Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues as to why I missed voting on the motion to table Senator Coburn's amendment No. 2005 to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. At the time the vote occurred, I was attending the funeral of a longtime employee and friend, Shawn Bentley.

Should I have been present, I would have voted in favor of tabling the amendment, which would not have changed the outcome of the vote.

If I could.

Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart to announce the untimely passing of one of the Senate's own, our long-time staffer and former colleague, Shawn Bentley.

What can you say about a 41-year-old man who died: That he was brilliant and talented; that he was a loving family man, a wonderful father to Katie and Samantha, and a devoted husband to his wife, Becky; That he loved James Joyce and William Shakespeare and Elton John; and the law; and the Senate; and life.

Shawn worked for the Judiciary Committee for a decade, from 1993 to 2003. Starting as my counsel, in the minority, Shawn worked on a variety of legal issues, from healthcare antitrust, to radiation compensation, to the balanced budget amendment. He rose through the ranks, ending his Senate tenure as the majority's chief intellectual property counsel and deputy chief counsel to the committee, one of the top jobs in the Senate.

Although we were sad to see him leave the Senate, I was so proud of him when he joined Time Warner as vice president of intellectual property and global public policy.

In the Senate, the major bills Shawn helped write are among the most important laws in the intellectual property world: the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act; the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the American Inventors Protection Act, the Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation Protection Act, the Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, and the Trademark Dilution Act, just to name a few.

Shawn was so bright and so accomplished a lawyer, that we did not hesitate to assign him any subject. And it was such a joy to work with him, because all knew he was a model of decency, humility, and spirituality. As the Elders' Quorum President of his church congregation, and man of remarkably strong faith, Shawn lived a life of service to his fellow man and woman. In whatever he did, Shawn handled the matter with both talent and a remarkable good humor.

In all the years that Shawn worked for me, I cannot recall one time when he was not warm and engaging. Even when he was a little frustrated, as all of us are sometimes, Shawn still had a smile on his face. In fact, Shawn had a calmness about him that was almost serene. Yet, he had a very sharp sense of humor that made him a delight to be around.

Shawn was among the brightest and most informed. Yet, he was never arrogant, a rare quality in one so talented, especially on Capitol Hill!

Shawn was more than the chief intellectual property counsel to the Judiciary Committee, he was our in-house professor of arts and humanities. Visiting Shawn's office was not like visiting a typical counsel's office on the Hill. Visiting Shawn was more like visiting your favorite classics professor at his desk with his exquisite fountain pen in hand.

To be fair, Shawn's lair in the Hart Building had the requisite congressional directories, codes and public laws. But he also had a vast book collection of classics, poetry, Shakespeare anthologies, first edition novels, and British history books. And did I mention the miniature busts of philosophers and great thinkers?

Then, there was the collection of CDs ranging from Creed and Metallica to Beethoven to Brahms to Mozart and Bach. While his book collection in the office was impressive, we knew there had to be a much more extensive collection at home.

Pressed about his office supply of nonlegal books, Shawn admitted that it was growing because his wife Becky had imposed a moratorium on bringing any more books to their home, so the overflow ended up in the office. When Shawn found out that a colleague lived near the used book store in Bethesda where he often located some treasures, he enlisted her to pick us some volumes from time to time, thus saving him the trip and the explanation of a voyage to Bethesda. That was probably Shawn's closest thing to a vice: sneaking a volume of poetry into his collection.

Shawn was the only heavy metal enthusiast I know who also loved to read Shakespeare and could discuss both topics with equal enthusiasm and knowledge. Indeed, it was this respect for the importance of creativity in helping shape culture that may have attracted Shawn to IP--intellectual property--law and policy. He helped me with so many important IP issues, many of which I listed before, it is hard to single out Shawn's most important work.

One event does stand out in my mind. In 2000, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I scheduled a hearing on peer-to-peer copyright infringement. Shawn arranged to have witnesses from Metallica, Lars Ulrich, the Recording Industry Association of America, and several Internet company executives testify on the same panel. To demonstrate how P-2-P services worked, Shawn suggested I download from the Internet the rock band Creed's then-hit ``With Arms Wide Open.''

Just then, the bells rang for a vote and committee members started to

leave. I'll never forget looking back as I left Hart 216 and seeing the almost surreal scene of Senators mixing with media and staff, talking to Internet pirates and heavy metal band rock stars with rock music playing in the background. It was a scene that only Shawn could have pulled off.

Shawn did all this--he succeeded at all he undertook--without boasting or calling attention to himself. He knew there were more important things in life than a battle of wills and, as a result, he won the respect and trust of people on both sides of the aisle.

There is not one person on the Hill or in business who would call Shawn an adversary or enemy. Those who worked with Shawn learned a lot more from him than the other way around.

Two other fond memories of Shawn from early in his career come to mind. When the Senate was debating the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, the BBA, I asked Shawn to develop some materials supporting the need for the amendment.

With customary good staffing, Shawn put together a very impressive set of volumes which he drove out to my home the weekend before the debate. I was astounded by the depth, and to be truthful, the volume of the materials. ``Shawn,'' I said, ``I'm just overwhelmed by the amount of material you developed. You didn't need to do all that.'' Shawn thought a moment, paused, and said, ``With all due respect, Senator, could you have told me that yesterday?'' That was the wit of Shawn Bentley. Quickly recovering, I replied, ``Shawn, I don't need all those materials if I have you sitting by my side. That's good enough.''

And I meant it. I could always count on Shawn to be well-prepared, succinct, and oh-so-witty. But Shawn was Shawn. So, then we got to the floor with the BBA.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was managing this constitutional amendment's debate on the floor with Shawn right there beside me. One of the most contentious issues was over how the amendment would affect the Social Security fund.

Senator Fritz Hollings, then the junior Senator from South Carolina, for some 40 years I might add, was recognized by the Chair to speak in opposition. Knowing his remarks were long, I took that opportunity to go to the cloakroom and make a phone call. I asked Shawn and another capable staffer, Larry Block, to please take notes and write down five points to respond to Senator Hollings.

The trouble was that with his deep South Carolinian accent, neither Shawn nor Larry had absolutely any idea what Senator Hollings said. After about five minutes, my two staffers were getting pretty nervous on the floor anticipating my return. Suddenly, Shawn gave a big smile. ``I've got it,'' he said. ``All we need to do is write down five points supporting the BBA and why its enactment would not have a negative impact on Social Security.''

I soon returned and read the talking points, adding several points of my own. All went well. Only later did I realize what Shawn had intuitively grasped. If we could not understand Senator Hollings, no one else could either!

The moral of this story: As President Andrew Jackson opined many years ago, ``Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.''

Shawn was probably one of the most deliberate lawyers ever to have worked on the Judiciary Committee. On Capitol Hill, where the emphasis too often seems to be on getting there first, Shawn's primary concern was always getting it right first. I could count on him to have the right answer to my questions, and if he did not know the answer, he wouldn't guess--he would do the work and get it right and then make his recommendation to me.

I cannot say enough good things about Shawn Bentley. Indeed, his loss is a loss to the Senate family, to his family, and indeed the Nation.

As we head into this season of Autumn, as the leaves change colors and the temperature turns, some verses from Ecclesiastes 3 seem so appropriate:

There is a time for everything,

And a season for every activity under heaven:

A time to be born and a time to die,

A time to plant and a time to uproot,

A time to tear down and a time to build,

A time to weep and a time to laugh,

A time to mourn and a time to dance,

A time to embrace and a time to refrain,

A time to search and a time to give up,

A time to tear and a time to mend,

A time to be silent and a time to speak, and

A time to love and a time to hate.

Let us take comfort in those words, knowing that it was God's will that this be Shawn Bentley's time. But we can still rejoice in his life, and embrace all that was good about Shawn Bentley, the son, husband, father and friend we all loved so dearly. And may his family find comfort in the lasting memory of this great man, Shawn Marion Bentley, who indeed lived his life by the words of ``With Arms Wide Open'':

``If I had just one wish

Only one demand

I hope he understands

That he can take his life

And hold it by the hand

And he can greet the world

With arms wide open . . .''

Shawn Bentley's untimely passing is this Nation's loss.

On behalf of the Senate, let me say that our hearts go out to the Bentley family--to his loving wife Becky, their beautiful daughters Katie and Samantha, his parents DeAnna and Marion, and his five brothers Jared, Derek, Justin, Christopher and Gavin.

Mr. President, I am grateful to my distinguished colleague from Vermont for the kindness that he has shown here today and the friendship that he has shown to me and to the family of Shawn Bentley. I am very grateful to him.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, in recent years, Utahns have suffered through a devastating drought. While it appears that we are beginning to return to normal precipitation levels, the drought has instilled in all Utahns the need to plan for the future and ensure sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to introduce two important bills that will help make better use of Utah's scarce water supply.

The first bill is the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005. The bill would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The dam is roughly 14 miles long and encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water.

Thousands of Utahns currently rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need to find additional water resources even more pressing. Enlarging the dam would help ensure that the area can meet its ever- increasing demand for water. In my view, expanding the dam is an easy way to increase water storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it.

The next bill I am introducing today, is the Juab County Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2005. This legislation would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 2005 to include Juab County. It would allow Juab County to use Central Utah Project funds to complete water resource development projects, enabling the County to better utilize their existing water resources. It will ensure that farmers, ranchers, and other citizens of Juab County have a reliable water supply.

Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to be delivered supplemental water through an irrigation and drainage delivery system. Over the years, however, many central Utah Counties have elected not to participate in the plan and no longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the political division of the State of Utah established to manage CUP activities in Utah.

Unlike other central Utah Counties, Juab County remained active in the Central Utah Water Conservancy District's efforts and has paid property taxes to the District hoping to benefit from its membership. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Presently, most of the water allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is planned for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. This legislation would simply ensure that the citizens of Juab County can benefit from the system they help support.

I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. President, in recent years, Utahns have suffered through a devastating drought. While it appears that we are beginning to return to normal precipitation levels, the drought has instilled in all Utahns the need to plan for the future and ensure sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to introduce two important bills that will help make better use of Utah's scarce water supply.

The first bill is the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005. The bill would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The dam is roughly 14 miles long and encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water.

Thousands of Utahns currently rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need to find additional water resources even more pressing. Enlarging the dam would help ensure that the area can meet its ever- increasing demand for water. In my view, expanding the dam is an easy way to increase water storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it.

The next bill I am introducing today, is the Juab County Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2005. This legislation would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 2005 to include Juab County. It would allow Juab County to use Central Utah Project funds to complete water resource development projects, enabling the County to better utilize their existing water resources. It will ensure that farmers, ranchers, and other citizens of Juab County have a reliable water supply.

Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to be delivered supplemental water through an irrigation and drainage delivery system. Over the years, however, many central Utah Counties have elected not to participate in the plan and no longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the political division of the State of Utah established to manage CUP activities in Utah.

Unlike other central Utah Counties, Juab County remained active in the Central Utah Water Conservancy District's efforts and has paid property taxes to the District hoping to benefit from its membership. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Presently, most of the water allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is planned for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. This legislation would simply ensure that the citizens of Juab County can benefit from the system they help support.

I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. President, just this past May, I stood at a gas station in Salt Lake City and announced the introduction of S. 1039, the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005.

By standing near a gas pump charging $2.25 per gallon, I thought I was making a strong statement about the high price of gas and the need for greater refining capacity in our country.

That was only a few months ago, but hurricanes Katrina and Rita have since exposed the vulnerability of our Nation's refining infrastructure, and the gas prices in May now seem like the good old days.

I am pleased that the energy bill signed by President Bush this summer included the principal concept of S. 1039--that of providing a strong tax incentive to expand refinery capacity by allowing the cost to be written off immediately. Unfortunately, because of budget restrictions, my legislation had to be cut.

I have long been concerned that our shrinking number of refineries and their proximity to our Nation's coasts pose an unacceptable risk to our economic and strategic security. I thought cutting S. 1039 was a mistake at the time, and now I am hoping Congress will remedy that mistake.

Today, I rise to reintroduce those portions of my refining capacity legislation that were left out of the energy bill and call upon my colleagues to help me finish what was begun with my original bill.

My new legislation, the Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act, would enhance the incentives made in the energy bill by increasing the short- term incentive to add new and expanded refining facilities and by removing the obstacle of long tax depreciation schedules that refineries face.

For those refiners able to commit to installing new refining equipment before 2008 and to have that added capacity built by 2012, my original bill would have allowed a complete write-off for investments in new refining equipment in the first year. As passed by Congress, though, this provision was cut for budgetary reasons to allow for expensing of only 50 percent of the costs in the first year. The legislation I am introducing today would enhance that to allow for the full 100 percent expensing in the first year. Now, more than ever, we need to use every possible means to increase the security of our fuel supply.

This bill would also restore another very important provision of S. 1039 that was dropped out of the energy bill as a cost savings. This provision would help to remove some of the disparity the refining industry faces in our current tax system. Most manufacturers in our country are able to depreciate the cost of their new equipment over five years. Refineries, on the other hand, are strapped with a full 10- year depreciation period. This unfair treatment of our refining industry acts as a long-term obstacle to new investment in increased capacity. The current 10-year depreciation schedule for refiners is unwarranted, and it is past time that we level the playing field on depreciation for this critically important sector of our energy industry.

On September 6, in the aftermath of Katrina, Mr. Bob Slaughter of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said that an important solution to our energy crisis would be to ``[e]xpand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy Act. Reduce the depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to seven or five years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining investment. Allow expensing under the current language to take place as the investment is made rather than when the equipment is actually placed in service. Or the percentage expensed could be increased as per the original legislation introduced by Senator Hatch.''

I think it is important to recognize that, over time, this legislation will not cost the U.S. Treasury one dime. It would allow refineries to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. And, we should keep in mind that when this

bill leads to more refineries and increased capacity, we will have also increased the tax base.

I want to throw my full support behind the proposals recently announced by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton and House Resource Committee Chairman Pombo, which would take other approaches to increase the number of refineries in our Nation. From both a national security and an energy security perspective, I especially endorse a proposal by Chairman Pombo to locate more refineries on public lands near oil resource deposits. Such a move will make our Nation more secure from attacks from terrorists and from Mother Nature. I understand that Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee Chairman Pete Domenici is promoting similar proposals on the Senate side. And I applaud these men for their leadership.

We have learned that when it comes to our Nation's energy security, refining is where we are the most vulnerable. It is not the time for half measures, but bold immediate action to establish a secure and independent refining program in this country. I hope my colleagues will join me in my efforts to achieve this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, just this past May, I stood at a gas station in Salt Lake City and announced the introduction of S. 1039, the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005.

By standing near a gas pump charging $2.25 per gallon, I thought I was making a strong statement about the high price of gas and the need for greater refining capacity in our country.

That was only a few months ago, but hurricanes Katrina and Rita have since exposed the vulnerability of our Nation's refining infrastructure, and the gas prices in May now seem like the good old days.

I am pleased that the energy bill signed by President Bush this summer included the principal concept of S. 1039--that of providing a strong tax incentive to expand refinery capacity by allowing the cost to be written off immediately. Unfortunately, because of budget restrictions, my legislation had to be cut.

I have long been concerned that our shrinking number of refineries and their proximity to our Nation's coasts pose an unacceptable risk to our economic and strategic security. I thought cutting S. 1039 was a mistake at the time, and now I am hoping Congress will remedy that mistake.

Today, I rise to reintroduce those portions of my refining capacity legislation that were left out of the energy bill and call upon my colleagues to help me finish what was begun with my original bill.

My new legislation, the Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act, would enhance the incentives made in the energy bill by increasing the short- term incentive to add new and expanded refining facilities and by removing the obstacle of long tax depreciation schedules that refineries face.

For those refiners able to commit to installing new refining equipment before 2008 and to have that added capacity built by 2012, my original bill would have allowed a complete write-off for investments in new refining equipment in the first year. As passed by Congress, though, this provision was cut for budgetary reasons to allow for expensing of only 50 percent of the costs in the first year. The legislation I am introducing today would enhance that to allow for the full 100 percent expensing in the first year. Now, more than ever, we need to use every possible means to increase the security of our fuel supply.

This bill would also restore another very important provision of S. 1039 that was dropped out of the energy bill as a cost savings. This provision would help to remove some of the disparity the refining industry faces in our current tax system. Most manufacturers in our country are able to depreciate the cost of their new equipment over five years. Refineries, on the other hand, are strapped with a full 10- year depreciation period. This unfair treatment of our refining industry acts as a long-term obstacle to new investment in increased capacity. The current 10-year depreciation schedule for refiners is unwarranted, and it is past time that we level the playing field on depreciation for this critically important sector of our energy industry.

On September 6, in the aftermath of Katrina, Mr. Bob Slaughter of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said that an important solution to our energy crisis would be to ``[e]xpand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy Act. Reduce the depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to seven or five years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining investment. Allow expensing under the current language to take place as the investment is made rather than when the equipment is actually placed in service. Or the percentage expensed could be increased as per the original legislation introduced by Senator Hatch.''

I think it is important to recognize that, over time, this legislation will not cost the U.S. Treasury one dime. It would allow refineries to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. And, we should keep in mind that when this

bill leads to more refineries and increased capacity, we will have also increased the tax base.

I want to throw my full support behind the proposals recently announced by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton and House Resource Committee Chairman Pombo, which would take other approaches to increase the number of refineries in our Nation. From both a national security and an energy security perspective, I especially endorse a proposal by Chairman Pombo to locate more refineries on public lands near oil resource deposits. Such a move will make our Nation more secure from attacks from terrorists and from Mother Nature. I understand that Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee Chairman Pete Domenici is promoting similar proposals on the Senate side. And I applaud these men for their leadership.

We have learned that when it comes to our Nation's energy security, refining is where we are the most vulnerable. It is not the time for half measures, but bold immediate action to establish a secure and independent refining program in this country. I hope my colleagues will join me in my efforts to achieve this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what is the time allocation?

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise once again to speak in favor of the nomination of John Roberts. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to vote to make John Roberts the next Chief Justice of the United States.

The central focus this week is properly on the nomination of Judge Roberts. In addition, the manner in which the Senate acts on this nomination also will be subject to public scrutiny. In this regard, I join those who have commended Senator Specter and Senator Leahy and other members of the Judiciary Committee for working together to plan and carry out a fair series of hearings on the Roberts nomination.

This week, the full Senate faces the challenge of debating the merits of John Roberts to serve as our Nation's 17th Chief Justice. A widely respected journalist, David Broder, observed about the Roberts nomination:

He is so obviously ridiculously well equipped to lead

government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any

Democrat can justify a vote against his confirmation.

To put a fine point on it, if Democrats do not vote for John Roberts, is it fair to ask whether some Democrats will ever give a fair shake to any Republican Supreme Court nominee?

I recognize that many leftwing special interest groups are putting a lot of pressure on Democratic Senators to vote against this extraordinarily qualified nominee. For example, last Wednesday, September 21, 2005, the newspaper Rollcall contained an article with the headline ``Liberal Groups Lecture Democrats on Roberts.'' Let me read a portion of this article:

. . . Sens. Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer received a sharp

rebuke at a weekend meeting in Los Angeles from wealthy

activists such as television producer Norman Lear over

Roberts' glide path to confirmation.

At an event on behalf of People for the American Way, the

first of the major liberal groups to announce opposition to

Roberts, Lear lashed out at the Democrats for not mounting

more determined resistance to the nomination, according to

several sources familiar with the event.

Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee, confirmed that the event included a `frank

discussion' between activists and the Senators.

That says it all, the pressure on our colleagues on the other side: lectures, sharp rebukes, frank discussions. It sounds as if there may be some dissension in ``All in the Family.'' One can only wonder if ``the Meathead'' took part in this harangue against the Senators. I have no doubt that pressure from some liberal groups was substantial.

There are compelling reasons why the health of both the Senate and Judiciary require that this vote should be about, and only about, John Roberts' qualification to serve as Chief Justice. Some leftwing special interest groups seem to be urging a ``no'' vote on this highly qualified nominee in large part to somehow send a message to President Bush, as he deliberates on how to fill the remaining vacancy on the Supreme Court. If that is the case, it is a garbled, misguided message.

I understand the political fact of life that some outside interest groups normally affiliated with the Republican side of the aisle might have preferred that Republican Senators would have voted against the Supreme Court nominees of President Clinton. But I also respect the political reality that he who wins the White House has the right under the Constitution to nominate judicial nominees, including filling Supreme Court vacancies.

In undertaking our advice and consent role, the Senate, due to the Constitution, prudence, and tradition, owes a degree of deference to Presidential nominees. This helps explain why the two Supreme Court nominations made by President Clinton were given broad bipartisan support by the Senate once they were found to possess the intellect, integrity, character, and mainstream judicial philosophy necessary to serve on the Court. When the votes were counted for these two Clinton nominees, both of whom were known as socially liberal, Justice Breyer was confirmed by 87 to 9, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was approved by a 96-to-3 vote. Given the already stated opposition of both the minority leader and the assistant minority leader and many other Democratic Senators, it does not appear likely that Judge Roberts will receive the same level of support from Democrat Senators as Republican Senators provided for the last two Democrat nominees. This is unfortunate, unjustified, and unfair. Comity must be a two-way street.

At least during the debate of this extremely well-qualified nominee the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has not renewed his over- the-top pledge ``to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States.''

Frankly, I do not think that much of the opposition against the nominee can be wholly explained by anything that Judge Roberts said or did or did not say over the course of his exemplary 25-year career as a lawyer.

I commend the growing number of Democrats, including the ranking Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for their decisions to support Judge Roberts. I hope many others across the aisle will join them.

I also commend President Bush for consulting closely with the Senate and for sending a truly outstanding nominee in John Roberts. By all accounts, the President is continuing his practice of consulting widely with the Senate in filling the remaining vacancy on the Court.

Turning to the merits of this nomination, I take a few moments to briefly discuss John Roberts' education and experience to help explain why so many think so highly of this nominee. Too often in this debate, Judge Roberts' opponents quickly acknowledged his brilliance and qualifications before launching into a series of speculative if's, and's, or but's that somehow justify a vote against the confirmation in their eyes.

The American public realizes John Roberts has the right stuff. John Roberts graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude in 3 years. He went on to Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude and was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Judge Roberts began his career by clerking for two leading Federal appellate judges, Judge Henry Friendly and Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Roberts began his career in the executive branch by serving as a Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. Next, he was Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel's Office.

In the administration of President George H.W. Bush, John Roberts served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the Department of Justice. Upon departing Government and moving back into private practice, he was justifiably recognized as one of the leading appellate lawyers in the country. He has argued an almost astounding number of 39 cases before the Supreme Court.

John Roberts has represented a diverse group of clients, including environmental, consumer, and civil rights interests and has taken seriously his obligation to provide voluntary legal services to the poor, including criminal defendants.

Just 2 years ago, John Roberts was confirmed in the Senate without objection; not one Senator raised an objection to his nomination for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The American Bar Association evaluated Judge Roberts four times in the last 4 years, and each time he earned the highest ABA rating of ``well- qualified.'' And four times in a row this ``well-qualified'' rating was unanimous. This must be some kind of a record for ABA ratings.

John Roberts has the temperament, integrity, intelligence, judgment, and judicial philosophy to lead the Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary well into the 21st century.

The Senate and the American public heard directly from John Roberts as he testified for over 20 hours before the Judiciary Committee. Most of us liked what we saw and heard. Judge Roberts told us he would bring back to the Supreme Court no agenda--political, personal, or otherwise. He told us he would consider each case based solely on the merits of the relevant facts and the applicable laws. With Judge Roberts, all litigants will continue to receive the bedrock American right of equal justice under the law.

Here is what Judge Roberts said about the rule of law during his hearing:

Somebody asked me, ``Are you going to be on the side of the

little guy?'' And you want to give an immediate answer. But

if you reflect on it, if the Constitution says the little guy

should win, the little guy should win in court before me. But

if the Constitution says the big guy should win, well, the

big guy should win, because my obligation is to the

Constitution. . . .The oath that a judge takes is not that

``I'll look out for special interests'' . . . the oath is to

uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and

that's what I would do.

It seems to me that Judge Roberts got it exactly right. I cannot say the same thing about those, including the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who embraced results-oriented litmus tests when they repeatedly asked just whose side will Judge Roberts be on in deciding cases. As Judge Roberts explained, a judge has to hear the case and consider the law before he or she decides who should prevail under the law.

I also greatly appreciated Judge Roberts' comments on judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judge Roberts believes that in our system of government, judges ``do not have a commission to solve society's problems, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.''

I found enlightening Judge Roberts' description about how he decides cases through a careful process of reviewing briefs, participating in oral arguments, conferring with other judges at conference, and, finally, writing the decision. He noted that he often adjusts his view of the case throughout the course of the deliberative process.

Both in his opening testimony and in answering questions, Judge Roberts stressed the response of judges exercising institutional and personal modesty and humility. I have no doubt that this view is genuinely held by this nominee. I can say that an overwhelming majority of my fellow Utahans say they are fairly impressed with Judge Roberts' attitude toward the law and the role of judges.

Some, particularly many leftwing special interest groups, do not share my enthusiasm for Judge Roberts. Despite the fact that Judge Roberts answered dozens of questions on many topics, some complain that Judge Roberts did not answer all the questions.

Let us be clear. Under the Cannons of Judicial Ethics, it would have been inappropriate for Judge Roberts to comment on matters that could come before the Court. These liberal groups apparently have forgotten that back in 1993 when Democrat nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appeared before the Judiciary Committee in connection with her 96-to-3 confirmation to the Supreme Court, she took a position of ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews,'' on many questions.

This was consistent with what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, said back in 1967 with respect to the Supreme Court nomination of Thurgood Marshall. He said:

We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court

would have to defer any comments on any matters which are

either before the court or very likely to appear before the

court.

Some critics argue that the administration should have turned over memos that Judge Roberts wrote in his former capacity as Deputy Solicitor General, when the fact is that several years ago a bipartisan group of seven former Solicitors General, four of whom were Democrats, wrote to the Judiciary Committee to tell us that, generally, providing these documents to the Senate and making them public was a bad idea given the unique role of the Solicitor General's Office.

Some critics assert that Judge Roberts is insufficiently sensitive to their views in some areas of the law, including civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, and abortion, Presidential power and the commerce clause. A careful analysis of Judge Roberts' professional record over the last 25 years, coupled with the rigorous review of the hearing transcript, leads to the conclusion that Judge Roberts is well within the mainstream on his general perspectives on these issues and has pledged to be fair and openmined on any future litigation involving these and other areas. I take him at his word.

For example, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has attempted to suggest that Judge Roberts is somehow against voting rights and other civil rights. Yet in response to questions from Senator Kennedy, Judge Roberts clearly stated that he believed that voting is the preservative of all other rights. It is this principle that undergirds the leading case of Baker v. Carr that brought us into the one man-one vote era that changed the political landscape of America.

Moreover, Judge Roberts acknowledges the importance of the Voting Rights Act, and he has supported its reauthorization and said he is unaware of any fundamental legal deficiency in the statute.

While in the Solicitor General's Office, John Roberts joined several briefs urging the Supreme Court to adopt broad interpretations of the Voting Rights Act. For example, in the 1993 case of Voinovich v. Quilter, Roberts successfully argued in a brief on behalf of the United States for a reading of the Ohio redistricting plan that made it easier to create minority legislative districts. The Supreme Court concurred.

To claim John Roberts is hostile to voting rights is simply not true. Nor is he hostile to, or predisposed against, any other rights, interests, or legal claims. John Roberts is committed to hearing every case in a fair, unbiased manner.

Let me conclude by saying that some, including some members of the Judiciary Committee, having failed to make a substantial case against this stellar nominee, have resorted to suggesting we are somehow ``rolling the dice'' or ``betting the house'' with this nominee.

To me, supporting John Roberts is a sound investment and, I will say, a sound investment in our Nation's future, not some long-shot bet.

John Roberts' long and distinguished record as an advocate and judge over the past 25 years, buttressed by his recent confirmation hearing testimony, demonstrates he is a bright, careful, and thoughtful legal professional of the highest integrity and character. He is not an ideologue inclined to, or bent on, high court mischief.

I think it likely one day historians will conclude that in making John Roberts our 17th Chief Justice, the President and Senate made a wise choice that helped maintain and advance the rule of law for all present and future citizens of the United States.

Mr. President, I will vote aye to confirm Judge Roberts, and I hope the vast majority of Senators will do likewise.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week the Judiciary Committee gave its solid, bipartisan recommendation that the Senate confirm John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate should follow that recommendation with a substantial bipartisan vote supporting this exceptional nominee. As the Los Angeles Times put it when endorsing Judge Roberts, anything short of an overwhelming vote would be an indictment of petty partisanship.

I think Judge Roberts is the most analyzed and evaluated Supreme Court nominee in history. The American Bar Association, whose rating my Democratic colleagues once hailed as the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees, completed two exhaustive reviews. Each time the ABA unanimously gave Judge Roberts its highest well-qualified rating.

The ABA, by the way, includes in its criterion of judicial temperament such important qualities as compassion, openmindedness, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under law.

Judge Roberts spent almost 20 hours before the Judiciary Committee while Senators asked him 673 questions. Senators then asked him 243 more questions in writing. Judge Roberts provided nearly 3,000 pages to the Judiciary Committee, including his published articles, congressional testimony, transcripts from interviews, speeches, and panel discussions and material related to the dozens of cases that he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Judiciary Committee obtained more than 14,000 pages of material in the public domain, including the opinions Judge Roberts authored and joined while on the U.S. Court of Appeals and legal briefs from his years at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson and as Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration.

As if all of that were not enough, the Judiciary Committee obtained a staggering 82,943 pages of additional material from the National Archives and both the Reagan and Bush Libraries regarding Judge Roberts' service in those administrations. Total that up, and we have more than 100,000 pages of material on a 50-year-old nominee. That amounts to about 2,000 pages for every year of his life.

By orders of magnitude, this is more information than any Senators have had about any previous Supreme Court nominee.

The real debate over this nomination is about the standard we should apply to this mountain of information. The standard a Senator applies reflects a particular job description, what a Senator believes judges should do in our system of government. For some Senators, it is a political job description. They see judges as playing a political role, delivering results favoring certain political interests, setting or changing policy, creating new rights, defending social progress, and blazing a trail toward justice and equality.

Not surprisingly, Senators who believe in this kind of political job description ask political questions and apply political standards during the hiring process.

During the hearing, for example, the distinguished assistant minority leader, a member of the Judiciary Committee, told Judge Roberts he needed to know the nominee's personal values. Personal values are a condition for judicial service only if judges make their decisions based on their personal values. This is a political standard.

The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, a former Judiciary Committee chairman, has repeatedly said that the central question is, in his words, Whose side will Judge Roberts be on when different kinds of cases come before him?

Demanding that judges take sides before cases even begin is, again, a political standard.

Last week on the Senate floor, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, said he could not support Judge Roberts because, as he put it:

I can't say with confidence that I know on a sufficient

number of critical constitutional issues how he would rule.

Basing support for a judicial nominee on a checklist of results, without regard for the facts or the law in each case, is a political standard.

The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, last week announced her opposition to Judge Roberts and described her standard by asking: Who will be the winners if we confirm Judge Roberts?

This question, of course, completely contradicts the age-old teaching of parents in California, my home State of Utah, and everywhere else that it does not matter if one wins or loses but how they play the game.

Focusing on the political correctness of a judge's results rather than the judicial correctness of his reasoning is a political standard.

Other Senators, and I place myself squarely in this camp, use a judicial standard. We see judges as playing a judicial rather than a political role.

During his hearing, Judge Roberts properly compared judges to umpires who apply rules they did not make and cannot change to a contest before them.

Can anyone imagine conditioning an umpire's employment on knowing before he officiates his first game which teams on the roster will win or lose?

Similarly, judges must not take sides before a case begins.

Senators who believe in a judicial job description ask judicial questions and apply judicial standards during the hiring process, and during the hearing process as well, I might add.

I want to know, for example, whether Judge Roberts believes he can make law at all, not the particular law he would make. I want to know whether parties will win before him because the law favors their side, not because he does.

Like America's Founders, I believe it makes all the difference for our liberty whether judges occupy a judicial or a political role in our system of government.

In the Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, quoting the political philosopher, Montesquieu, that there is no liberty at all if judicial power is not separated from legislative and executive power.

The separation of powers is literally the lynchpin of liberty. That principle had a 200-year-old pedigree when America's Founders listed as a reason for seeking independence that King George had made judges dependent upon his political will.

We must insist on appointing judges who meet a judicial rather than a political standard.

I will list some of the evidence that Judge Roberts meets this judicial standard.

Judge Roberts told the Judiciary Committee that a judge is obligated to respect precedent, and he described in some detail the principles guiding how judges utilize those prior decisions.

If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe that judges should not respect precedent? Do they reject the traditional principles of stare decisis that Judge Roberts outlined? If so, my friends should try to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges should respect precedent, then they should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts repeatedly insisted that judges must be impartial. Here is how he put it:

I think people on both sides need to know that if they go

to the Supreme Court that they're going to be on a level

playing field, the judge is going to interpret the law, that

the judge is going to apply the Constitution and not take

sides in their dispute.

That was said by Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., on September 13, 2005.

If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they saying that judges should instead be partial, that judges should actually take sides, that people coming before the Court do not deserve the confidence that judges will be fair? If that is what they believe, I invite them to try to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges should be impartial, then they should confirm his nomination.

Judge Roberts said that judges must be open to the views of their judicial colleagues. This is a mark of modesty and humility he consistently said should characterize judges. If my friends on the other side of this nomination oppose this nomination, are they arguing that judges should not consider anyone else's views but narrowly insist that they are always right? If so, then once again they should make their case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that modest judges remain open to consider what others have to say, then they should vote for his nomination.

Judge Roberts told us that judges are not politicians. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they really believe that judges, and not elected legislators, should make the law and determine public policy? Do my friends really believe that there is no difference between what the Justices do across the street in the Supreme Court and what we do in this Chamber? If so, I wish them luck trying to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with America's Founders and with Judge Roberts that judges are not politicians, they should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts says judges are the servants of the law. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe judges are instead the masters of the law? Do they believe the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is? If so, then I invite them to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with America's Founders that the Constitution governs the judicial as well as the legislative branch, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges are as subject to the rule of law as the parties before them, then my friends should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts pledged that, as he has done on the appeals court bench, he will approach every case with an open mind and consider each case on its own merits.

If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe instead judges should have a closed mind on issues that come before them, that judges should prejudge issues in cases even before they know the facts?

If so, then I urge my friends to try and convince the American people.

If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges should safeguard their impartiality and keep an open mind, then they should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts said:

The role of the judge is limited, that judges are to decide

the cases before them, they're not to legislate.

If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe instead judges have an unlimited role,

that judges should decide cases not properly before them, and that judges should do the legislating?

If so, I urge them to try to make that case before the American people.

If not, if they share Judge Roberts' view about the proper limited judicial role, then they should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts said judges must decide cases--and I am quoting him again--judges must decide cases:

according to the rule of law, not their own social

preferences, not their policy views, not their personal

preferences, but according to the rule of law.

Again, that was on September 13, 2005.

If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe judges should decide cases based on their personal preferences or policy views rather than the rule of law?

If so, again, they should make this case to the American people.

If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the rule of law trumps a judge's personal views, then they should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts said when Congress enacts a statute, we do not expect judges to substitute their judgment for ours but to implement our view of what we are accomplishing. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they instead saying judges should substitute their judgment for ours?

If so, again, they should make that case to the American people.

If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that Congress's intent should prevail regarding Congress's own statutes, then they should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts said:

I don't think the Court should be the task master of

Congress. I think the Constitution is the Court's task master

and it's Congress' task master as well.

That was said on September 14 of this year.

If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they mean the Supreme Court should in fact be the taskmaster of Congress, and even of the Constitution itself?

If so, then I wish them well, trying to convince the American people by making that case to the American people.

If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the Constitution is the taskmaster of both Congress and the Supreme Court, then they should vote to confirm this nomination.

Judge Roberts told us the Bill of Rights does not change during times of war or crisis. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they arguing for setting aside the Bill of Rights in times of war or crisis?

If so, then they should make their case to the American people.

If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that neither the Bill of Rights nor a judge's obligation to uphold the rule of law is suspended in a time of war or crisis, then they should vote to uphold this nomination.

I want to quote Judge Roberts again because his particular words are very important. He said:

If the Constitution says that the little guy should win,

the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the

Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then,

the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the

Constitution.

He said that on September 15 of this year.

If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they arguing that whoever the little guy might be must win, regardless of what the facts and regardless of what the law requires? Are they saying judges should disregard their oaths to do justice without respect to persons?

If so, I will be watching with great expectation as they try to make that case to the American people.

If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the law, not the judge, determines who wins, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the judge's obligation is to the Constitution and not to a particular side, then they should confirm this nomination.

These examples show the type of judge John Roberts is on the appeals court, the kind of Justice John Roberts will be on the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts knows the difference between politics and law. He knows as a judge he must settle legal disputes by interpreting and applying law and leave the politics to the politicians.

We have all the information we need about this exceptional nominee. If we apply a judicial rather than a political standard, the Senate will confirm him as the Nation's 17th Justice overwhelmingly and without delay.

Judge Roberts is one of the finest nominees ever to come before the Congress of the United States, and in particular the Senate confirming body. Not only was he an excellent student, graduating from Harvard in only 3 years as an undergraduate, but he became the top graduate in law school and the editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review, a position everybody in this Chamber has to respect and admire.

He also served as a clerk for Judge Friendly, one of the greatest circuit court judges this country has ever seen. He served as a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.

I was impressed at the Rehnquist funeral to see some 95 former clerks paying respect to their Justice Rehnquist, some of whom were my fellow Utahns.

He then worked in the White House counsel's office as a young man and served with distinction there. He then went on to become Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and did a terrific job while there. He rose to become one of the top partners in one of the top law firms in this country and argued 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Hardly anybody can make that claim today.

I have asked various Justices on the Supreme Court who they consider to be the best appellate lawyer to appear before them, and invariably the name John Roberts comes up from the Justices themselves.

I was intrigued that Justice Stevens is overjoyed that John Roberts is going to join them on the Court because he has such respect for John Roberts.

I have to say in 20 hours of testimony, how could anybody vote against him? I have to say also it concerns me that there will be some who will. I suggest if they would vote against Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court, then I doubt sincerely there is any nominee this President could put forth they would vote for, and that is a sorry case and I think a sad indictment.

I urge everybody in this body to vote for this outstanding nominee for Chief Justice of the United States. In doing so, I don't think anybody who does is going to be sorry afterward. Yes, I believe him to be conservative. Yes, I believe he is not going to be an activist on the bench. Yes, I believe he will honor and sustain the law--and I know one thing: he is going to approach the law as intelligently as any person who has ever been nominated to the Supreme Court. I think people who watched those hearings have to come to the same conclusion. If they do, then I hope our colleagues who have announced they are going to vote against him will change their mind, do what is right, and vote for him.

Remember, when now Justices Ginsburg and Breyer came before this body, I was the leader on the Judiciary Committee. I have to say, we Republicans all knew both of those now Justices were social liberals, that they disagreed with many of the things we believed and we disagreed with many of the things they believed. But they were both qualified and they were put forth by the then President of the United States, President William Jefferson Clinton. And Presidents deserve respect on these nominations.

Justice Ginsburg was confirmed on a vote of 96 to 3, and I believe Justice Breyer was confirmed on a vote of 87 to 9, which means virtually every Republican voted for both of them. We did not take the political way. I have to say I don't think others should take it here in this case with this person who everybody acknowledges is exceptionally well qualified, including the American Bar Association.

I recommend everybody vote for Judge Roberts, and in the end you are going to be able to go to sleep at night knowing you did the right thing.

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

Mr. President, while I recognize that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, is overwhelmed in addressing the needs associated with the Hurricane Katrina recovery, the Higher Education Act, HEA, is set to expire on September 30, 2005. I am concerned that with the extension of the HEA until December 31, 2005, we may be sending a signal that we are not planning on acting on the HEA reauthorization bill in the near future. I would like to know if my friend, the chairman of the HELP Committee, could give me his assurance he still intends to make passage of the permanent reauthorization a priority in the next few weeks?

Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman for that confirmation.

Mr. President, earlier today I was necessarily detained from voting on S.J. Res. 20, ``A Joint Resolution disapproving a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to delist coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act.''

Mercury emissions and rulings by Federal agencies concerning the environment are extremely important. Although my vote would not have changed the outcome, I respectfully request that the Record show that had I been able to cast my vote, I would have joined with the majority of Senators who voted to uphold the administration's rulings and against the resolution of disapproval.

Madam President, I was also at that meeting last night in the secure room in S. 407. I have to say, I was absolutely blown away by how much the Federal Government has mobilized to try and help in the Gulf region. There is no question that we knew this city was 10 to 12 feet under sea level and that there was bound to be some sort of a problem happen. I think there is plenty of blame to be cast around to everybody. The important thing that we ought to be considering is solving the problem and getting that city back on its feet. From what I heard last night, the Federal Government is doing everything it possibly can. Frankly, I believe every agency, including FEMA, has done a good job under the circumstances. This has been a catastrophe of great proportions. There is no question about it. All of the criticism in the world is not going to change that.

The fact is, we had a number of Cabinet-level officials there, from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of Labor, and I thought they made a pretty good case. I think we ought to get the job done and quit worrying so much about criticizing.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on S. Res. 234 be delayed until 12:10.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a good man whom I knew well, who was a great judge, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

His service and leadership on the Supreme Court, the principles he consistently followed, and the steady hand with which he guided the judiciary make him one of the judiciary's very best.

William Hubbs Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court of the United States for 33 years and almost 8 months.

He was the eighth longest serving of the Court's 108 members, having recently surpassed the tenure of the legendary Justice Joseph Story.

He was the fourth longest serving of the Court's 16 Chief Justices, and one of just five individuals to have served as both Associate and Chief Justice.

William Rehnquist's service was a powerful mixture of the personal and the professional.

He brought a kind of dignified practicality, or perhaps it was practical dignity, to what is one of the most formal and respected posts in the Federal Government.

William Rehnquist was the historian who could play a practical joke, the defender of the judicial institution who played poker with his colleagues.

We will miss this scholar and author, who also led an annual Christmas carol sing-along for the Court's employees.

Yesterday, his former clerks surrounded his casket and carried it past his former colleagues into the Court where he lay in repose in a plain white pine casket. It was so touching.

We were all touched by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor weeping at the loss of a man who had been a fellow law student more than 50 years ago and was a fellow Justice for the past 24. He was No. 1 in his class; she was No. 3. They were close friends.

The respected legal analyst Stuart Taylor writes that one attribute of greatness is being esteemed by one's colleagues. Whether his fellow Justices voted with him or against him on the cases before the Court, they all cherished and esteemed him.

Liberal icons such as Justice William Brennan called Chief Justice Rehnquist a breath of fresh air.

Justice Thurgood Marshall called him a great Chief Justice.

Justice Lewis Powell said he had a good sense of humor and was both generous and principled.

When President Nixon nominated William Rehnquist to be an Associate Justice in 1971, Attorney General John Mitchell said he expected Justice Rehnquist to be independent.

Before the Judiciary Committee, the nominee pledged as his fundamental commitment to totally disregard his own personal beliefs when interpreting and applying the law.

Democratic Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, explained in the pages of the New York Times why he supported what he called a distinguished nominee.

He said that William Rehnquist would not contribute to the trend of pursuing abstract goals driven by ideology rather than law. As both Associate and Chief Justice, William Rehnquist confirmed Senator McClellan's judgment.

Chief Justice Rehnquist strongly defended the prerogatives of the judicial branch. This alone might give pause to those who believe the judiciary was already too strong.

But he coupled that commitment to institutional vigor with a fidelity to constitutional rigor.

While insisting that the Court was the primary interpreter of the Constitution, he did not join those who said the Constitution's meaning ebbed and flowed with the latest cultural and political fad.

Chief Justice Rehnquist understood that we entrust interpretation of our laws to unelected judges only because, as he had, they promise to keep their own moral and political viewpoints on the sideline.

Over time, by example and leadership, this principle helped him move the Court toward its traditionally modest role within our system of government.

Commentators and reporters discussing the Chief Justice's legacy almost reflexively use the moniker ``Lone Ranger'' to describe the new Associate Justice Rehnquist.

He was sometimes a lonely dissenter on a Court that saw itself as the vanguard of social change.

In that role, however, he reminded us of the fundamental principles that should guide the judiciary.

Judges may not exercise judicial review based on their personal opinions, preferences, or agendas. They must take the Constitution as they find it and apply it as it is.

As new Justices joined the Court, and Chief Justice Rehnquist continued articulating and applying such traditional principles, he found himself with more company.

While some talk of Chief Justices as able to bring colleagues together in a particular case, Chief Justice Rehnquist did so, patiently and steadily, over the long haul of his entire tenure.

In a 1996 address at American University's Washington College of Law, Chief Justice Rehnquist called judicial independence the ``crown jewel'' of the American judicial system.

He took this seriously on a personal as well as a judicial level.

In this last year or so, William Hubbs Rehnquist lived and finished life on this earth in his own independent way.

He shared what he wanted to share, when and how he chose to share it.

He carried himself with dignity, in a way protecting his privacy publicly, if such a thing is possible.

He was a good man and a good judge.

Our lives, individually as citizens and collectively as a nation, are much better for him having been among us.

I knew him personally. I know what a great man he was, as far as I am concerned. I know what a supreme intellect he was on that Court. I know what a decent, honorable, honest person he was on that Court. I can remember one lunch I had with Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy. It was terrific luncheon, filled with intellectual repartee. It was a luncheon that I will never forget. I can remember his smiling from time to time as his colleagues made some of their points. He had this wry sense of humor that I suppose came from the

people that he was born and raised with in his own State. This is a man of tremendous, inestimable talent, intellect, and ability. But he was warm. He was kind. He was decent. The only time I saw any flare for the unusual was the stripes on his black robe. That was done tongue in cheek, to just kind of lampoon some of the overseriousness some of us sometimes have with regard to the Supreme Court.

William Rehnquist was a good father. His daughter Janet worked with us on my staff for a short time. I think the world of her. She is a good person. The other offspring of Justice Rehnquist are also good people. I knew Justice Rehnquist's wife who preceded him in death. She was a beautiful, lovely human being, to whom he gave great deference. This was a man who counted. This was a Chief Justice who made a difference. This is a person whom I respect and whom I care for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with sadness in my heart, yet

firm in my resolve to due whatever is necessary in order to be of assistance to the citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. No amount of Federal compensation can ever make up for the losses that have been suffered or for the tragic circumstances surrounding this event. Lives have been changed forever. However, now, as we have always done in the past, we will band together as a nation and begin the process of healing the wounds caused by this unprecedented tragedy.

I know I speak for all the citizens of Utah when I extend my State's heartfelt sympathies to all who have suffered. The Governor of Utah has graciously volunteered to open our State's doors to the refugees from the New Orleans area, by providing them with shelter, food, and other appropriate assistance. We are all anxious to help and provide as much relief and comfort as possible to these good people.

As a member of our Nation's Federal Government, I pledge my full support to provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I am also grateful for the President's leadership. He has done an extraordinary job of organizing land deploying our Nation's resources in a timely and expeditious manner. Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is spending $500 million a day to help these citizens. This is a staggering amount of money, but these are staggering times and when we pledge our assistance, we pledge all the assistance we can possibly muster.

The suffering and pain felt by our citizens in the South is abhorrent and I am, once again, in awe of the commitment, selflessness, and skill of our Nation's first responders, disaster agency personnel, military personnel, local volunteers, local leaders, and everyday heroes who are--right now--doing all they can to help. I am also indebted to our congressional leadership for bringing the Congress together in an unprecedented fashion to provide Federal aid in a timely manner so rescue and relief efforts can continue unobstructed.

I am resolved to do everything I can. I know millions of citizens throughout the country are similarly resolved. To those heroes who wish to alleviate the suffering in the South, please heed the President's request and donate cash to the groups that are providing direct assistance in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Information can be found at the FEMA Web site or by calling the American Red Cross at 1-800-HELP-NOW.

The compassion and humanitarian efforts going on in this country are astounding. Thank you to all those citizens who have offered assistance and prayers. I know we can count on every American to do their part in this hour of need.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)