appropriated the funds to the FTC in order to have the program, it did not actually have the language necessary to authorize the establishment of the program and the implementation of the program.

Today, I rise in support of my proposal that would basically give the Federal Trade Commission the clear authority and the statutory responsibility to establish a national do-not-call program. In addition, it affirms the finding that the Federal Trade Commission was authorized in the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to implement and enforce the national do-not-call registry.

Last, it specifically ratifies the do-not-call registry provision of the FTC's telemarketing sales rule.

Before I was elected to this august body, I had the great privilege of being the attorney general of my State. I remember back in 1998 when I ran for attorney general of Arkansas, everywhere I would go, every little town I would go into, and every time I would talk to a group, whether it was veterans or whoever it happened to be, senior citizens or townspeople at large, they would tell me: Please, please, if you can do anything about telemarketers calling us at home and bothering us and trying to sell us something over the telephone, do it.

I was proud to do that. When I was elected to the office and began serving in January of 1999, the first thing I did was pull the staff together at the attorney general's office and write the State's do-not- call program. It was very different from the one the Federal Trade Commission came up with but both are equally good. They both get to the problem and I think can be very effective fighting against unwanted telephone calls.

Listen, we have all been there. We have all received those calls. We have all been eating dinner, trying to put our children down, trying to do homework, or watching our favorite TV show, whatever the situation might be, when we have been subjected to these unwanted calls. For most people it is an inconvenience. They don't like to be bothered. They want us to find a way to respect the integrity of the privacy of their own homes. After all, they are paying the phone bill; they are paying for the service. They should be able to have some control on the amount of calls coming in and to put a stop to these unwanted calls. Some of the phone companies actually offer a service that blocks calls from people who block their caller ID. That is another subject. That can be fairly expensive for some consumers. It's not always expensive.

The Federal Trade Commission came up with an idea to do this nationwide, to do it free, and to do it by use of toll-free numbers and Web sites allowing people to sign on. In fact, I signed on in the first week because one thing I noticed in Virginia is they do not have do- not-call laws, as far as I can tell, and we get bombarded in our home in Virginia. Unlike in Arkansas where we signed up for the AG's list and we may get one or two telemarketing calls a month, in Virginia we get 3 or 4 a day, and it seems they always try to call at an inopportune time.

One thing I noticed, one fact that apparently is true, as I understand it, the Federal Trade Commission now has 50 million phone numbers that have been registered under the Federal do-not-call program. Fifty million Americans can't be wrong. They want relief. They want us, as their lawmakers, as their elected Representatives here in Washington, to do something to stop these calls.

The Federal Trade Commission, to its credit, and I appreciate them greatly for doing this, tried to come to their aid, come to their assistance, to make a national do-not-call registry a reality.

I think this is something the Nation is ready for. Fifty million people have already tried to sign up in the first few weeks after the announcement of the national do-not-call program. It is something we as Members of this body and as Members of the Congress, of the Federal Government, should try to do to ensure that the people of this country, if they want it, on a voluntary basis, can have some relief from unwanted telemarketing calls.

Congress mandated that this list be implemented on a national scale, and the President signed it into law. The legislation I am proposing now clarifies our intentions, and I certainly ask my colleagues to support the legislation in any way they can. I hope we will have a vote on this matter in very quick order.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.