Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased that Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a long overdue full transportation reauthorization, which has unfortunately been extended on a temporary basis six times and simply must be made permanent.

I congratulate Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Minority Member Jeffords for their tireless efforts in moving forward one of the largest bills Congress will consider this year. I am sensitive to the fact that the current spending extension expires at the end of this month. Clearing this legislation through a House-Senate conference before the May 31 deadline may be difficult, but I am hopeful we can move quickly. This is important because the bill will create approximately 47,500 jobs for every $1 billion in highway spending. This bill will also provide desperately needed funds for Utah roads and create jobs for many hardworking Utahns.

Transportation is an issue in which all Utahns have a stake. Without a doubt, transportation plays a central role in the State's ability and opportunity to prosper economically. As Utah's population continues to grow, its highways are becoming more congested, negatively affecting Utah's ability to compete economically, and ultimately decreasing the quality of life for many of us.

I am concerned that in 5 years, Utahns may be changing the term ``rush hour'' to ``rough 2 hours'' because of the heavy congestion on our freeways. The Utah Department of Transportation--UDOT--estimates that in 10 years, peak congestion along the Wasatch front will increase from 1 hour in the morning and in the evening to more than 3 hours. The effect congestion has had on our quality of life is undeniable.

Time after time I have visited with Utah officials who stress that our top priority must be transportation funding, because we simply do not have the money to meet the tremendous demands on our roads. Last year alone, the State of Utah received approximately $254 million in Federal transportation funding. In addition to the Federal funding received, the State of Utah spent over $520 million for transportation projects in 2004. Yet, UDOT maintains the state is unable to increase capacity or maintain existing infrastructure at this level of funding. Responding to Utah's serious transportation needs, I voted to increase total federal funding in the multi-year transportation bill by $11.2 billion, which would raise Utah's portion from the $269 million originally included in the bill to $282 million. Utah desperately needs these funds to fight congestion.

I am encouraged by the transportation projects planned for fiscal year 2006 for the State of Utah. This legislation may help us complete many transportation projects throughout Utah, including: new I-15 interchanges in Ogden, Layton and Provo; commuter rail service from Ogden to Provo and light-rail lines to the airport and South Jordan; highway projects on US-6 in Carbon County and State Road 92 in Utah County; a railroad overpass in Kaysville; and building the Northern Corridor in St. George.

This legislation also contains a provision that addresses an important competitive issue in the transportation sector. At my urging, Chairman Inhofe has agreed to include compromise language that allows qualified companies the opportunity to compete for Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Program--ITIP--funding. I consider this a significant victory for small companies, and hope that House-Senate conferees will recognize the importance of providing a fair and level playing field for those wishing to access ITIP funds.

Our Nation's transportation infrastructure is in dire need of improvement. I believe this legislation not only addresses these critical needs, but it will create thousands of job opportunities, fight traffic congestion, and improve the safety of our roads and bridges.

As the bill moves to conference, it is my hope that we may come together with an adequately funded compromise. I pledge my efforts in this cause and hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gas Price Reduction through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005, S. 1039.

This bill provides tax incentives to encourage increases in oil refining capacity in the United States. By increasing domestic refining capacity, we will increase supply of refined oil products, thus decreasing the price of gasoline at the pump.

This bill is the second in a package of three bills I am proposing to promote long-term solutions to our Nation's energy needs.

Our nation needs clean, affordable sources of energy, and we should increase our energy security by focusing on those sources of energy that can be developed domestically.

Two weeks ago I introduced the CLEAR ACT, which provides market solutions to promote breakthroughs in the use of alternative fuels and technologies in our transportation sector.

The third bill, which I will introduce in the near future, will focus on increasing U.S. energy independence through the development of our nation's gigantic, untapped oil shale and tar sands reserves.

Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that increasing our domestic supplies of crude oil is not an effective solution unless we can increase our capacity to refine it. This is the genesis of the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act.

Refining capacity in the United States cannot keep up with demand. In fact, there has not been a new refinery built in the United States since the 1976.

But that is only part of the story.

The fact is that the economics of refining are so tough that we have actually lost about 200 refineries since the last one was built. So now, our powerful Nation is down to only 149 overworked refineries.

Technological improvements at existing refineries have brought some increase to capacity, but these increases have fallen far short of demand. As a result, we now meet the gap in demand by importing more and more oil products that have already been refined, which makes us all the more dependent on foreign suppliers.

Every day, I hear from Utahns who are burdened by rapidly rising gas prices. Let me quote from just a portion of a letter from one of my constituents, Richard Decker of West Jordan, Utah:

``I am interested in knowing the progress or status of

planning to protect Americans from the continually rising oil

prices . . . I am just a normal guy with a tiny family. Given

salaries, inflation, lack of fuel efficient automobiles at a

decent price, I worry if I and others will be able to make a

decent life here--not just in Utah but in America.

Personally, I wish I had the option of a hydrogen-powered

vehicle that would completely rid us of the dependence on

foreign oil imports.

However, this isn't likely soon, so can we work on the gas

prices? Do you have any suggestions? . . . Keep up the good

work. Best Regards, Richard Decker''

My answer to Richard is that we hear him, and we are trying to respond.

We have a serious problem.

It is easy to point a finger at the energy companies for high gas prices, but the reality is that government rules and regulations combined with a complete lack of a national energy policy and unfriendly tax rules have kept our refining capacity far short of our need. There are no silver bullets that will bring price relief immediately, but we can act now to start meeting this need.

Last year, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham asked the National Petroleum Council to make recommendations to improve our oil supply and to increase our nation's oil refining capacity. Among the Council's recommendations was a call to adjust the depreciation schedule for new refining equipment from 10 years to five years to make refineries consistent with other manufacturers in the U.S.

I believe that the 10-year depreciation schedule is unwarranted, and that it has contributed to a hostile economic environment for refineries. Leveling the playing field on depreciation is long overdue, and the Gas Price Reduction Act would accomplish that goal.

But it is also important that we see this new refining capacity as soon as possible. So, I have added a provision in my bill aimed at pushing refining companies to act quickly to increase capacity. For refiners that can commit to starting construction on new refining equipment before 2007 and have new facilities built by 2011, the bill would allow a complete write-off for their new equipment in the first year. This is a powerful incentive, and I believe it will capture the attention of decision-makers in the refining industry.

Again, the goal of the Gas Price Reduction Act is to get results as soon as possible, and I believe my legislation will make a difference. This bill will not bring immediate relief at the pump. But it will begin to put the brakes on escalating prices in the next few years and increase our nation's control over our energy future.

There are other good reasons to support this bill.

As part of my three-pronged approach to meeting our Nation's energy needs, it is in accord with the President's energy plan.

It does not provide a windfall to oil companies but puts refineries on an equal footing with other industries in the manufacturing sector, which already have a five-year depreciation.

It is important to note that S. 1039 does nothing to weaken our strong environmental laws and regulations; rather, it would lead to cleaner technologies as refineries upgrade equipment.

This bill is also an essential part of our strategy to increase domestic production. When we begin to realize the potential of our vast oil shale and tar sands reserves we will need domestic refining capacity to handle any increase in domestic crude oil production.

Finally, I must point out that, in the long run, this bill will not have any cost, since refineries are allowed to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this important effort to increase our refining capacity, lower gas prices for our citizens, and provide for our Nation's security through increased energy independence.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gas Price Reduction through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005, S. 1039.

This bill provides tax incentives to encourage increases in oil refining capacity in the United States. By increasing domestic refining capacity, we will increase supply of refined oil products, thus decreasing the price of gasoline at the pump.

This bill is the second in a package of three bills I am proposing to promote long-term solutions to our Nation's energy needs.

Our nation needs clean, affordable sources of energy, and we should increase our energy security by focusing on those sources of energy that can be developed domestically.

Two weeks ago I introduced the CLEAR ACT, which provides market solutions to promote breakthroughs in the use of alternative fuels and technologies in our transportation sector.

The third bill, which I will introduce in the near future, will focus on increasing U.S. energy independence through the development of our nation's gigantic, untapped oil shale and tar sands reserves.

Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that increasing our domestic supplies of crude oil is not an effective solution unless we can increase our capacity to refine it. This is the genesis of the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act.

Refining capacity in the United States cannot keep up with demand. In fact, there has not been a new refinery built in the United States since the 1976.

But that is only part of the story.

The fact is that the economics of refining are so tough that we have actually lost about 200 refineries since the last one was built. So now, our powerful Nation is down to only 149 overworked refineries.

Technological improvements at existing refineries have brought some increase to capacity, but these increases have fallen far short of demand. As a result, we now meet the gap in demand by importing more and more oil products that have already been refined, which makes us all the more dependent on foreign suppliers.

Every day, I hear from Utahns who are burdened by rapidly rising gas prices. Let me quote from just a portion of a letter from one of my constituents, Richard Decker of West Jordan, Utah:

``I am interested in knowing the progress or status of

planning to protect Americans from the continually rising oil

prices . . . I am just a normal guy with a tiny family. Given

salaries, inflation, lack of fuel efficient automobiles at a

decent price, I worry if I and others will be able to make a

decent life here--not just in Utah but in America.

Personally, I wish I had the option of a hydrogen-powered

vehicle that would completely rid us of the dependence on

foreign oil imports.

However, this isn't likely soon, so can we work on the gas

prices? Do you have any suggestions? . . . Keep up the good

work. Best Regards, Richard Decker''

My answer to Richard is that we hear him, and we are trying to respond.

We have a serious problem.

It is easy to point a finger at the energy companies for high gas prices, but the reality is that government rules and regulations combined with a complete lack of a national energy policy and unfriendly tax rules have kept our refining capacity far short of our need. There are no silver bullets that will bring price relief immediately, but we can act now to start meeting this need.

Last year, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham asked the National Petroleum Council to make recommendations to improve our oil supply and to increase our nation's oil refining capacity. Among the Council's recommendations was a call to adjust the depreciation schedule for new refining equipment from 10 years to five years to make refineries consistent with other manufacturers in the U.S.

I believe that the 10-year depreciation schedule is unwarranted, and that it has contributed to a hostile economic environment for refineries. Leveling the playing field on depreciation is long overdue, and the Gas Price Reduction Act would accomplish that goal.

But it is also important that we see this new refining capacity as soon as possible. So, I have added a provision in my bill aimed at pushing refining companies to act quickly to increase capacity. For refiners that can commit to starting construction on new refining equipment before 2007 and have new facilities built by 2011, the bill would allow a complete write-off for their new equipment in the first year. This is a powerful incentive, and I believe it will capture the attention of decision-makers in the refining industry.

Again, the goal of the Gas Price Reduction Act is to get results as soon as possible, and I believe my legislation will make a difference. This bill will not bring immediate relief at the pump. But it will begin to put the brakes on escalating prices in the next few years and increase our nation's control over our energy future.

There are other good reasons to support this bill.

As part of my three-pronged approach to meeting our Nation's energy needs, it is in accord with the President's energy plan.

It does not provide a windfall to oil companies but puts refineries on an equal footing with other industries in the manufacturing sector, which already have a five-year depreciation.

It is important to note that S. 1039 does nothing to weaken our strong environmental laws and regulations; rather, it would lead to cleaner technologies as refineries upgrade equipment.

This bill is also an essential part of our strategy to increase domestic production. When we begin to realize the potential of our vast oil shale and tar sands reserves we will need domestic refining capacity to handle any increase in domestic crude oil production.

Finally, I must point out that, in the long run, this bill will not have any cost, since refineries are allowed to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this important effort to increase our refining capacity, lower gas prices for our citizens, and provide for our Nation's security through increased energy independence.

How much time remains?

I will not take all that. I apologize to the managers of the bill for taking this time.

For over 60 years, Washington has tried to come up with a way to provide access to health insurance for all Americans. The premise of this bill is that instead of relying on Washington for answers, we rely on the people.

I compliment my colleague from Oregon for coming up with this idea. I am very happy to sign on and help him with it, the Health Care That Works For All Americans: Citizens' Health Care Working Group legislation. It was created in order to hear what people like and do not like about the current health care system.

It is our hope this working group of citizens will have at least one townhall meeting in every State in the Union, pick the brains of all Americans, and see if we can come up with answers to our health care problems. We provide a mechanism once they do for the Congress to at least consider it and see what we can do to go from there.

This is one of the biggest issues we all have to face.

Mr. President, everywhere I go in Utah, people tell me how concerned they are about health care. They are worried about the lack of health insurance, skyrocketing premiums, and unaffordable prescription drugs. They are worried that if they are diagnosed with a serious disease like cancer, they will be wiped out financially, even if they have health insurance. They are worried about losing their family doctor because he or she can no longer afford medical liability premiums.

There is no question there are problems with America's health care delivery system. And we have even more problems when the Government tries to impose a one-size-fits-all program on country. That's why Senator Wyden and I reached across the aisle to start a meaningful national discussion with every day people.

A few years ago, Senator Wyden came to my office and told me he had a ``terrific idea'' and that he wanted me to be a part of it. I am glad he did. I came to learn that we both have a strong desire to get past the partisan bickering and forge a consensus that would address the problems plaguing our health care system. We both decided to take this problem right to the American people. We want those who deal with these issues day in and day out to have their say. And, hopefully, when the process is finished, we will have a national consensus on how best to improve our health care system.

The Health Care That Works For All Americans: Citizens Health Care Working Group legislation was created in order to hear what people like and don't like about the current health care system. It is our hope that there will be at least one town hall meeting in each State. The working group members will hear from the full range of people within our health care system--including health care consumers, health care providers, and others who are impacted by health care.

For nearly 60 years, Washington has tried to come up with a way to provide access to health insurance for all Americans. The premise of the Wyden-Hatch bill is that instead of relying on Washington for answers, the working group should hear from people outside of Washington regarding our health care system. The voices of all Americans, insured and uninsured, must be heard and that this issue needs to be addressed.

Today, 45 million Americans are uninsured and 8 million of the uninsured are children. We cannot allow these individuals to go without health care coverage. That is why I sponsored the CHIP legislation in 1997 to address this serious matter for children.

To me, the most appealing aspect of this Citizens Working Group is that it is unique from other previous commissions that were run by Washington insiders. This working group is composed of individuals from all over the country who have had experience with the current health care system. These are people who have had dealings with different facets of our health care system, and they want to make it better. They will talk to people from all over the country about what is working and what isn't working. And then they will put together recommendations, based on what they heard from their fellow citizens, for Congress and the administration to consider. Again, let me emphasize that the recommendations will come from the bottom-up, rather than being imposed from Washington. This is crucial because one of the first tasks of the working group is not only to get the views from the public but also to help them better understand our health care system. And once these recommendations are issued, Congress will hold hearings to address them.

This week, the Citizens' Health Care Working Group members are being briefed on various issues related to our health care system including an overview of the health care system, public health insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the private health insurance market, the uninsured, and drivers of health care costs. In addition, the working group will be discussing the future field hearings, the required report to the American people, and begin consideration of approaches for conducting the community meeting.

Again, I am very hopeful about the innovative health care proposals that will be produced by the citizens' working group and want to encourage my colleagues to familiarize themselves with this important effort.

Mr. President, with the untimely death of Vicki Cottrell, Utah's executive director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, NAMI, a powerful and compassionate voice who spoke for those who suffer the effects of mental illness has been silenced. Vicki Cottrell's untiring efforts across Utah, in the legislature, in the jails and mental health courts, among community and religious leaders, and among families, will be difficult to replace. The passionate spirit and vision that she shared with her staff will continue.

Before working for NAMI Utah, Vicki worked in computer software sales. But after her daughter was diagnosed with schizophrenia, Vicki formed her own support group for people who have loved ones with a mental illness. Eventually, she merged her group with NAMI Utah.

Over the past 20 years, Vicki has worked for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill's Utah affiliate. She started as a volunteer teaching classes and worked her way up to the executive director's post. Going the distance to places like Logan was common for her, and she took a message of advocacy around the State. Vicki's influence did not just reach inside Utah's borders, though. Upon hearing of her death, NAMI members and friends from across the country brought forth an outpouring of sympathy.

Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. expressed his condolences noting that Vicki helped educate many about mental illness and the way new medical treatments help the afflicted lead very productive lives. He said, ``She traveled throughout the Nation sharing this message of hope and will be greatly missed by all who knew her.''

Vicki was a member of my Advisory Committee on Disability Issues for the State of Utah. She worked closely with my office and visited with me and my staff in both Washington and Utah to advocate for the needs of the mentally ill. Her strong commitment to those suffering from mental illness was well known throughout Utah. She provided valuable insights to the Advisory Committee and will be missed by all of the committee members.

The love and respect so many felt for Vicki Cottrell came from her willingness to use her own family's struggle with schizophrenia as an example and turn it into something to help others cope. She worked hard to eliminate the stigma often attached to mental illness, and was tireless, energetic and motivated in her mission.

Vicki's grace, humanity, and love touched every life she met. Her public life never overshadowed her deep devotion for her 6 children and 10 grandchildren. She was a loyal friend and enjoyed close relationships with many. Her beautiful and well-attended garden was a metaphor for her life.

I ask that my colleagues please join me in extending heartfelt sympathies to Vicki's family and friends. The magnitude of the loss for Utah and the Nation is substantial.

Mr. President, yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of President Bush's first judicial nominations, a group of 11 highly qualified men and women nominated to the U.S. courts of appeals.

As I said in the East Room at the White House on May 9, 2001: I hope the Senate will at least treat these nominees fairly. Many of our Democratic colleagues instead chose to follow their minority leader's order issued days after President Bush took office, to use ``whatever means necessary'' to defeat judicial nominees the minority does not like.

While the previous 3 Presidents saw their first 11 appeals court nominees confirmed in an average of just 81 days, today, 1,461 days later, 3 of those original nominees have not even received a vote, let alone been confirmed. Three have withdrawn.

In 2003, the minority opened a new front in the confirmation conflict by using filibusters to defeat majority-supported judicial nominees. This morning I will briefly address the top 10 most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses. Time permits only brief treatment, but it was difficult to limit the list to 10.

No. 10 is the claim that these filibusters are part of Senate tradition. Calling something a filibuster, even if you repeat it over and over, does not make it so. These filibusters block confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations by defeating votes to invoke cloture or end debate. Either these filibusters happened before or they did not.

Let me take the evidence offered by filibuster proponents at face value. Let me refer to these two charts. These two charts list some representative examples of what Democrats repeatedly claim is filibuster precedence. The Senate confirmed each of these nominations. As ridiculous as it sounds, filibuster proponents claim, with a straight face, by the way, that confirming these past nominations justifies refusing to confirm nominations today.

Some examples are more ridiculous than others. Stephen Breyer is on the Democrats' list of filibusters, suggesting that the Senate treated his nomination the way Democrats are treating President Bush's nominations today. The two situations could not be more different. Even though President Carter nominated now-Justice Breyer but then attorney Breyer, law professor Breyer, in November 1980, after losing his bid for reelection--that is when he nominated him--and after Democrats lost control of the Senate, we voted to end debate and overwhelmingly confirmed Stephen Breyer just 26 days after his nomination. And I had a lot to do with that. The suggestion that confirming the Breyer nomination for the party losing its majority now justifies filibustering nominations for the party keeping its majority is, well, just plain ridiculous.

No. 9 on the list of the most ridiculous filibuster defenses is that they are necessary, they say, to prevent one-party rule from stacking the Federal bench. Now, if you win elections, you say the country has chosen its leadership. If you lose, you complain about one-party rule. When your party controls the White House, the President appoints judges. When the other party controls the White House, the President stacks the bench--at least that seems to be the attitude.

Our Democratic colleagues say we should be guided by how the Democratic Senate handled Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. It is true that FDR's legislative proposal to create new Supreme Court seats failed, and without a filibuster, I might add. But as it turned out, packing the Supreme Court required only filling the existing seats. President Roosevelt packed the Court all right, by appointing no less than eight Justices in 6 years--more than any President, except George Washington himself.

This chart is an answer to FDR's court packing without a filibuster. Now, let me just make some points. As the chart shows, during the 75th, 76th, and 77th Congresses, when President Roosevelt made those nominations, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by an average of 70 Democrats to 20 Republicans. Now, that is one-party rule. Yet the Senate confirmed those Supreme Court nominees in an average of just 13 days, one of them on the very day it was made and six of them without even a rollcall vote. That is not because filibustering judicial nominations was difficult. In fact, our cloture rule did not then apply to nominations. A single Member of that tiny, beleaguered Republican minority could have filibustered these nominations and attempted to stop President Roosevelt from packing the Supreme Court--just a single Member could have.

The most important number on this chart is the number right at the bottom: the number of filibusters against President Roosevelt's nominees--zero.

No. 8 on this list is the claim that without the filibuster the Senate would be a patsy, nothing but a rubberstamp for the President's judicial nominations. To paraphrase a great Supreme Court Justice: If simply stating this argument does not suffice to refute it, our debate about these issues has achieved terminal silliness. Being on the losing side does not make one a rubberstamp.

For all of these centuries of democratic government, have we seen only winners and rubberstamps? Was the famous tag line for ABC's Wide World of Sports ``the thrill of victory and the agony of rubberstamping''? Democrats did not start filibustering judicial nominations until the 108th Congress. Imagine the history books describing the previous 107 Senates as the great rubberstamp Senates. Did Democrats rubberstamp the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991 since they did not use the filibuster? That conflict lasting several months and concluding with that 52-to-48 confirmation vote did not look like a rubberstamp to me.

Some modify this ridiculous argument by saying this applies when one party controls both the White House and the Senate. They make the stunning observation that Senators of the President's party are likely to vote for his nominees. The assistant minority leader, Senator Durbin, recently said, for example, that Republican Senators are nothing but ``lapdogs'' for President Bush.

Pointing at others can be dangerous because you have a few fingers pointing back at yourself. Counting both unanimous consent or rollcall votes, more than 37,500 votes were cast here on the Senate floor on President Clinton's judicial nominations. Only 11 of them, just a teeny, tiny, three one-hundredths of 1 percent, were ``no'' votes from Democrats--only 11 of 37,500. Were they just rubberstamping lapdogs in supporting President Clinton?

The Constitution assigns the same roles to the President and the Senate no matter which party the American people put in charge of which end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

In the 1960s, the Democrats were in charge, yet Minority Leader Everett Dirksen refused to filibuster judicial nominees of Presidents Kennedy or Johnson. Was he just a rubberstamp?

In the 1970s, the Democrats were in charge, yet Minority Leader Howard Baker refused to filibuster President Carter's judicial nominees. Was he just a rubberstamp?

In the 1980s, the Republicans were in charge, yet Minority Leader Robert Byrd did not filibuster President Reagan's judicial nominees. Was he just a rubberstamp?

And a decade ago, the Democrats were again in charge, yet Minority Leader Bob Dole refused to filibuster President Clinton's judicial nominees. Was he a rubberstamp?

To avoid being a rubberstamp, one need only fight the good fight, win or lose.

No. 7 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that these filibusters are necessary to preserve our system of checks and balances. That is an argument we have heard from the other side.

Mr. President, any civics textbook explains that what we call ``checks and balances'' regulates the relationship between the branches of Government. The Senate's role of advice and consent checks the President's power to appoint judges, and we exercise that check when we vote on his judicial nominations.

The filibuster is about the relationship between the majority and minority in the Senate, not about the relationship between the Senate and the President. It actually interferes with being a check on the President's power by preventing the Senate from exercising its role of advice and consent at all.

Former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield once explained that by filibustering judicial nominations, individual Senators presume what he called ``great personal privilege at the expense of the responsibilities of the Senate as a whole, and at the expense of the constitutional structure of the federal government.''

In September 1999, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, expressed the same view when he said:

It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about

these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call

vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote

``yes'' or ``no.''

Those were the words of our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy: Give every Senator the opportunity to vote yes or no.

That was then; this is now.

In case anyone needs further clarification on this point, I ask unanimous consent that the definition of ``checks and balances'' from two sources, ``congressforkids.net'' and ``socialstudieshelp.com,'' be printed in the Record.

No. 6 on the list is that these filibusters are necessary to prevent appointment of extremists.

What our Democratic colleagues call ``extreme'' the American Bar Association calls ``qualified.'' In fact, all three of the appeals court nominees chosen 4 years ago who have been denied confirmation received the ABA's highest ``well qualified'' rating. Now, that was the gold standard under the Democrats when Clinton was President. The same Democrats who once called the ABA rating the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees now disregard it and call these people extreme.

Did 76 percent of Californians vote to keep an extremist on their supreme court when they voted to retain Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman, a sharecroppers' daughter, who fought her way all the way up to the Supreme Court of California?

Did 84 percent of all Texans and every major newspaper in the State support an extremist when they reelected Justice Priscilla Owen to the Texas Supreme Court--84 percent?

The Associated Press reported last Friday that the minority leader reserves the right to filibuster what he

calls ``extreme'' Supreme Court nominees. Now, that is quite an escape hatch, if you will, since the minority already defines any nominee it does not like as ``extreme.'' This is simply a repackaged status quo masquerading as reform.

If Senators want to dismiss as an extremist any judicial nominee who does not think exactly as they do, that certainly is their right. That is, however, a reason for voting against a confirmation, not for refusing to vote at all. As our former colleague, Tom Daschle, said:

I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against

even voting on a judicial nominee.

No. 5 on this list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is the claim that these filibusters are about free speech and debate. If Senators cannot filibuster judicial nominations, some say, the Senate will cease to exist, and we will be literally unable to represent our constituents.

The same men who founded this Republic designed this Senate without the ability to filibuster anything at all. A simple majority could proceed to vote on something after sufficient debate. Among those first Senators were Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, who later served on the Supreme Court, as well as Charles Carroll of Maryland and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who had signed the Declaration of Independence. When they ran for office, did they know that they would be unable to represent their States because they would be unable to filibuster?

These filibusters are about defeating judicial nominations, not debating them. The minority rejects every proposal for debating and voting on nominations it targets for defeat.

In April 2003, my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, asked him, the minority leader, how many hours Democrats would need to debate a particular nomination. Now, just take a look at chart 4. His response spoke volumes:

[T]here is not a number [of hours] in the universe that

would be sufficient.

Let me just refer to chart 5.

Later that year, he said:

We would not agree to a time agreement . . . of any

duration.

Let me go to chart 6. Just 2 weeks ago, the minority leader summed up what really has been the Democrats' position all along:

This has never been about the length of the debate.

He is right about that. This has always been about defeating nominations, not debating them. If our Democratic colleagues want to debate, then let us debate. The majority leader said we will give 100 hours for each of these nominees. Let's debate them. Let us do what Democrats once said was the purpose of debating judicial nominations. As my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, put it in January 1998:

[L]et these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote.

No. 4 on the list is that returning to Senate tradition regarding floor votes on judicial nominations would amount to breaking the rules to change the rules. As any consultant worth even a little salt will tell you, that is a catchy little phrase. The problem is that neither of its catchy little parts is true.

The constitutional option, which would change judicial confirmation procedure through the Senate voting to affirm a parliamentary ruling, would neither break nor change Senate rules. While the constitutional option has not been used to break our rules, it has been used to break filibusters.

On January 4, 1995, the Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Byrd, described how, in 1977, when he was majority leader, he used this procedure to break a filibuster on a natural gas bill. Now, I have genuine affection and great respect for the Senator from West Virginia, and he knows that. But let me just refer to chart 7. Since I would not want to describe his repeated use of the constitutional option in a pejorative way, let me use his own words. Here is what he said back in 1995, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia:

I have seen filibusters. I have helped to break them. There

are few Senators in this body who were here [in 1977] when I

broke the filibuster on the natural gas bill. . . . I asked

Mr. Mondale, the Vice President, to go please sit in the

chair; I wanted to make some points of order and create some

new precedents that would break these filibusters. And the

filibuster was broken--back, neck, legs, and arms. . . . So I

know something about filibusters. I helped to set a great

many of the precedents that are on the books here.

Well, he certainly did. I was here. And using the constitutional option today to return to Senate tradition regarding judicial nominations would simply use the precedents the distinguished Senator from West Virginia put on the books.

No. 3 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that the constitutional option is unprecedented, or should we call it the Byrd option. In 1977, 1979, and 1987, the then majority leader, Senator Byrd, secured a favorable parliamentary ruling through a point of order and a majority of Senators voted to affirm it. He did this even when the result he sought was inconsistent with the text of our written rules.

In 1980, he used a version of the same procedure to limit nomination- related filibusters. Majority Leader Byrd made a motion for the Senate to vote to go into executive session and proceed to consider a specific nomination. At the time, the first step was not debatable but the second step was debatable. A majority of Senators voted to overturn a parliamentary ruling disallowing the procedural change Majority Leader Byrd wanted.

Let me refer to chart 8. Seven of these Senators serve with us today, and their names appear on this chart. They can explain for themselves how voting against restricting nomination-related filibusters today is consistent with voting to restrict them in 1980. As you can see, they are illustrious colleagues.

No. 2 on the list is that preventing judicial filibusters will doom legislative filibusters. As you know, there are two calendars in the Senate. One is the legislative calendar. I would fight to my death to keep the filibuster alive on the legislative calendar to protect the minority. But then there is the executive calendar, which is partly the President's in the sense that he has the power of appointment and nomination and sends these people up here and expects advice and consent from the Senate. Advice we give. Consent we have not given in the case of these nominees who have been filibustered, or so-called filibustered.

No. 2 on the list is that preventing judicial filibusters, they claim, will doom legislative filibusters. That's pure bunk. Our own Senate history shows how ridiculous this argument really is. Filibusters became possible by dropping the rule allowing a simple majority to proceed to a vote. The legislative filibuster developed, the judicial filibuster did not. What we must today limit by rule or ruling we once limited by principle or self-restraint--for 214 years, that is. The filibuster is an inappropriate obstacle to the President's judicial appointment power but an appropriate tool for exercising our own legislative power. I cannot fathom how returning to our tradition regarding judicial nominations will somehow threaten our tradition regarding legislation. The only threat to the legislative filibuster and the only votes to abolish have come from the other side of the aisle. In 1995, 19 Senators, all Democrats, voted against tabling an amendment to our cloture rule that would prohibit all filibusters of legislation as well as nominations. As this chart shows, nine of those Senators still serve with us and their names are right here on this chart.

I voted then against the Democrats' proposal to eliminate the legislative filibuster, and I oppose eliminating it today. The majority leader, Senator Frist, also voted against the Democrats' proposal to eliminate the legislative filibuster. In fact, that was his first vote as a new Member of this body. I joined him in recommitting ourselves to protecting the legislative filibuster. I urge my friends on the other side, the Democrats, to follow the example of our colleague from California, Senator Boxer, who recently said that she has changed her position, that she no longer wants to eliminate the legislative filibuster.

In 1995, USA Today condemned the filibuster as ``a pedestrian tool of partisans and gridlock meisters.''

The New York Times said the filibuster is ``the tool of the sore loser.'' I hope these papers will reconsider their position and support the legislative filibuster.

The No. 1 most ridiculous judicial filibuster defense is that those wanting

to filibuster Republican nominees today opposed filibustering Democratic nominees only a few years ago. In a letter dated February 4, 1998, for example, the leftwing urged confirmation of Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They urged us to ``bring the nomination to the Senate, ensure that it received prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible.'' Groups signing this letter included the Alliance for Justice, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way. As we all know, these leftwing groups today lead the grassroots campaign behind these filibusters that would deny this same treatment to President Bush's nominees. Their position has changed as the party controlling the White House has changed.

Let me make it easy for the ``hypocrite patrol'' to check out my position on the Morrow nomination. In the February 11, 1998, Congressional Record, on page S640, three pages before that letter from the leftwing groups appears, I opened the debate on the Morrow nomination by strongly urging my fellow Senators to support it. We did, and she is, today, a sitting Federal judge, as I believe she should be. The same Democrats who today call for filibusters called for up-or-down votes when a Democrat was in the White House.

Let me refer to chart 10 here. I will just give some illustrations. In 1999, my dear friend from California, Senator Feinstein, a person I have great love and respect for, a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of the Senate:

It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like

them, we can vote against them.

She said:

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up, vote them

down.

Let me go to chart 11. Another committee member, Senator Schumer, properly said in March 2000:

The President nominates and we are charged with voting on

the nominees.

He was right.

Let me refer to chart 12. I have already quoted the Senator from California, Senator Boxer once, but in 2000 she said that filibustering judicial nominees:

. . . would be such a twisting of what cloture really means

in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as

far as we know--ever.

I appreciate what another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Kohl, said in 1997:

Let's breathe life back into the confirmation process.

Let's vote on the nominees who have already been approved by

the Judiciary Committee.

Well, let me go to chart 14. The Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who fought so strongly against the legislative filibuster in 1995, said, 5 years later, about the judicial filibuster:

If they want to vote against them, let them vote against

them. But at least have a vote.

The same view comes from three former Judiciary Committee chairmen, members of the Democratic leadership. Let me refer to chart No. 15. A former committee chairman, Senator Biden, said in 1977 that every judicial nominee is entitled:

To have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on

the floor.

Former chairman, Senator Edward Kennedy, said in 1998:

If Senators don't like them, vote against them. But give

them a vote.

And my immediate predecessor as chairman, Senator Leahy, said a year later, judicial nominees are:

entitled to a vote, aye or nay.

Now, the assistant minority leader, Senator Durbin, had urged the same thing in September 1998:

Vote the person up or down.

Vote the person up or down.

Finally, Mr. President, the minority leader, Senator Reid, expressed in March 2000 the standard that I hope we can reestablish:

Once they get out of committee, bring them down here and

vote up or down on them.

The majority leader, Senator Frist, recently proposed a plan to accomplish precisely this result. But the minority leader dismissed it as--I want to quote this accurately now--

A big fat wet kiss to the far right.

I never thought voting on judicial nominations was a far-right thing to do.

These statements speak for themselves. Do you see a pattern here? The message at one time seems to be let us debate and let us vote. That should be the standard, no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.

Mr. President, as I close, let me summarize these 10 top most ridiculous judicial filibusters in this way. Blocking confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations by defeating cloture votes is unprecedented. In the words of the current Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Specter:

What Democrats are doing here is really seeking a

constitutional revolution.

We must turn back that revolution. No matter which party controls the White House or Senate, we should return to our tradition of giving judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor an up-or-down vote. Full, fair, and vigorous debate is one of the hallmarks of this body, and it should drive how we evaluate a President's judicial nominations.

Honoring the Constitution's separation of power, however, requires that our check on the President's appointment power not highjack that power altogether. This means debate must be a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Senators are free to vote against the nominees they feel extreme, but they should not be free to prevent other Senators from expressing a contrary view or advising and consenting. In this body, we govern ourselves with parliamentary rulings as well as by unwritten rules. The procedure of a majority of Senators voting to sustain a parliamentary ruling has been used repeatedly to change Senate procedure without changing Senate rules, even to limit nomination-related filibusters.

I have tried to deal with the substance of our filibuster proponents' arguments, albeit with some humor and maybe a touch of sarcasm. A few days ago, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported, the minority leader was in my State:

. . . stopping just short of calling Utah Senator Orrin Hatch

a hypocrite.

That is at least how the newspaper described it. That is not what I consider to be a substantive argument. Perhaps those who dismiss their opponents as liars, losers, or lap dogs have nothing else to offer in this debate. Yet debate we must, and then we must vote.

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

Let me just make this point. We confirmed, in 6 years of Republican control of the Senate, 377 judges for President Clinton. That was five less than the all-time confirmation champion Ronald Reagan. All of these people who are up have well-qualified ratings from the ABA, all had a bipartisan majority to support them. What is wrong with giving them an up-or-down vote and retaining 214 years of Senate tradition? What is wrong with that? I think it is wrong to try and blow up that tradition the way it is being done.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am delighted to take this opportunity to reaffirm my support for Representative Portman's nomination to become the United States Trade Representative. Throughout his professional career, his work his exhibited one common characteristic: excellence.

From his time working as a young lawyer at a prestigious Washington, DC, law firm to his current responsibilities as a member of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, Representative Portman has done much to make a difference in peoples' lives, in no small part by supporting legislation designed to open markets and strengthen trade relationships. He believes that if we are to create a truly stable and prosperous world and strengthen our own Nation's economic position, our trade policy must be based on free trade agreements that open markets to American goods and products.

Representative Portman also shares my belief that it as important to enforce free trade agreements as it is to create new agreements. Without vigilant enforcement of these agreements there remains a possibility of creating a disadvantageous environment for our exports. This is especially true in one of our most important areas, intellectual property. Representative Portman and I have discussed this issue, but I wanted to reiterate its importance by stating publicly how concerned I am about the recent reports that I have heard regarding the increase in intellectual piracy in nations such as Russia and China.

Representative Portman will face many challenges in his new assignment as United States Trade Representative. One of the most immediate will be the Dominican Republic--Central American Free Trade Agreement. As many others, I have concerns about what this agreement will mean for U.S. jobs and how effectively the U.S. can compete in this global marketplace. However, after diligently studying the agreement, I have come to the conclusion that U.S. companies and consumers, including Utahns, will benefit exponentially from this agreement with increased exports to our regional trading partners and lower domestic prices for many goods and services.

As Congressman Portman has pointed out to many of us and as Acting Representative Allgeier discussed during his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee 2 weeks ago, there are a number of advantages for the United States to ratify this agreement. Particularly interesting is that it would reverse the United States' policy of unilaterally affording preferences to Central American goods under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences. That means that where once U.S. goods faced trade hurdles, barriers would be eliminated.

Utah exported over $6 million worth of information technology products to CAFTA nations last year. This treaty will eliminate key distribution barriers in those countries, opening markets to Utah companies in the telecommunications and e-commerce arenas. Utah's farmers will also enjoy access to new markets as CAFTA will immediately eliminate tariffs on wheat, barley, oats and rye. However, despite these advantages we must remain on guard that this agreement and previous agreements are adequately enforced to ensure that American products are fairly treated in these markets.

This is only the ``tip of the iceberg'' of the challenges that Representative Portman will face. I do not believe that the President could have chosen a better person to create and enforce the extraordinary opportunities afforded by new and existing free trade agreements. Representative Portman's nomination has my full support and confidence.

Mr. President, it is with heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of SGT Rocky Payne, a soldier in the Army's 497th Transportation Group, who bravely gave his life in service to his country. Sergeant Rocky Payne, a native of Howell, UT, was killed on March 16, 2005, in an explosion created by a roadside bomb in the city of Baghdad. Sergeant Payne is a true hero who died defending his Nation and bringing freedom to an oppressed people.

Sergeant Payne's dream of being a soldier was fulfilled when he joined the Marines at the age of 20, serving 4 years. Shortly after the end of his enlistment with the Marines he joined the Army and was again sent to Iraq, this time as a gunner protecting the supply convoys that make our operations in Iraq possible. In honor of his dedication and service he was posthumously advanced to the rank of sergeant.

I have been told that as a young man SGT Payne exhibited an unusual ability to work with his hands. Old bicycles and electronics found new life under his determined resourcefulness. He restored an old rusty truck which hadn't run in years to working condition in only 2 days. Possessing the ability to play piano by ear, SGT Payne apparently could reconstruct a tune he had heard only once and play it on the piano. But it was when his hands were placed in the service of others that they did the most good. ``He was a good, good person,'' his brother is reported as saying. ``One of the kindest people you would ever come across.'' As a soldier SGT Payne fought bravely to ensure that the people of Iraq would one day enjoy freedom from oppression. ``He loved serving,'' said his father in one newspaper story. ``He honestly felt like he was helping the Iraqi people.''

Sergeant Payne served his country with courage and honor and his loss is one that our entire country will share forever.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the CLEAR ACT, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act of 2005. This bill passed the Senate as part of the omnibus energy bill last year, but unfortunately was not enacted.

Let me begin by thanking those who are cosponsoring this bill, namely Senators Rockefeller, Ensign, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Jeffords, Lieberman and Smith. And I know that a number of other senators will add their names to this legislation in the near future. I appreciate their previous support and look forward to working with them to promote the CLEAR ACT in this Congress.

The CLEAR ACT addresses two issues of critical national importance: our dependence on foreign oil; and air pollution. Ultimately, two- thirds of our oil use is consumed by the transportation sector, and transportation in the United States is 97 percent dependent on oil. If we are going to address our energy crisis, we have to address our transportation fuels and vehicle use in a serious way.

I was very pleased that President Bush, yesterday, highlighted the need to direct the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of hybrid

and alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT provides powerful market incentives to achieve that goal. It promotes the combination of advances we must have in technology, infrastructure, and alternative fuels in order to bring fuel cell vehicles to a future mass market reality. Even if, in the end, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles prove infeasible, the battery electric and alternative fuel technologies promoted by this bill will play a major role in improving our energy security and our air quality. And we do so without any new federal mandates.

Currently, consumers face three basic obstacles to accepting the use of these alternative fueled and advanced technology vehicles. They are the cost of the alternative fuel, the lack of an adequate infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT attacks each of these obstacles head on, and it is crafted in a way to encourage the greatest social benefit possible for every tax dollar spent.

We need to find a way to lower those barriers to widespread consumer acceptance, which will in turn put the power of mass production to work to lower the incremental cost of these alternative technologies.

In short, our legislation would bring the benefits of cleaner air and energy independence to our citizens sooner.

I have heard one or two senators ask why we need incentives to purchase hybrid vehicles when people are lining up to buy them today. It is true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few areas. However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives in place for the purchase of the vehicles. Where incentives are not in place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of alternatives vehicles. With the CLEAR ACT we are trying to provide that breakthrough on a national scale.

In 2004, hybrid vehicles made up only 0.48 percent of light weight vehicle sales. That's far short of where we need to be as a nation to make a dent in our energy crisis, but at least it's a start.

Air pollution is an issue of critical concern in my home State of Utah. While Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, it is a fact that each year we increase the number of vehicular miles driven in our State and mobile sources are the main cause of air pollution in Utah.

It is clear that if we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage the use of alternative fuels and technologies to reduce vehicle emissions.

The CLEAR ACT will help us do just that.

I am very proud to offer this ground-breaking and bipartisan legislation.

It represents the input and hard work of a very powerful and effective coalition--the CLEAR ACT Coalition. This coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Environmental Defense, the Alliance to save Energy, Ford Motor Company, Toyota, Honda, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Propane Vehicle Council, the Methanol Institute, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, and others. The CLEAR ACT reflects the untiring effort and expertise of the members of this coalition, and for this we owe them our gratitude.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this forward-looking approach to cleaner air and increased energy independence.

Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, our country suffered the most deadly attack ever on our soil. We woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001 to a new reality.

A month later, we again realized the magnitude of the ever-changing threat we were facing when the Senate Hart Office Building was contaminated with anthrax and was closed for three months.

Most Americans were shaken out of their sense of complacency in 2001.

As many will recall, after 9/11, Congress took action to secure our borders, our ports, and our airlines and bolster our public health infrastructure.

Yet, it is important to note that the key steps necessary to protect our country against the continuing threat of bioterrorism are still being carefully reviewed and revised.

And while these steps are being evaluated, time is running out. Even yesterday, we heard news reports that al-Qaida is planning attacks on our country through chemical plants within the next five years.

While Congress took an important step when the Project BioShield Act of 2004 was signed into law last July, I believe that much more still needs to be done.

That is why I am once again joining my good friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I am proud to have been Senator Lieberman's primary partner on this legislation over the past several years.

Indeed, we are pleased that some key concepts contained in our earlier bills, such as the guaranteed market, have been adopted by the administration and our colleagues in Congress.

In the last congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee to determine what priorities should be included in the follow-on legislation, the Bioshield II bill, and to raise awareness on what else needs to be done in order to combat bioterrorism. It is clear that we do need to continue our efforts, and that is why I will continue to push for action on this legislation until the bill is signed into law by the President.

It is well known that terrorists are specifically interested in using biological weapons, such as those produced in the Soviet Union before its collapse.

Some experts believe that Soviet scientists were able to develop smallpox strains that were universally lethal.

Some believe they developed a strain of Black Plague that is resistant to 10 different antibiotics.

Today, it is unclear where some of these former Soviet scientists are working and, even more disturbing, it is not clear if these bioterror agents are still in the former Soviet Union.

As new varieties of biological weapons are developed, the threat of another attack becomes a very real possibility. Again, that is why Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that Congress needs to act on the Liberman-Hatch legislation immediately.

Over 4 years ago, Congress instructed the executive branch to perform a bioterrorism exercise to determine our Nation's state of preparedness against a bioterror threat.

In May 2000, a bioterrorism exercise was initiated and the naturally occurring plague bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, was theoretically unleashed in Denver. In that exercise, one antibiotic that is available to the public was used to combat the bioterrorism plot and treat the infected individuals.

I believe that this exercise needs to be conducted again--a more realistic scenario would be one in which no effective treatment is available.

To me, that is the more realistic and threatening scenario.

There are already numerous diseases where no actual cure exists, where all the clinicians can do is to support the patient and hope that they survive. We need to focus our efforts on improving our ability to care for these illnesses, as they are currently very attractive weapons to our enemies.

Even as we continue to invest resources to build up a prepared public health infrastructure, we must also develop medicines to threat those who

are exposed or infected. Otherwise, we will be forced to impose quarantines, just as our ancestors did in times of pestilence, and we will surely find it as difficult a proposition as they did. Quarantining hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people would, obviously, be extremely difficult to manage.

Developing ways to prevent, detect, and treat dangerous pathogens must be a priority for our Nation so that we do not face these dreadful scenarios.

Our best defense against bioterrorism is a full medicine chest. We must develop medicines to treat the naturally occurring biologic agents, and, in addition, we need to develop medicines to treat bacteria and viruses that have been genetically manipulated as weapons to cause death or injury to human beings.

Therefore, the biopharma companies must be engaged in these discussions because they will play an integral role.

Our bill, BioShield II, is the next step in the legislative process to ensure bioterror readiness.

We cannot afford to wait. Every day that we sit idle, we encourage our enemies to move forward.

We must abandon business-as-usual and take vigorous steps to protect our Nation, our communities, our citizens and our industries from future bioterrorist attack, especially given the implication of further attacks on the United States.

BioShield II encourages Congress to take vital steps to protect our Nation through an array of intellectual property, tax, procurement, research, liability, and other incentives to ensure the creation of a robust biodefense industry.

Direct government funding can only go so far.

To be effective, we must also enact incentives so that potential investors will want to fund the research associated with building a strong and flexible defense against potential attacks.

But to accomplish this goal, we must unleash the creative genius of the biopharma industry to work with us on these solutions.

Bioshield II will encourage biopharma companies to take the lead in the development of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to combat bioterrorism. These efforts will also help protect our Nation against naturally occurring diseases. In fact, a major improvement in this bill is that we allow the array of incentives to be employed against infectious diseases and as well as disease prevalent in the developing world.

All research on infectious disease is interrelated. SARS, HIV, malaria, and avian and pandemic flue are chilling reminders that our public health system must be able to take on all comers; it is not just deliberately engineered agents that threaten us.

Our infrastructure--our researchers, our pharmaceutical industry, our hospitals, and our caregivers--must be prepared and equipped to fight illness, wherever and however it occurs. By expanding the scope of covered research under this bill, we may also discover cures for diseases that afflict the world's poorest nations.

The goal of our legislation is to have a safer and better prepared America. But, to do this we must provide researchers and investors with the proper incentives. Forming unprecedented and vigorous partnerships with these companies is the key. Otherwise, this endeavor will never work and the American public will remain at great risk.

The harsh reality is that nearly 4 years after 9/11, we have not developed one significant bioterrorism countermeasure.

Aside from vaccines for smallpox and anthrax--both of which have their own downsides--and a handful of antibiotics and anti-infectives-- also with their own array of strengths and weaknesses--the cupboard is bare.

This is simply not acceptable.

As new varieties of bioterror weapons are developed, the threat of another attack comes ever-closer to our shores. For this reason, Senator Lieberman and I are introducing the ``Project BioShield II Act of 2005''.

We plan to work closely with all interested members of Congress, including Senator Burr, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the HELP Committee respectively, Senators Grassley and Baucus, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Finance Committee, Senators Specter and Leahy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

We will work closely with all the relevant officials in the Bush administration; and we will work with Senate Leadership and with all interested parties in the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the CLEAR ACT, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act of 2005. This bill passed the Senate as part of the omnibus energy bill last year, but unfortunately was not enacted.

Let me begin by thanking those who are cosponsoring this bill, namely Senators Rockefeller, Ensign, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Jeffords, Lieberman and Smith. And I know that a number of other senators will add their names to this legislation in the near future. I appreciate their previous support and look forward to working with them to promote the CLEAR ACT in this Congress.

The CLEAR ACT addresses two issues of critical national importance: our dependence on foreign oil; and air pollution. Ultimately, two- thirds of our oil use is consumed by the transportation sector, and transportation in the United States is 97 percent dependent on oil. If we are going to address our energy crisis, we have to address our transportation fuels and vehicle use in a serious way.

I was very pleased that President Bush, yesterday, highlighted the need to direct the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of hybrid

and alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT provides powerful market incentives to achieve that goal. It promotes the combination of advances we must have in technology, infrastructure, and alternative fuels in order to bring fuel cell vehicles to a future mass market reality. Even if, in the end, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles prove infeasible, the battery electric and alternative fuel technologies promoted by this bill will play a major role in improving our energy security and our air quality. And we do so without any new federal mandates.

Currently, consumers face three basic obstacles to accepting the use of these alternative fueled and advanced technology vehicles. They are the cost of the alternative fuel, the lack of an adequate infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT attacks each of these obstacles head on, and it is crafted in a way to encourage the greatest social benefit possible for every tax dollar spent.

We need to find a way to lower those barriers to widespread consumer acceptance, which will in turn put the power of mass production to work to lower the incremental cost of these alternative technologies.

In short, our legislation would bring the benefits of cleaner air and energy independence to our citizens sooner.

I have heard one or two senators ask why we need incentives to purchase hybrid vehicles when people are lining up to buy them today. It is true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few areas. However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives in place for the purchase of the vehicles. Where incentives are not in place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of alternatives vehicles. With the CLEAR ACT we are trying to provide that breakthrough on a national scale.

In 2004, hybrid vehicles made up only 0.48 percent of light weight vehicle sales. That's far short of where we need to be as a nation to make a dent in our energy crisis, but at least it's a start.

Air pollution is an issue of critical concern in my home State of Utah. While Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, it is a fact that each year we increase the number of vehicular miles driven in our State and mobile sources are the main cause of air pollution in Utah.

It is clear that if we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage the use of alternative fuels and technologies to reduce vehicle emissions.

The CLEAR ACT will help us do just that.

I am very proud to offer this ground-breaking and bipartisan legislation.

It represents the input and hard work of a very powerful and effective coalition--the CLEAR ACT Coalition. This coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Environmental Defense, the Alliance to save Energy, Ford Motor Company, Toyota, Honda, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Propane Vehicle Council, the Methanol Institute, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, and others. The CLEAR ACT reflects the untiring effort and expertise of the members of this coalition, and for this we owe them our gratitude.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this forward-looking approach to cleaner air and increased energy independence.

Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, our country suffered the most deadly attack ever on our soil. We woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001 to a new reality.

A month later, we again realized the magnitude of the ever-changing threat we were facing when the Senate Hart Office Building was contaminated with anthrax and was closed for three months.

Most Americans were shaken out of their sense of complacency in 2001.

As many will recall, after 9/11, Congress took action to secure our borders, our ports, and our airlines and bolster our public health infrastructure.

Yet, it is important to note that the key steps necessary to protect our country against the continuing threat of bioterrorism are still being carefully reviewed and revised.

And while these steps are being evaluated, time is running out. Even yesterday, we heard news reports that al-Qaida is planning attacks on our country through chemical plants within the next five years.

While Congress took an important step when the Project BioShield Act of 2004 was signed into law last July, I believe that much more still needs to be done.

That is why I am once again joining my good friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I am proud to have been Senator Lieberman's primary partner on this legislation over the past several years.

Indeed, we are pleased that some key concepts contained in our earlier bills, such as the guaranteed market, have been adopted by the administration and our colleagues in Congress.

In the last congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee to determine what priorities should be included in the follow-on legislation, the Bioshield II bill, and to raise awareness on what else needs to be done in order to combat bioterrorism. It is clear that we do need to continue our efforts, and that is why I will continue to push for action on this legislation until the bill is signed into law by the President.

It is well known that terrorists are specifically interested in using biological weapons, such as those produced in the Soviet Union before its collapse.

Some experts believe that Soviet scientists were able to develop smallpox strains that were universally lethal.

Some believe they developed a strain of Black Plague that is resistant to 10 different antibiotics.

Today, it is unclear where some of these former Soviet scientists are working and, even more disturbing, it is not clear if these bioterror agents are still in the former Soviet Union.

As new varieties of biological weapons are developed, the threat of another attack becomes a very real possibility. Again, that is why Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that Congress needs to act on the Liberman-Hatch legislation immediately.

Over 4 years ago, Congress instructed the executive branch to perform a bioterrorism exercise to determine our Nation's state of preparedness against a bioterror threat.

In May 2000, a bioterrorism exercise was initiated and the naturally occurring plague bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, was theoretically unleashed in Denver. In that exercise, one antibiotic that is available to the public was used to combat the bioterrorism plot and treat the infected individuals.

I believe that this exercise needs to be conducted again--a more realistic scenario would be one in which no effective treatment is available.

To me, that is the more realistic and threatening scenario.

There are already numerous diseases where no actual cure exists, where all the clinicians can do is to support the patient and hope that they survive. We need to focus our efforts on improving our ability to care for these illnesses, as they are currently very attractive weapons to our enemies.

Even as we continue to invest resources to build up a prepared public health infrastructure, we must also develop medicines to threat those who

are exposed or infected. Otherwise, we will be forced to impose quarantines, just as our ancestors did in times of pestilence, and we will surely find it as difficult a proposition as they did. Quarantining hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people would, obviously, be extremely difficult to manage.

Developing ways to prevent, detect, and treat dangerous pathogens must be a priority for our Nation so that we do not face these dreadful scenarios.

Our best defense against bioterrorism is a full medicine chest. We must develop medicines to treat the naturally occurring biologic agents, and, in addition, we need to develop medicines to treat bacteria and viruses that have been genetically manipulated as weapons to cause death or injury to human beings.

Therefore, the biopharma companies must be engaged in these discussions because they will play an integral role.

Our bill, BioShield II, is the next step in the legislative process to ensure bioterror readiness.

We cannot afford to wait. Every day that we sit idle, we encourage our enemies to move forward.

We must abandon business-as-usual and take vigorous steps to protect our Nation, our communities, our citizens and our industries from future bioterrorist attack, especially given the implication of further attacks on the United States.

BioShield II encourages Congress to take vital steps to protect our Nation through an array of intellectual property, tax, procurement, research, liability, and other incentives to ensure the creation of a robust biodefense industry.

Direct government funding can only go so far.

To be effective, we must also enact incentives so that potential investors will want to fund the research associated with building a strong and flexible defense against potential attacks.

But to accomplish this goal, we must unleash the creative genius of the biopharma industry to work with us on these solutions.

Bioshield II will encourage biopharma companies to take the lead in the development of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to combat bioterrorism. These efforts will also help protect our Nation against naturally occurring diseases. In fact, a major improvement in this bill is that we allow the array of incentives to be employed against infectious diseases and as well as disease prevalent in the developing world.

All research on infectious disease is interrelated. SARS, HIV, malaria, and avian and pandemic flue are chilling reminders that our public health system must be able to take on all comers; it is not just deliberately engineered agents that threaten us.

Our infrastructure--our researchers, our pharmaceutical industry, our hospitals, and our caregivers--must be prepared and equipped to fight illness, wherever and however it occurs. By expanding the scope of covered research under this bill, we may also discover cures for diseases that afflict the world's poorest nations.

The goal of our legislation is to have a safer and better prepared America. But, to do this we must provide researchers and investors with the proper incentives. Forming unprecedented and vigorous partnerships with these companies is the key. Otherwise, this endeavor will never work and the American public will remain at great risk.

The harsh reality is that nearly 4 years after 9/11, we have not developed one significant bioterrorism countermeasure.

Aside from vaccines for smallpox and anthrax--both of which have their own downsides--and a handful of antibiotics and anti-infectives-- also with their own array of strengths and weaknesses--the cupboard is bare.

This is simply not acceptable.

As new varieties of bioterror weapons are developed, the threat of another attack comes ever-closer to our shores. For this reason, Senator Lieberman and I are introducing the ``Project BioShield II Act of 2005''.

We plan to work closely with all interested members of Congress, including Senator Burr, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the HELP Committee respectively, Senators Grassley and Baucus, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Finance Committee, Senators Specter and Leahy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

We will work closely with all the relevant officials in the Bush administration; and we will work with Senate Leadership and with all interested parties in the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to support an important resolution designating the 30th day of April 2005 as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.''

Nations throughout the world, and especially within Latin America, celebrate Dia de los Ninos on the 30th of April, in recognition and celebration of their country's future--their children. Many American Hispanic families continue the tradition of honoring their children on this day by celebrating Dia de los Ninos in their homes.

The designation of a day to honor the children of the Nation will help affirm for the people of the United States the significance of family, education, and community. This special recognition of children will provide us with an opportunity to reflect on their future, articulate their dreams and aspirations, and find comfort and security in the support of their family members and communities. This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and States across the Nation to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Joining me as original cosponsors to this resolution are John Cornyn, Charles E. Grassley, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mel Martinez, and Lisa Murkowski.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in promptly passing this resolution designating April 30, 2005, Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.

I ask unanimous consent we be extended an extra 15 minutes, as well.

The Senator from Delaware a few minutes ago claimed we have never changed our procedures by majority vote. Four times the distinguished Senator from West Virginia led this body to do exactly that when he was acting as majority leader--in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987. Using a ruling from the Chair and a majority of all the Senate, a simple majority, we changed procedure relating to both legislation and nominations. The record has to be made clear.

All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking.

These are highly qualified nominees. The ABA has ruled they are qualified in every case. They all have a majority bipartisan vote in their favor. If our colleagues on the other side do not want to vote for them, they can vote against them. That will be their right. I would fight always to maintain that right. But give them a vote, vote up or down. That is what we have always done for 214 years before this President became President.

The actions of our colleagues on the other side amount to changing that 214-year traditional history of this Senate.

By the way, we never called this the nuclear option. It was called the nuclear option by the Democrats. We called it the constitutional option because the Constitution says the President has the right to appoint and nominate these people for judicial positions. We have the right to advise and--it is sometimes left off in this body--consent, which means a vote up and down.

That is what I think our colleagues ignore. This is a dangerous thing. I call it the constitutional option, or I call it the Byrd option because our distinguished friend, the Senator from West Virginia, is the one who used this four times.

If politics is a medicine, an effective prescription gives an accurate diagnosis. I take a step back and offer a diagnosis of our current struggle over how to conduct the judicial confirmation process. I hope this will bring a few pieces together, connect some dots, and provide a little perspective.

The first principle is every judicial nomination reaching the Senate deserves an up-or-down vote.

This principle has constitutional roots, historical precedent, and citizen support. I begin with the Constitution because that is where we should always begin. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Along with the Declaration of Independence, it is one of the foundational organic laws of the United States. It is the charter that each of us, as Senators, swears an oath before God to preserve, protect, and defend.

That Constitution separates the three branches of Government, assigning legislation to us in the legislative branch, and assigning appointments to the President in the executive branch. We have heard that the Constitutional Convention considered other arrangements for appointing judges. That may be, but the Constitutional Convention rejected those arrangements. Rejected ideas do not govern us. The Constitution does. And the Constitution makes the President, in Alexander Hamilton's words, the ``principal agent'' in appointments, while the Senate is a check on that power.

Giving judicial nominations reaching the floor an up-or-down vote, that is, exercising our role of advice and consent through voting on nominations, helps us resist the temptation of turning our check on the President's power into a force that can destroy the President's power and upset the Constitution's balance.

Historically, we have followed this standard of everybody who reaches the floor getting an up-or-down vote. When Republicans ran the Senate under President Clinton, we gave each of his judicial nominations reaching the floor a final confirmation decision, an up-or-down vote. We took cloture votes, that is, votes to end debate, on four of the hundreds of nominees reaching us here. All four were confirmed. As a matter of fact, we confirmed 377 judges nominated by President Clinton, almost the same number as the all-time confirmation champion, and that was Ronald Reagan, who got 382. But Ronald Reagan had 6 years of a Republican Senate to help him. President Clinton only had 2 years of a Democrat Senate to help him. Yet, with the aid of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and in this body, he got 377 approved.

In fact, even on the most controversial appeals court nominations by President Clinton, the Republican leadership used cloture votes to prevent filibusters and ensure up-or-down votes, exactly the opposite of how cloture votes are being used during President Bush's Presidency.

This principle that every judicial nomination reaching the Senate floor deserves an up-or-down vote not only has constitutional roots and historical precedent, it also has citizen support. I saw in the Washington Post yesterday a poll framed in partisan terms, asking whether Senate rules should be changed ``to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees.''

With all due respect, this question could easily have been written in the Democrats' new public relations war room. I am actually surprised that such a biased question did not get even more than 66-percent support.

A more balanced, neutral, fair poll was released yesterday, asking whether

Senate procedures should make sure that the full Senate votes up or down on every judicial nomination of any President. The results, not surprisingly, were exactly the opposite of the biased poll, with 64 percent of Americans, including 59 percent of moderates and almost half of all liberals, embracing this commonsense, fair, and traditional standard.

The second aspect of this diagnosis is that the judicial nominees being denied this traditional up-or-down vote are highly qualified men and women, with majority, bipartisan support.

Last week, I addressed how opponents of President Bush's nominees play games with words such as ``extremist.'' Just as they want to talk about a judicial appointment process the Constitution did not establish, these critics want to talk about everything but what these nominees would do on the bench. We know, from abundant testimony by those who know these nominees best, that no matter how provocative their speeches off the bench or strongly held beliefs in their hearts and minds, these nominees are or would be fair, impartial, and evenhanded on the bench.

Yet they are called extremists. All 10 of them--there are only 7 remaining--but all 10 of them had qualified ratings, and most well qualified, the highest rating of the American Bar Association. By the way, that was considered the ``gold standard'' during the Clinton years by our friends on the other side.

Now this is the real standard.

It is hard to believe we are actually arguing about whether we should vote on judicial nominations and whether highly qualified nominees, with majority support--bipartisan, majority support--should be confirmed. Yet the third part of this diagnosis is that Senate Democrats are trying to change our tradition of giving judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor an up-or-down vote. Senators, of course, are free to vote against them for any reason. We must, of course, have a full and vigorous debate about these nominees and their qualifications.

The critics, however, do not want to have that debate. Democrats in this body and the leftwing interest groups that, to a certain extent, seem to control them, want only to seize what they cannot win through the fair, traditional system. Beginning in the 108th Congress, for the first time in American history, they are now using the filibuster not to debate but to defeat majority-supported judicial nominations.

They are trying to rig the confirmation process, to pry us away from our tradition that respected the separation of powers, and force us into a brave, new world which turns the judicial appointment process inside out. They want to turn our check on the President's appointment power into a force that hijacks that power altogether. That would be serious and constitutionally suspect if a Senate majority did it. It is even more serious when, as we see today, a minority of Senators--all partisan Senators--tries to capture the process.

For 2 years now, we have heard claims that these filibusters are nothing new, that they have been part and parcel of how the Senate has long done its confirmation business. While some questions in this debate may be subjective and complex, this is not one of them. The current filibusters target bipartisan, majority-supported judicial nominations, and they defeat them by preventing confirmation votes. Either that happened before the 108th Congress or it did not.

Let us look at what our Democratic colleagues have claimed. On March 11, 2003, the distinguished Senator from Vermont displayed here on the Senate floor a chart titled: ``Republican Filibusters of Nominees.'' He said his list proved that Republicans have ``succeeded in blocking many nominees by cloture votes.'' Anyone can look it up for him or herself. The whole chart is right there on page S3442 of the Congressional Record.

It turns out only 6 of the 19 names on the chart were judicial nominations, that the Senate actually confirmed 5 of those 6, and the other one did not have majority support. And there was a real question whether that was a filibuster raised, not in the least sense by the person who conducted the debate on the Republican side, Senator Robert Griffin, who had an impeccably honest--and still does--an impeccably honest reputation. He said there was never a desire to filibuster Justice Fortas. He said they wanted 2 more days of debate to make their case. But, he said, they had enough votes to defeat him up and down. Now, he was here on the Senate floor. He knew it. He led the fight. And the votes were bipartisan, almost equal. It turns out, again, that only 6 of the 19 names on the chart were judicial nominations, that the Senate actually confirmed 5 of them, and the only one they did not was Justice Fortas, because Lyndon Johnson pulled him, not wanting to be embarrassed.

Far from justifying today's filibusters, the chart of the distinguished Senator from Vermont proved no precedent exists at all.

On November 12, 2003, the Senator from Vermont tried again, this time with a list of what he claimed were Clinton appeals court nominees supposedly blocked by Republicans. Once again, the list included nominations the Senate confirmed--every one of them. How can a confirmed nomination be called a blocked nomination? It cannot. Not a single nomination on Senator Leahy's list is similar to the nominations being filibustered today.

That same day, November 12, 2003, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, named 5 judicial nominations which he said had been filibustered. Once again, not one of them is a precedent for filibusters happening today. You would think no one with a straight face would claim that ending debate and confirming nominations is somehow precedent for not ending debate and refusing to confirm nominations.

On April 15, 2005, the distinguished assistant minority leader, Senator Durbin, expanded his previous list, now offering us 12 examples of what he said were judicial nominations requiring at least 60 votes for cloture to end a filibuster. I addressed this in more detail last week. Not one--not one--of those 12 of Senator Durbin's supposed precedents is any precedent at all.

The first nomination on his list occurred in 1881, 36 years before we even had a cloture rule in the Senate. In fact, if we truly did what he apparently wants us to do, and treated his listed examples as a confirmation guide, we would vigorously debate judicial nominations, invoke cloture if we needed to, and then vote on the confirmations. That is what happened.

This game continued as recently as 2 months ago. On Monday, April 25, on CNN's ``Crossfire'' program, the leader of a prominent leftwing group claimed that more than 30 nominations--here is the list--had been filibustered. I have this list right here in my right hand. It is titled: ``Filibusters of Nominations.'' It lists 13 judicial nominations out of the 30, and not one of them is at all like the filibusters being conducted today--not one. We did not even take a cloture vote on two of them. We invoked cloture on eight of them. We confirmed 12 of the 13. And the one we did not, did not have majority support, the Fortas nomination, but had bipartisan opposition.

Accepting such fraudulent arguments requires believing that ending debate on judicial nominations is the same as not ending debate, that confirming judicial nominations is the same as not confirming them, and that judicial nominations without majority support are the same as those with majority support. As you can see, the liberal propaganda machine has been working overtime.

In addition to these bizarre claims I described, they worked to turn what was once common sense and accepted fairness into something that sounds sinister and unseemly. They manufacture nasty phrases such as ``court packing'' and ominous warnings about ``one-party rule.'' Now, we are told, preventing up-or-down votes on even majority-supported judicial nominations is the only way to prevent our entire constitutional order from imploding. The sky is falling, and we are all about to slide into the abyss.

The purveyors of this fantasy would have us look to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who, they tell us, wanted to pack the Supreme Court. The Senate rejected his legislative proposal to expand the Court so he could appoint more Justices. By taking this stand, the storytellers say, the Senate kept one-party rule from packing the Court.

Well, as Paul Harvey might say: Here is the rest of the story.

The Senate, even though dominated by President Roosevelt's own party, did not support this legislative plan. And it turns out President Roosevelt did not need any legislative innovations to pack the Supreme Court. He packed it all right, doing it the old-fashioned way, by appointing eight out of nine Justices in 6 years. Mind you, during the 75th to the 77th Congress, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by an average of 70 to 20. Now, that is one-party rule.

In those years, from 1937 to 1943, our cloture rule applied only to bills. This meant that ending debate on other things, such as nominations, required unanimous consent. A single Senator in that tiny, beleaguered minority could conduct a filibuster of President Roosevelt's nominations and thwart the real court packing that was in full swing.

Now, if the filibuster were the only thing preventing one-party rule from packing the courts, and the filibuster were so easily used, surely there must be in history filibusters of President Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominations. If the warnings, frantic pleas, and hysterical fundraising appeals we hear today make any sense at all, the filibuster would certainly have been used in FDR's time.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but there were no filibusters, not even by a single Senator, not against a single nominee. In fact, FDR's 8 Supreme Court nominees were confirmed in an average of 13 days, and 6 of the 8 were confirmed without even a rollcall vote.

So if this is to protect the minority, why has it not ever happened before President Bush became President? Even when we look at the very examples and stories the other side uses, we see no support for using the filibuster against majority-supported judicial nominations.

Last week, here on the Senate floor, the distinguished Senator from Illinois repeated a selective version of this FDR story and asked what would happen today in a Senate dominated by the President's party. He asked:

Will they rise in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt's

Senate?

Well, I hope we do. I hope the Senate does exactly what Franklin Roosevelt's Senate did, by debating and voting on the President's judicial nominations. Franklin Roosevelt's Senate did not use the filibuster, even when the minority was much smaller and the filibuster much easier to use, and this Senate should not do so, either.

Finally, the fourth piece to this diagnosis of our current situation is that Senate Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate if the majority moves us back to the tradition--the 214-year tradition--of debating and voting on judicial nominations.

To avoid what most Americans believe Senators come to Washington to do--debate and vote--we are now threatened with a party policy of open obstruction, a nuclear option of shutting down the Senate, at least to anything but what they agree to. I said a few minutes ago that the Constitution's separation of powers assigns legislative business to Congress and executive business, including appointments, to the President. Some Senators on the other side of the aisle are saying if they cannot hijack what is not theirs, they will destroy what is theirs. If they cannot abandon Senate tradition and use the filibuster to defeat majority-supported judicial nominations, they will undercut and disable the legislative process. And they call us radical.

The Constitution gives the power of nomination and appointment to the President. The Senate provides a check on that power. I believe we must preserve the system of separated powers and checks and balances and resist those who would radically alter that system, turning the Senate's check on the President's power into a force that can overwhelm the President's power.

Every judicial nomination reaching the Senate floor deserves an up- or-down vote. I argued that during the Clinton years, and I prevailed as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That principle has constitutional roots, historical precedent, and citizen support. President Bush has sent two highly qualified nominees that we know have bipartisan majority support. They deserve to be treated decently and, after a full and vigorous debate, given an up-or-down vote.

Our colleagues on the other side are trying to change our tradition. For the first time in more than two centuries, they want to use filibusters to block confirmation votes on judicial nominations here on the Senate floor. This radical innovation is not needed to prevent one- party rule from packing the courts. Republicans resisted using the filibuster under Roosevelt and Democrats should resist using it today.

Finally, all Americans should be most concerned with the threat of some of our colleagues on the other side. Because they are unable to seize control of a judicial appointment process that does not belong to the Senate, Democrats say they will shut down the legislative process that does belong to the Senate. This cannot stand. With all due respect, they need to get both their principles and their priorities in order.

Our former majority leader Bob Dole has a thoughtful column in today's New York Times also addressing Senate tradition and the prospect of returning to that tradition. No one loves this institution more than Senator Dole, and I think I am in that category, too.

I ask unanimous consent that his column be printed in the Record.

As our current majority leader Bill Frist put it a few days ago: I never thought it was a radical thing to ask Senators to vote. That is what we have traditionally done on judicial nominations that reach the floor, and that traditional standard should apply across the board no matter which party controls the White House and no matter which party controls the Senate. We should bind both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to do what is right.

That is the diagnosis, and I hope we see an effective cure soon so we can get back to doing the people's business.

I started off by saying one of the problems here is that every one of these Presidential nominees who reaches the floor should have an up-or- down vote, especially since they are listed as qualified by the American Bar Association, most of them well qualified, the highest rating you can have. They all have majority bipartisan support. We should not change 214 years of Senate tradition because some in this body don't like President Bush's nominees.

People such as Priscilla Owen--she broke through the glass ceiling for women in this country and became a major partner in a major law firm. Her last election to the Texas Supreme Court was over 75 percent. She had every editorial board in the State of Texas supporting her; 15 former State bar presidents supported her, most of whom were Democrats. Yet they have called her an extremist.

Janice Rogers Brown, a sharecropper's daughter, came up the hard way, put herself through college and law school as a single mother, worked in California State government in a variety of positions, wound up on the California Supreme Court where she wrote, at least in the last number of years, the majority of the majority opinions. She got reelected by 84 percent of the California voters, more votes than any other person running for the Supreme Court that year, including her colleagues. Yet she is called an extremist because she is a conservative African American.

It is very dangerous stuff to say this will create nuclear war because we want to continue 214 years of Senate tradition. That is dangerous stuff. It is the wrong stuff. We ought to give these people a simple, straightforward up-or-down vote.

I notice the distinguished Senator from North Carolina is waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the nomination of Thomas Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development and to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled ``Chemical Attack on America: How Vulnerable Are We?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Regulation of Indian Gaming.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Paul D. Clement, to be Solicitor General of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to markup S. 271, a bill which reforms the regulatory and reporting structure of organizations registered under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 27, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Wednesday, April 27, 2005 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen G50 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a private relief bill for Miss Heilit Martinez. As my colleagues know, private relief is available in rare instances. I believe that the circumstances surrounding Miss Martinez's case are extraordinary and merit the introduction of private legislation. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today.

Miss Martinez was brought into the U.S. with her parents when she was about two years of age and has lived in Utah since that time. It is important to note that Miss Martinez did not make the decision to enter this country as a young child nor did she decide to overstay a visa, and she was led to believe that she had legal status. Miss Martinez was raised and educated in the United States and is currently a straight A student at Utah State University.

Last year, Miss Martinez and a group of her college friends traveled into Mexico for a short day of sightseeing. When questioned at the port of entry, Miss Martinez declared that she had not been born in the United States but had legal immigration status. However, when she could not produce legal documentation, it was discovered that Miss Martinez was undocumented. She was detained for some days prior to her release.

For all intents and purposes, Miss Martinez does not have a country to which to return. The United States is her home. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation to help Miss Martinez on the path of becoming a lawful, permanent resident.