Floor Statements

Mr. President, today is a disappointing day in the history of Congress. Exactly one year ago, Congress missed the deadline for passing a full transportation reauthorization bill that would fund the Federal portion of highway, transit, and safety projects around the country for the next six-years. The fact that we missed this self- imposed, legislative deadline will come as no surprise to those who follow progress on Capitol Hill, but it is deeply troubling.

Because of the unwillingness of several of my colleagues, Congress is once again forced to use a temporary extension of last year's funding as an inadequate short-term fix to a very real problem. This is an unacceptable outcome and I hope my colleagues will agree we need to pass a fully-funded 6-year bill immediately.

Just as national defense and judicial review are core functions performed by the United States Government to ensure security and fairness for all citizens, transportation infrastructure funding is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal Government. Adequate transportation infrastructure that is safe and affordable helps facilitate intrastate and interstate trade and provides the physical backbone of our economy. This is certainly a burden that the Federal Government needs to bear on behalf of its citizens. While it was extremely disappointing that Congress allowed the September 30, 2003 deadline to pass without a resolution to this problem, it is simply inexcusable for us to have not successfully addressed this critical need for over a year. I ask my colleagues to commit to coming together before this year's end to pass a six-year reauthorization bill.

I am not naive, I understand that there are always reasons behind the inability for Congress to pass important legislation. And this case is no exception. Over the last year, I have heard the excuses from the legislative and executive branches of government, both Republicans and Democrats. Some argue the transportation funding proposals being debated cost too much; others say they don't provide enough funding to States; still others say the formulas being used to distribute the money are inherently flawed and do not return as much of the Highway Trust Fund proceeds as their State contributes. All of these excuses have merit and need to be worked out to the satisfaction of lawmakers prior to enactment, but it is rational for a person to believe, as I do, that given the high priority transportation funding plays in each and every State, Congress should have reached a compromise by now two years after work on this reauthorization initially began.

As I travel throughout Utah, meeting with the good citizens of my home State, the most frequently-requested issue I am asked to address is the issue of transportation. Every week, Utahns remind me of the constant need we have to maintain our roadways, increase our transit capacity, and provide alternative routes along main arteries in the cities. I certainly understand why this issue is so important to my constituents. Over the last ten years, Utah has seen a dramatic increase in the number of residents who call ``The Beehive State'' home. In fact, there are only three states in the United States who have had larger proportional increases in their populations over the past ten years and all of them border the State of Utah. There is tremendous population growth all over the West, underscoring the critical need we have for a steady increase in transportation funding right now.

The State of Utah receives over $200 million per year in highway funding which goes toward the planning and execution of highway expansion projects. Under the Senate-proposed version of this bill, that number would go to nearly $300 million per year. That increase goes a long way, not all the way, but a long way toward making several important transportation projects a reality. Projects that otherwise might not come to fruition without a federal commitment.

In stating the amount of funding Utah receives, I do not want to give the impression that this Federal funding comes to States without them having to do their part. All of the Federal funds in this bill have a State matching component as well. States spend millions, even billions, of State dollars on transportation every year. Demand for more and better transportation alternatives in the State of Utah have become so severe that State lawmakers are now seriously considering raising the State fuel tax in order to pay for their portion of these projects. Although I hate to see any tax increases, I applaud the efforts of local lawmakers to deal with our transportation

problems with real solutions and adequate funding.

The Utah Department of Transportation--UDOT--has several aggressive highway projects around the State which have been planned for years, budgeted in the State's annual budgeting process, and now only require a federal commitment to help them proceed. I refer to projects like the ongoing reconstruction of I-15 which connects some of the most populous portions of the State from North to South. New I-15 interchanges in Ogden, Layton, and Provo are desperately needed to catch up with the large growth these cities are experiencing. Also, highway projects in Emery County on US-6, a railroad replacement bridge on US-89 in Pleasant Grove, widening of State road 92 in Lehi, and the building of the Northern Corridor in St. George are all projects which suffer terrible setbacks each time Congress cannot come together and pass a transportation reauthorization bill. And there are many, many more projects throughout the State I don't have time to name here, but that are equally as important.

On the transit side, with the recent addition of light rail and rapid bus service to several sections of downtown Salt Lake City, the citizens of Utah have grown to rely heavily on transit as a primary means of transportation. The Utah Transit Authority--UTA--has aggressive plans for projects in the pipeline that will greatly benefit the entire population of Utah. The recent announcement of the Utah Regional Commuter Rail project, which would bring rapid commuter rail service from as far away as Ogden all the way down to Provo, is encouraging and has many residents excited for the future of transit service around the state. As well, the expansions of the light rail lines from downtown Salt Lake to the airport and South Jordan are highly supported by commuters.

UTA receives $70 million to $80 million per year from Federal transit funding projects which not only provide financing for large portions of the light rail and commuter rail projects, but also provide statewide bus service and improvements to a majority of the State's population. Intermodal hubs, intelligent transportation systems, and other advances have forever improved the ease and convenience of commuting in the State of Utah and these programs depend heavily on the transportation reauthorization bill stalled in Congress. Extensions of current law, which have been going on for over a year now, get us nowhere closer to funding these important projects. The size and scope of these projects are so large that they require a long term commitment from the Federal Transit Administration--FTA--in order to get started. However, in the absence of congressional approval of a full six-year bill, the FTA is unable to make the long-term commitments required for local transit authorities to go out and secure their funding. This leaves transit projects in an eternal holding pattern, waiting for someone to commit to their future. This is unacceptable and a terrible way to address the ever growing commuting needs of citizens.

One aspect of this bill that is extremely important to citizens around the State of Utah is the fact that much of the funding for transportation safety and bike path projects comes from Federal sources. The State of Utah combines several million dollars a year with the Federal money provided by this bill to build safer crosswalks, walking bridges, bike paths, and railroad crossings throughout the State. These projects save lives and make enjoying the outdoors a safer activity. Without a Federal commitment to safety and outdoor recreation, these projects would certainly be lost in the difficult budgetary times States are facing.

This past February, when the Senate Finance Committee was considering the ``pay for'' sections of this bill, we faced a daunting task. How do you provide a substantial increase in transportation funding in the face of shrinking fuel tax revenues, without raising taxes or increasing the deficit? This is a difficult question and one the members of the Finance Committee had to deal with in very short order. However, to Senator Grassley's credit, we found a way to provide the substantial increase. It was not easy. There were a lot of tough decisions we had to make. Many ingenious methods were used to increase revenues coming into the Highway Trust Fund, like cracking down on fraud and covering the cost of fuel tax credits currently in the tax code. But when all was said and done, we did it. We provided a 20 percent increase to transportation funding and we didn't raise fuel taxes or create a large deficit that future generations will have to pay off. Was it a sustainable fix that we will be able to deploy every six-years to keep the highway trust fund afloat? No, only a fuel tax increase or a large upswing in the demand for fuel will do that. But, was it a good six-year fix for a difficult problem that was already months overdue? Yes, I believe it was a good short-term fix. In short, the bill was paid for.

As I stated before, the work to reauthorize Federal transportation funding began some two-years ago when aides met to discuss the general structure of a bill. I cannot believe that the State of Utah is the only State which depends heavily on Federal transportation funding to keep up with the demands of maintaining an adequate infrastructure.

Therefore, it simply puzzles me as to why we have not been able to negotiate an acceptable bill in a two-year period. As a conferee appointed to negotiate a final bill, I can tell you first hand, that some Congressional leaders have tried very hard to come to agreement on the specifics of a bill. The efforts of Chairman Inhofe have been extraordinary. He has worked tirelessly to find compromise with leaders who appear unyielding in their particular criticisms of the bill. He has shown his willingness to compromise on his own bill and work with others. I know he does not want to pass a bill with lower funding amounts than the Senate bill, but despite that belief, I applaud him for his willingness to compromise and work toward a productive solution.

As Chairman Inhofe, I have indicated my willingness to compromise on many points in order to get a bill moving. I have made calls to colleagues, I have asked those who have indicated their unwillingness to move to please join the effort and move a bill forward. I have done my part for the citizens of Utah and will continue to do all I can.

More contentious bills than this get negotiated and passed by both houses every year. I know money is tight right now. I know we would all like to see the funding formulas be more favorable for our home States. I know each of us would like to have more funding for our home States than we currently do. But I call on each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please put down your arguments and get back to the negotiating table and finish the transportation reauthorization bill before year's end. Time is short and I realize we must pass a temporary extension bill in order to keep some Federal highway funds flowing. However, I encourage my colleagues to take advantage of the remaining days left in the 108th Congress and come together to pass one of the most important bills before Congress this year. Successful passage of the transportation reauthorization bill will have positive, long- lasting effects on each and every State and I implore my colleagues not to let this opportunity pass.

Frankly, I am disappointed that we have failed to produce a six-year transportation reauthorization bill which fully funds the highway, transit, and safety programs for our States. As I mentioned earlier, the temporary extensions we have been using do not adequately address the transportation needs or our citizens. Temporary extensions frustrate the planning of these large projects, significantly delay the delivery, and make it impossible for States to raise the money necessary to fund their portions of the projects. Capital markets turn a deaf ear to project specific financing when there is no long-term Federal commitment. Only we can rectify this problem and I know we will find the solution. Let's do it sooner rather than later. Let's not wait for this problem to get even more out of hand. Let's do the right thing and 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 ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond immediately follow me in order.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

I rise today to support the amendment offered by Senator Specter. This amendment has the support of Senators Specter, Shelby, and Roberts--two former chairmen of the Intelligence Committee, as well as the current chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I have had the pleasure to work closely with these colleagues, and I respect their experience and their independent thinking on intelligence matters.

This amendment is also cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators from the Intelligence Committee. This amendment establishes the goals set forth by 14 Senators who addressed a letter to Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman on September 20, 2004, in which they sought to ensure that the national intelligence director has the ability to control the day-to-day operations of all of our national intelligence assets.

I consider myself privileged to serve as a member of the Intelligence Committee during these difficult and historic times. Yet I can also say that during these years I have heard too many excuses for intelligence failures. I have seen firsthand the damage that comes when the head of the intelligence community lacks the ability to effectively lead our national intelligence agencies.

The chairman and the ranking minority member of the Governmental Affairs Committee have taken on a monumental task, for which I am grateful. They have been charged with writing a bill that modifies the National Security Act of 1947, to give the national intelligence director greater budget control and stronger authority to manage the intelligence community. This task, as we all know, has been extremely complicated.

It is particularly difficult when one considers the broad authorities that the National Security Act of 1947 already granted to the Director of Central Intelligence, as head of the intelligence community.

Under that act, the DCI was given substantial authority to develop a budget for national intelligence activities, to set election requirements and priorities, and to direct intelligence analysis. The Intelligence Committee has observed over time, however, that the DCIs cannot exercise their authorities because they do not have actual control over the operations of the national intelligence agencies. This is because the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency report operationally to the Secretary of Defense, and DCIs have had to negotiate and cajole to ensure that their operational initiatives were met. As a result, to keep from hindering this day-in/day-out negotiation, DCIs were unable to effectively exercise their broad budget authorities.

There is no greater example in my eyes--or at least modern example-- than in 1998, when former DCI George Tenet recognized that we needed to direct all of our intelligence resources to defeating al-Qaida. This was his famous ``declaration of war'' against al-Qaida, and he declared that no resource of intelligence would be spared to defeat al-Qaida. He was ignored by the intelligence community that he was in charge of leading.

For example, the National Security Agency retooled for a different signals intelligence mission, not for the war on al-Qaida. We simply cannot ignore this example of unused DCI authorities. We cannot forget the lessons of past intelligence failures. I am concerned that the best intentions of the Governmental Affairs legislation will never be fulfilled and that the good authorities granted to the national intelligence director under the legislation will never be effectively exercised.

The debate we are having today about the authorities of the national intelligence director versus the Secretary of Defense has occurred in this town over and over again since the National Security Act was first passed back in 1947. As the intelligence community grew, the authorities of the Director of Central Intelligence were diluted as the Secretary of Defense gained a greater share of control over our intelligence agencies.

We have a unique opportunity in the next few weeks to establish a structure that puts someone truly in charge of our national intelligence mission. I think we have to take this opportunity to clarify the confused chains of command that have handcuffed past Directors of Central Intelligence.

With a national intelligence director empowered to ``supervise, direct and control'' our national collection assets, we will implement real reform, not just establish another bureaucratic level and finally have one person who is actually accountable to the President and to Congress. Only with the Specter amendment's clear chains of command will we give the national intelligence director the authorities necessary to meet his vast responsibilities.

Some will argue that the Specter amendment goes too far; that it is just too hard to separate the NSA, NRO, and NGA from the Department of Defense; that it will hinder intelligence support for the warfighters. The argument made has not been compelling. Why are clear chains of command a bridge too far, as some have suggested? That is a clear image, but it does not illuminate the argument. Why should we rely on a mishmash of budget and personnel controls to put a national intelligence director nominally in charge when we know that real control and accountability will only come with a clear chain of command to the director? We have all been saying that for months and so has the 9/11 Commission. Why are we talking about current provisions of law to show that these combat support agencies can't be separated from the Defense Department?

Let's not let arguments about current law confuse the issue. We are talking about putting a national intelligence director in charge. We are debating a bill that would change current law. If the Specter amendment requires, we can accommodate other necessary provisions.

Finally, no one believes that the NSA, NRO, NGA, and DIA would stop supporting the warfighter if this amendment is enacted. Really, does anybody? The answer to that is no. If I believed that, I would not support this amendment. Why would a national intelligence director turn off the intelligence support upon which our warfighters rely so much? I have never known a DCI to do such a thing. No national intelligence director would ever shortchange the warfighter. No President or Congress would ever permit that. In fact, the Specter amendment recognizes the unique position of the Department of Defense as an intelligence consumer--giving the Secretary of Defense the right to prepare annual performance evaluations for the Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the NRO, NSA, NGA, and DIA, and maintaining the Joint Chiefs biannual review of the combat support plans of the NRO, NSA, NGA, and DIA.

What the Specter amendment does not do is maintain the current confused chains of command for the national intelligence collectors within the Department of Defense. The Specter amendment recognizes that accountability and effective management are only possible with clear chains of

command. The blunt tool of budget control is not an effective mechanism for flexible midcourse corrections in intelligence collection that a national intelligence director must be able to make, without having to negotiate or consult for his or her priorities.

If the confused chains of command of the status quo are an effective mechanism for control, we should ask the Secretary of Defense if budget control would be sufficient for him to ``coordinate'' a war. If the Secretary of Defense only controlled the Army's budget, would that be sufficient command of the Third Infantry Division? If he only controlled the Navy's budget, could he order an aircraft carrier from one ocean to another and expect it to move? If the answers to those questions are no, then why should we settle for anything less than full direction, supervision, and control of national intelligence collection for the national intelligence director?

I support the Specter amendment. I know everybody on this floor is sincerely trying to resolve these problems as best they can. I commend the distinguished committee for the work it has done in bringing this bill to the floor and the two leaders on the floor. But I think we should support the Specter amendment. I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Schumer to introduce the ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal years 2005 through 2007.'' I want to thank Senator Leahy for his hard work on this bill. I also want to thank the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner for developing legislation upon which we have been able to build.

I am pleased that Congress passed a Department of Justice reauthorization bill last Congress for the first time in over two decades. The bill, however, did not address a number of authorities, including the Office of Justice

Programs. The bill we are introducing today authorizes and consolidates and makes permanent a host of appropriations authorities. These authorities are essential to the administration of the Department of Justice and its ability to accomplish its mission.

The Department of Justice's central duty is to provide security and justice for all Americans. I believe this legislation is essential to the Department's work in protecting America from future terrorist attacks. Importantly, the legislation will facilitate the Department's ability to continue providing much-needed assistance and advice to our state and local law enforcement.

I want to take a moment to highlight some of the more important provisions of this bill. Title I of the bill authorizes appropriations for the major components of the Department for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007. Among these authorizations are funding for Federal Bureau of Investigation and the newly created Terrorism Threat Integration Center to fight the war against terrorism, and the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat the trafficking of illegal drugs.

Title II of the bill restructures and authorizes many of the grant programs at the Department. Specifically, it restructures the Byrne and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) programs and authorizes for the first time ever the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. By merging these two programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program (JAG), it will allow states to make one application for funds and streamline the process.

I want to take a moment and address the concern I have heard raised that the merger of these programs will somehow cause states to lose the assistance they rely upon. Although we have combined the funds into one program, we have kept the same purpose areas so that activities and programs funded currently under Byrne and LLEBG may continue to be eligible for funds under the JAG program. Additionally, the money allocated to the JAG program is set up to split the funds 50/50--fifty percent of the JAG funds are allocated in the same manner that Byrne grants are currently allocated, and fifty percent are allocated in the same manner that the LLEBG funds are currently allocated. Each state receives 0.25 percent of the overall funds. Then of the remaining funds, 50 percent is distributed based upon population, similar to the Byrne grants, and the other 50 percent is based on the violent crime rate, similar to the LLEBG. In other words, the JAG program is designed to address the same purposes of the Byrne and LLEBG programs, and funds are intended to be allocated in the same manner. The only difference is that those funds will now come from one pot of money--the JAG account.

That being said, I do share the concern that money for the one pot, the JAG account, will be reduced. I have supported full funding for Byrne and LLEBG grants in the past, and I will continue to support funding for the JAG program. For this reason, this legislation authorizes the JAG account to receive the total amount of funds that both the Byrne and LLEBG programs received in Fiscal Year 2003 plus a 2 percent increase. I am hopeful that the Appropriators will fund the new JAG program at the same level. In fact, one of the benefits of creating one new program is that it will help limit the earmarking of these grants, thus allowing meritorious programs to receive money that may have been previously allocated for some earmark.

In addition to the authorization of the JAG program, this legislation restructures the COPS program as one single block grant program covering all of its current purposes so local governments will need to file only one COPS application for any of these purposes. The bill reauthorizes the Boys and Girls Club of America, the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS), the Crime Free Rural States Grant program, the National Criminal History Background Check System, the National Incident-Based Reporting System, and the records of the National Crime Information Center. Further, the bill makes a number of important changes to grants that assist victims of crime and to the drug courts to enable these valuable programs to be more effective. *In addition, the legislation creates a new Office of Weed and Seed Strategies to replace the never-before authorized executive Office of Weed and Seed Strategies.

The bill includes the Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act and the Senior Safety Act to better protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens: our children and seniors. The Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act sets standards for the registration of sex offenders which will make our registration system more accurate and reliable. The Senior Safety Act enhances the penalties for crimes committed against seniors, including fraud and telemarketing fraud, and includes a provision to safeguard pensions from fraud and theft.

One of the keys to fighting terrorism is a tough arsenal of laws designed to target those who support or assist terrorists and their cause, such as those who launder money. This legislation includes the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 2004 which adds several provisions to the list of specified unlawful activities within the RICO statute that serve as predicate offenses under the money laundering statute. It adds a provision to the civil forfeiture statute to allow for the forfeiture of property outside U.S. territorial boundaries if the property was used in the planning of a terrorist act that occurred within the U.S. It also includes a parallel transaction provision which provides that all parts of a parallel or dependent financial transaction are considered a money laundering offense if one part of that transaction involves the proceeds of an unlawful activity.

This legislation also includes the Koby Mandell Act which creates within the DOJ an Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism. The office will assume responsibility for the administration of the Rewards for Justice Program and its website. The office will offer rewards in an effort to capture terrorists involved in harming American citizens overseas. It will also provide other related services including sending U.S. officials to funerals of American victims of terrorism overseas.

This bill also contains important immigration provisions, including the PROMISE Act. The PROMISE Act is an immigration enforcement measure that amends the Immigration and Nationality Act so that those who fail to satisfy their child support obligations are ineligible to enter the United States. Further, those already in the United States will be ineligible for certain immigration benefits, such as citizenship.

This bill is a step in the right direction. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Leahy and the House Judiciary Committee to enact this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by- section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, it has been another interesting week in the public debate on Iraq. Yesterday, a joint session of Congress was convened to hear the address of the Interim Prime Minister of Iraq, Iyad Allawi.

I have heard many foreign leaders address joint sessions, and I have found many of those addresses compelling, powerful, historic. Last year we heard the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, give a riveting speech, where a leader of a famous center-left democratic party forcefully supported our President and his administration on a question that has always been best served when the parties join together: the question of war and security.

We all remember the speech Prime Minister Blair gave, and the rationale he reiterated for joining his nation's forces to the cause of the coalition's liberation of Iraq. Prime Minister Blair and I come from two different political traditions, and we represent two different political philosophies, but I respect him and I admire him. His speech was one of the best speeches I have heard given in a joint session.

But yesterday's speech by Interim Prime Minister Allawi was truly one of the most historic speeches by a foreign leader before this Congress.

Prime Minister Allawi was direct in his gratitude for the U.S. contribution and sacrifice to liberate his country from tyranny. He was compelling in his declaration that the Iraqi people are determined to move forward in assuming their security and in conducting free and fair elections. And he committed his Government's partnership to fighting terrorism in that region and throughout the world. The House Chamber was fully packed by my colleagues from both parties. The Prime Minister received much applause and, to the best that I could see, that applause came from all of us. I am happy to recognize this because Prime Minister Allawi is not the Republican's ally in Iraq, he is America's ally in Iraq.

As we know from his biographies in the press, the Prime Minister has worked with American administrations before this one, including a Democratic administration. He is not beholden to Democrats or Republicans. He is beholden to the cause of an Iraq that is free from terror and tyranny. And he has the scars to prove that.

This is why I was so appalled to hear some of the criticisms of Prime Minister Allawi that emanated from the other side yesterday. None was so appalling as this statement, quoted in today's Los Angeles Times, by Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign:

The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the

United States.

Now, what a thought to put out. What a condemnation of a man who risks his life every day for freedom in Iraq and freedom throughout the whole Middle East and freedom throughout the world.

``The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States,'' said Mr. Lockhart who, last I checked, was not known for his foreign policy expertise. He continued:

You can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today

moving the lips.

Now, Madam President, this quote will be read in Iraq today. The reason it can be read in Iraq today is because today Iraq has freedom of the press.

The reason there is freedom of the press today is because a brutal totalitarian dictatorship was deposed by a U.S.-led coalition. The reason there is freedom of the press today is because the United States has sacrificed over 1,000 of our young men and women to free a country from a dictator who tortured his people, gassed his subjects, invaded his neighbors, associated with terrorists and al-Qaida, built and hid weapons of mass destruction, repeatedly violated international law requiring him to reveal the whereabouts of those weapons of mass destruction, never allowed international inspectors to confirm the destruction of those weapons, and never--never--ceased his virulent and hostile rhetoric against the United States, and who caused the death of at least 300,000 of his own fellow countrymen who now or did lay in mass graves.

Madam President, you know what is underneath the shirt of Prime Minister Allawi? Scars from an ax attack by Saddam's henchmen. And do you know what is underneath those scars? A brave and patriotic Iraqi heart, beholden to no one but the cause of a free Iraq.

The Democratic spokesman's statement was a calumny, pure and simple. It was a cheap and pathetic shot from a man whose only combat experience is bullet points in 10-point font. It was a cheap jab to a man who barely survived an ax attack ordered by a tyrant we have deposed, and who has been four times--four times--targeted by the terrorists and gangsters who kill our troops and the Iraqi people and who would kill us if they could.

But let me be plain. The statement was worse than a calumny. It was a deliberate attempt to undermine our mission in Iraq. And I am sick and tired of some suggestions I have heard in the press recently that we cannot speak plainly about these matters.

Prime Minister Allawi is as legitimate a politician as anyone in Iraq today. He has fought for the cause since before Joe Lockhart chose the pencil as his weapon of choice. He can list more fallen, tortured, vanished comrades than Joe Lockhart can list maitre d's. He is the Iraqi Interim Prime Minister because he was chosen last June by the Iraqi Governing Council--Iraqis, if you will--to lead his own country. He is the man we are relying on to lead us to elections in January, which is a key aspect of our policy in Iraq.

We are not there but to liberate these people. And we have done so, so far. And I am getting sick and tired of some who have found fault with this in the most discouraging of ways. I think some of those comments undermine our young men and women over there. How would you like your sons or daughters over there to have to read this drivel that not only has been said by Mr. Lockhart but others who have continually maligned this war, continually maligned our cause, continually maligned our leaders, and, by implication, our efforts in this war?

When a Democratic spokesman publicly says Prime Minister Allawi is a puppet, which Prime Minister Allawi clearly is not, and he says so in a way that Iraqis under fire from terrorists and gangsters can read, there is no way we can conclude that this is not undermining the Interim Prime Minister.

When the Interim Prime Minister is undermined, our political ally in Iraq is undermined. And when our political ally in Iraq is undermined, the work of

our soldiers--whose mission is to create the security to support our political strategy--is undermined. Their work is undermined.

Recently, there has been some tut-tatting in some of the press and the antiwar movement that such declarations as I have just made are beyond proper discourse.

Let me be clear: A state of war should give no cause for inhibiting free speech in a democratic society, and I would tolerate no restriction of free speech here or anywhere in the country.

After all, Michael Moore is free to denounce every manifestation of American foreign policy; is he not? And we are upholding his right to do so, as ridiculous and inane and asinine as his comments are. His antiwar work includes Serbian propaganda clips in defense of genocide in ``Bowling for Columbine'' to nice pictures of playful Iraqis peacefully flying kites in the halcyon days of Saddam Hussein, which is in his latest virulently anti-Bush creed, and, of course, cheered on by some of our colleagues on the other side. The man is not an idiot, but he acts like an idiot, and he is undermining our young men and women over there.

But likewise, honest policy debates--and the comments on the role rhetoric plays--should also not be restricted.

I thought I had 15.

I think I can finish in the next 5 minutes.

When a Democratic spokesman calls Prime Minister Allawi a puppet, that is not a suggestion as to what the Prime Minister could better do in his difficult job. That is a statement that undermines the Prime Minister, our ally in a war against terror and tyranny. And when you undermine our principal ally in a war against terror and tyranny, you are undermining our cause.

Madam President, I buried my brother-in-law at Arlington Cemetery last week. I spoke of him on the Senate floor yesterday. He was a tough sergeant in the Marines. He had that unique pride that I have come to so admire in the Marines. His modesty over his sacrifices for his country was surpassed only by his love of his country. He was a true hero. He fought in Korea and Vietnam, and he bore the wounds of Vietnam through his life. Agent orange exposure killed him. And to his dying day, he thought the cause he fought for in Vietnam was just.

Last May, the Democratic nominee in this fall's Presidential campaign was quoted as saying that President Bush ``didn't learn the lessons of our generation in Vietnam.'' I find this remark staggeringly ironic.

Let me say this, Madam President. I honor the service of all who fought bravely and honorably in Vietnam--everyone, without exception.

But there are two different interpretations of our Vietnam policy. The antiwar movement's view on our Vietnam policy concluded that the use of American power was immoral and not to be trusted. Today, that world view is still very strong, overseas and here among the American left.

It has not changed much, except that, today, the left, which still distrusts the use of American power, believes that that power must be checked by the international community. That view holds that American power is illegitimate without the sanction of other powers, including the United Nations.

There is another view on Vietnam policy that my late brother-in-law held. And that view is that the sacrifices of those who fought nobly and bravely in Vietnam are to be forever honored. That view--my view-- is that the American military won that war. When President Nixon signed the Paris Peace Treaty in early 1973, U.S. forces fighting with South Vietnam had secured South Vietnam. The war was lost when the north violated that peace treaty and a Democratic Congress failed to provide the arms and funds to help an ally defend itself from an invasion supported by the Soviets and the Chinese.

We made many policy mistakes in Vietnam, and the enslavement of the south to communism was a sad conclusion whose responsibility must never be borne by those who fought, but by those who failed to hold the course.

Do you know what one of the earliest policy mistakes we made was? It was when, under the Kennedy administration, the decision was made to stop supporting the Diem administration in South Vietnam. When that happened, the south lost a leading figure, a political leader. Diem was no democrat, but he was our political ally. We dealt ourselves a serious political blow when we failed to support Diem. He was assassinated, and our political goals were undermined.

I am not going to stand by and be silent when our ally, Prime Minister Allawi, is undermined by rhetoric from a top spokesman of the other party. Because some people need to understand that rhetoric has consequences.

Let debate rage, I say. Let the anti-war movement have its say, and let Michael Moore collect his fees on college campuses. But I believe that, in a time of war, we need to hold ourselves to higher standards of intellectual content, honesty and clarity.

Recently we have heard a lot about a CIA analysis from earlier this summer. Am I the only one to notice that the people who have been declaring that CIA analyses are unreliable are treating this latest analysis as holy writ? That the people who have taken the good work of Chairman Roberts and our committee--which did a stark and honest review of the failings of pre-war intelligence--and concluded that the CIA cannot be trusted are now asking us to conclude, based on an analysis no one has read, that the President is lying?

A CIA analysis is just that: analysis. It is more than guesswork, but it is a lot less than prediction. Yes, the situation could go bad in Iraq--very bad.

But at no time in American history has an administration conducting a war concluded during a dark hour that success was no longer attainable. That is not leadership. To focus on the course to success is not lying. It is leadership. To focus on the darkness of the hour is not.

The situation in Iraq is difficult, but it will not go bad, because we will not accept failure as an outcome. Failure would endanger our security, and this administration will not allow that.

We are in a charged political season. The American public will choose who they believe will best ensure their security. I would ask all who opine to remember that, while we are in a political season, we are in a war. Let us criticize as best we can, but let us do just that: as best as we can. That standard, is far above the rhetoric of defeat, despair and, in the case of calling Prime Minister Allawi a puppet, self- defeating delusion.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to deliver my remarks as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the conference report now before the Senate, which will save millions of American taxpayers from suffering a tax increase on New Years Day 2005.

I want to congratulate Chairman Grassley, who chaired this conference, as well as the other Senate and House conferees, for their perseverance in finishing this tax bill, which has presented challenges.

The individual tax cuts Congress passed in 2001 and 2003 have been instrumental in the turnaround of our economy from stagnation to healthy growth. For various reasons, when passing these bills we were not able to make the provisions of those tax cuts permanent, and some key elements of them are scheduled to expire on the last day of this year. The conference report before us extends three of these provisions for 5 years: the marriage penalty relief in the standard deduction and in the 15 percent bracket; the new 10 percent bracket; and the $1,000 per child tax credit. In addition, the legislation extends the higher thresholds for the individual alternative minimum tax for another year.

This last provision is very important to an increasing number of families in my home State of Utah, who are unfairly being thrown into the AMT regime simply because they have large families. And while this provision does not permanently fix the AMT problem, it does give temporary relief for millions of Americans who would otherwise be joining the unlucky ranks of alternative minimum tax filers.

While I would prefer to see these provisions, along with all the other parts of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts made permanent, a five-year extension is a very good step. The provisions being extended by this legislation will now be set to expire at the same time the remainder of the tax cuts run out, December 31, 2010. Thus, they can hopefully all be made permanent at the same time, which would ideally be well before that time.

I am particularly pleased to see that the conferees decided to include in the conference report the extension of a set of very important expiring business tax provisions, along with the individual ones. These include the research credit, of which I have long been an advocate. This tax credit expired on this past June 30.

As I think most of my colleagues will agree, tax provisions that are temporary add confusion, complexity, and uncertainty to our tax system. These problems are made worse when worthy provisions, such as the research credit, are allowed to expire and are then later reinstated. A permanent research credit would have been greatly preferred to our bad habit of routinely allowing vitally important tax provisions to expire and then reinstating them, sometimes months after their expiration. Such actions are often done in the name of revenue savings to the Treasury, but this is a false argument. A series of shorter-term extensions of these provisions costs no more than does a permanent extension. What this practice does, however, is contribute to the lack of confidence that taxpayers feel in our tax system, so it a corrosive thing to do.

Moreover, I am disappointed that the legislation before us does not include the Senate language that expands the research credit. The Senate version of the research credit was based on a bill authored by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, and this senator, which would have dealt with a very serious shortcoming with the current research credit. Essentially, this shortcoming prevents thousands of research- intensive firms, many in my home State of Utah, from being able to take full advantage of the incentive the research credit is supposed to provide.

Nevertheless, it is a very positive thing to have this conference report include the extension of the research credit and several other provisions that are important to American businesses and their employees and customers. This includes the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare to work credit, both of which make a difference in hiring disadvantaged workers.

I am also very pleased to see the inclusion of provisions to help military families. These brave men and women and their families who are sacrificing so much deserve to have tax provisions that at least do not penalize them for their service.

This conference report deserves the support of all of our colleagues. Is it the best tax bill we could pass? Of course not. But, given the difficulties of passing any legislation this late in the congressional session in an election year, it is quite an achievement. I again congratulate the conferees for their hard work, and I especially commend the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee for their leadership.

Madam President, I am grateful for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful man, loving husband, father, and grandfather, and a true hero--Mr. Alvin Seymour Merrill. Al recently passed away after living a lifetime of dedicated service to his family, community, and to our country. Al was my brother-in-law and a person whom I truly admired and respected for the love and devotion he displayed not only to my sister and their children and grandchildren, but to the ideals of freedom America represents.

Al was born and raised in a rural Utah farming community. He was the seventh of nine children, raised by a widowed mother. His work on the farm led him to a life of service in the United States Marine Corps, USMC. It was while he was waiting for some farm machinery to be repaired in Salt Lake City that he was approached by a recruiter for the USMC and asked to join the service. He signed the paper, and was shortly on his way to boot camp. This fortuitous day led to long and distinguished 20 years of active duty as a Marine. He loved the Marines and gladly answered their call of duty in many places throughout the world.

Al rose through the ranks in the USMC and became a First Sergeant a position only entrusted to the best and bravest. He served in the Korean and Vietnam Wars and received two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for extraordinary valor and heroism. He was also a survivor of the historic Korean Battle of the Chosin Reservoir. In fact, his name is forever etched on a monument at Utah's Hill Air Force Base honoring the men who survived this battle.

Al's respect and love for the Marines didn't end with his active duty. He took great pride in escorting war dead after the Korean War and arranging proper burials for his fellow Marines. He also served as a drill instructor and trained many new recruits entering the Marine Corps. His dedication to this training was extraordinary--he wanted all Marines to have the best training possible in case they might also face combat.

It was Al's service in combat which led to his death many years later. During service in Vietnam, Al was exposed to Agent Orange. He didn't realize this had happened until 30 years later when it began to attack his body and slowly rob him of his life. When asked if he was bitter about this exposure he replied, ``No, I knew the risks when I signed up.'' In addition to this exposure, Al carried shrapnel in his body as a result of injuries sustained in fighting for our country.

I cannot even begin to express what his quiet bravery and dignity has meant to his family and to all those who knew him. He was a true war hero and an example of someone who was willing to give the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country and the freedom we cherish.

Al was also an ROTC Instructor at the University of Utah, and South and Cottonwood High Schools in Utah. He retired from an honorable career with the Utah Transit Authority. In addition, he was also politically active and always found time to help candidates running for office get elected. Al was elected himself to serve one term in the Utah House of Representatives.

Al chose to live his life in service to his fellow men, not only in the Marines but also in his community and his church. He served three full-time missions for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spreading his message of Christ's love and hope to people throughout our Nation.

Al was fortunate to marry a wonderful, devoted woman, my sister, Frances Hatch Merrill, who stood by his side for 47 years. Her devotion to him and his life was an inspiration to all as we watched her help Al with serious health challenges and remain a steadfast partner until the end. Al and Frances were blessed with eight children and 12 grandchildren whom they love very much.

Mr. President, Al Merrill's life was dedicated to service and it is this legacy of faith and strength that he will leave to his family.

We just buried him recently in Arlington National Cemetery in a wonderful plot right near the administration building. We are so grateful to the Marine Corps for what they have done to help us in the memorialization of this wonderful man. We are so grateful for the Marine Corps members who showed up to represent him at the cemetery. We are so grateful to the Marine Corps person who played taps for my brother-in-law.

Al Merrill was a wonderful man and a true American hero. I never heard him once brag about his service, and he was in both wars. Everybody who knew him knew what a wonderful man he was. I will be eternally grateful for the example he set for all of us to follow. Al Merrill was truly a giant among men.

I have been reading a history of the Marine Corps and he is mentioned prominently throughout this history, what he meant as an example of morality and decency to other young recruits through the years and as he grew older in the corps. He told my sister one time: Fran, you have to know that the Marine Corps comes first.

That was nice for him to say; we knew his family and his wife came first, but the Marine Corps came an equal first, no question about it.

Thank you for this opportunity to honor Alvin C. Merrill and the life he lived in service to his family, his community, and to our great country of America.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and I certainly appreciate the leadership Senators on the Intelligence Committee, in particular the Senator from Kansas. He has done a great job. I think Senator Rockefeller has worked with him very well for the most part.

I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. There are very few people around here who have had to deal with

the personalities of so many people as Senator Lott has. He has done a terrific job throughout both his House and Senate career, and I think we ought to listen to the wise people like that with regard to whether we should vote for Porter Goss.

There is no doubt in my mind that Porter Goss is worthy of this position and, in my mind, he will do it in an effective way. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for his cogent remarks and his very practical remarks to which we ought to all be paying attention.

I remember when George Tenet was nominated, and George Tenet was a Democrat. He was a staffer to Senator Boren. Senator Boren, George Tenet, and I traveled all over the world together. There was not any question that we were going to support George Tenet when he came up for CIA Director, and I think he did a much better job than all of his critics are saying. A lot of that was because he worked very hard for Senator Boren and for the committee and knew an awful lot about intelligence to begin with. This is a tough job. It is almost an impossible job to do. In fact, I think it is an impossible job to do in every way, in every respect, totally right.

The fact is, we supported Mr. Tenet and he was a member of our family. I believe Porter Goss is a member of our family, too, and a person who is worthy of this position. We should not politicize this appointment.

The next person to head the Central Intelligence Agency will lead the organization at its most demanding time in history. The next Director of Central Intelligence will have to provide leadership in shepherding that organization through a much needed reform while continuing to play a major role on the ongoing global war on terror. The next person to hold this post will require much more than a passing experience with the workings of the intelligence community. He will need to understand the role of the executive in conducting our foreign policy at war, and the essential role of congressional oversight and support in ensuring that our intelligence community is flexible enough to address threats that have never before been the primary focus of our foreign policy.

President Bush made the right call when he chose Porter Goss to fill this role. I am happy to note that an overwhelming majority of my colleagues on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have also recognized this, having approved his nomination yesterday. I commend Chairman Roberts for his leadership and I thank our majority and minority leaders for bringing this nomination to the floor today. It is important.

I have had the opportunity to work closely with the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In the months of collaboration between our two committees which produced the joint inquiry, I had the opportunity to take the measure of Porter Goss's mind, as well as his experience and his commitment to the intelligence community. I totally support this nomination.

As we all recognize, the intelligence community will be undergoing a major reform, a process that can only succeed if there is close cooperation between the White House and all the relevant executive agencies, the Congress--and that includes Democrats and Republicans-- and especially this committee, and the intelligence community.

The reform that will be promoted should not be a mere bureaucratic reshuffling; it should be a reform of our intelligence community that enhances and strengthens our ability to understand, penetrate, co-opt, and neutralize the threat of armed groups to our national security. The success of the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency must understand this to be successful.

The next Director of Central Intelligence must understand that the new initiatives we are debating in draft legislation this month, legislation we are referring to as an intelligence community reform, will be the beginning, not the end, of reform. In fact, I fear that once we pass a reform package some of us will believe we will have accomplished reform. In fact, we will have only begun.

Everyone agrees that we need better results from our intelligence community. I suppose that is always going to be the case. Most of us, I hope, also agree that the efforts of the intelligence community, from the Director on down, have been admirable, brave, selfless, and intense. I believe former Director Tenet worked hard to revitalize capabilities that devolved after the end of the Cold War. I know he worked hard. He inherited an agency that needed a lot of improvement, and to the extent that he could, he did his best to do so.

The next Director of Central Intelligence must recognize that our goal should not be to rebuild a capability but to build a new capability. We need better results and we need a strategy for achieving them.

Director Tenet was candid in speaking before the 9/11 Commission in saying that our human intelligence capabilities would take at least 5 years to rebuild. Porter Goss, when confirmed, must recognize that this will be the issue I will address in our first closed hearing. I will ask: How do you intend to rebuild the capability? What is your strategy? To what standards of measurement will you hold yourself?

The American intelligence community of the 21st century will face traditional geopolitical threats, as we did in the past. We will need intelligence to address the question of rising powers, such as China, and remilitarizing states, such as Russia. We will need intelligence to deal with the failing States of North Korea and Cuba.

As we all know, we will also need to develop intelligence capabilities to gain a strategic advantage against the threat we face now and will face for some time to come: the threat of armed groups-- terrorists, if you will.

I strongly believe al-Qaida will be defeated in the coming years. It is not going to be easy, but we will defeat them. On the other hand, I think a somber analysis of the world we live in today should remind us that, even when al-Qaida is defeated, we will face the threat of other armed groups. Nations that have developed a strategic advantage to understand, penetrate, co-opt and, when necessary, destroy armed groups will enhance their national security.

We rely on our intelligence community for that strategic advantage. Porter Goss understands these requirements. He has worked within the intelligence community, and he has performed years of congressional oversight over that community. He respects the community and he knows what is expected of it. If we do our jobs, I can assure Porter Goss, when he is confirmed, he will be the Director made most accountable to Congress in the history of intelligence community oversight.

As I said, when the next director comes before our committee, we should not settle for reports. We must demand strategy for achieving reform and measurement standards. Our legislative initiatives can only do so much. Our oversight, and the stewardship of a responsible and experienced director, will be what advances reform.

There is no doubt in my mind that this man can do the job and can do it well. There is no doubt in my mind that as a Member of Congress he has occasionally made statements that have irritated the other side of this aisle. That is probably true of everyone on both sides of the floor. I have to admit I have been irritated from time to time by statements made by my colleagues on the other side--and even by some of my colleagues on our side--and I am sure I have made statements from time to time that have irritated colleagues on the other side as well. I have not wanted to, but I am sure I have. It is just the nature of being in this political arena. But to then presume a person is an indecent partisan because occasionally they find fault with the other side, I think shows a degree of immaturity, of political and professional immaturity that is unworthy of the nomination process.

Nobody is going to come before us who is perfect in every way. But I have to say, there are very few people who have served as much as Porter Goss has and who have as much knowledge of the intelligence community as he has, who have ever been members of the top echelon of the CIA.

I have every confidence in him. I am going to support him. I hope all my colleagues also will support him. He is worthy of it. He is a Member of Congress. He is a person who deserves our support. I hope we all get together and

support him and continue to support him as he serves in this job which almost nobody can completely fulfill. This is a job that takes immense capabilities and, I might add, commitment. He has both and we should support him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of an amendment that I offer together with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy serves as ranking democrat member of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair.

The purpose of the Hatch-Leahy amendment is to help ensure that the United States Secret Service continues to carry out its most critical functions, including the protection of the President of the United States. The Secret Service has a distinguished history over a 139 year period of protecting the President and protecting the financial institutions of this country.

This amendment clarifies that the Secret Service shall be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security, forbidding it from being merged with any other subunit within the Department. And, it makes clear that Secret Service personnel report directly to the Director of the Secret Service who, in turn, reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

It is important that the Secretary not re-delegate any of his or her authority to other DHS officials or entities nor to unduly interfere with the unique historical relationship that exists between the President and White House and the Secret Service. That is the intent of the Hatch-Leahy Amendment.

This is a codification of what was originally intended when we created the Department of Homeland Security and ensures that the Secret Service operates within the Department of Homeland Security just as it did prior to September 11 within the Department of Treasury.

Given its proven track record of performance and independence, we must

guard against this relatively small but critical agency from being lost in or swallowed up by the myriad of programs and entities within the new Department of Homeland Security. Any attempt by DHS managers, however well-intentioned, to interpose themselves in the decision making processes, resource allocations, and field operations of the Secret Service should be avoided.

Simply stated, there is much wisdom in the old saying that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The Secret Service has operated well in the past and operates well today. The Hatch-Leahy Amendment will help provide the autonomy and responsibility that will help keep the Secret Service operating well in the future.

We made a similar clarification with the Coast Guard and should do the same for the Secret Service. I believe that this clarification of intent, and delineation of reporting requirements, will ensure that the mission of the Secret Service remains clear, definite, and unimpeded.

Senator Leahy and I urge all of our colleagues to support this important amendment which I understand is supported by the administration.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3655

Mr. President, I would like to compliment my friend, Senator

Cochran. He has been a tireless advocate for defending the homeland. His subcommittee has made impressive strides in helping to prepare first responders for a day that we all hope will never come. Therefore, I rise to share my thoughts about the First Responder Classes that are taught at Dugway Proving Ground.

These Ph.D driven courses focus on agent characteristics, sampling, protection, detection, decontamination and chemical/biological production recognition, such as the difference between clandestine drug laboratories, industrial accidents or chemical/biological production capabilities. Additionally, Dugway, as part of its effort to provide innovative training capabilities, has also built a ``training town'' in order for students to assess a situation and determine the proper course of action. The high quality of these classes is reflected in the comments from the Chief of the HAZMAT Unit of one of our largest cities who has categorized the program as ``one that all first responders should attend'' and many other students that have stated it was the best training they had experienced.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

port security grants

Mr. President, like many Americans, I was concerned to learn that former President Bill Clinton was suffering serious heart disease and had to be hospitalized for heart bypass surgery. Like many Americans, I was relieved to learn that his surgery had gone well, and that the former President is recuperating in his home in New York. The former President is known for his energy, and I hope that he will have a speedy recovery and will return to full health soon. I offer my best regards to him and his family, including our distinguished colleague, Senator Clinton.

Inspired, no doubt, by this concern, our Democratic colleagues have joined in sponsoring a resolution to honor the former President on his 58th birthday. I wish to join them in wishing former President Clinton greetings on his 58th birthday, and I wish him many more.

Unfortunately, there is language in this resolution that is incorrect, at least because it is historically inaccurate, and at most because it seriously distorts the historical record and defames the memory of 200,000 victims of genocide in southeastern Europe.

There is a bizarre clause in this otherwise laudable attempt to give the President a legislative birthday card that states:

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton rallied the members of

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to put an end to

ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and to depose the murderous

regime of Slobodan Milosevic, actions which eventually led to

the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords . . . .

I know that, in the hurried pace of work around here, particularly in this type of political season, a certain sloppiness can find its way into legislative language. But this statement, as I have said, is incorrect and offensive.

It is incorrect because, as anyone who knows the history will confirm--and I was here in the Senate throughout the bloody wars of southeast Europe in the 1990s--the removal of Slobodan Milosevic from power occurred in 2000, almost 5 years after the Dayton Peace Accords were signed in the autumn of 1995. That's why the statement is inaccurate.

The statement is offensive because almost 200,000 innocent civilians died as victims of ethnic cleansing from the outbreak of the wars of southeast Europe in 1992 until the United States finally acted in the late summer of 1995. The majority of those deaths, I must remind my colleagues, occurred during the first three years of the Clinton Presidency.

From the outbreak of the wars of Yugoslavia in 1992, I came to this floor advocating a policy of ``lift and strike'': lift the international arms embargo imposed on Yugoslavia and strike, with air power, the Yugoslavian army under the control of the mass murderers Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. I was joined on the Senate floor by my colleagues Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Bob Dole and many other Members of this body. The first Bush administration ignored us and left office shortly after the wars began. President Clinton, who ran on a campaign platform supporting ``lift and strike,'' reversed his position upon entering office and assumed a policy consistent, it appears, with current Democratic foreign policy thinking, that deferred to the international community.

We can recall the effectiveness of the United Nations in Bosnia, when we think of blue-helmeted U.N. forces remaining by the sidelines as Serb forces captured Srebrenica in the summer of 1995, and herded thousands of unarmed men and boys--boys--to their slaughter in mass graves.

That summer, a summer that began with Serb militaries surrounding the eastern enclaves of Bosnia and the Clinton administration refusing to lift the arms embargo preventing the Bosnians from defending themselves, while Bosnian Prime Minister Siladzic came to Washington and begged not to leave his people to die unarmed, the Dole-Lieberman- Hatch resolution lifting the arms embargo passed by 69 votes. This veto-proof measure, along with the photos of the horrors of Srebrenica on the front page of The Washington Post--one horrid photo showed a woman hanging herself in despair--caused the Clinton administration to relent.

When Bill Clinton acted, in late 1995, he saw that, when the United States leads, the international community will follow. When he acted again, in 1999, to stop Milosevic's campaign in Kosovo--a campaign we knew would happen when Milosevic was not removed from power in 1995-- the international community followed. In both cases, I supported the President, as did a number of Republican Members in this body. He acted too late for hundreds of thousands, but he finally acted. It will be left to the historians, along with the members of that administration, to ponder and justify and explain why there was value in waiting while genocide raged across southeastern Europe.

A birthday gesture to a former President is not the place for this debate, and I certainly would not speak here were it not for this ill- conceived language that appears in this resolution. But legislation of any kind becomes a permanent record of the work of the United States Congress. This language, when stating historical fact, contributes to the interpretation of history. I am a proud member of the council of the Holocaust Museum and I am proud to support the mission of that revered institution, which could simply be stated that the truth of genocide should always be stated. To allow the clause I have just read from this otherwise harmless birthday resolution to become a statement of historical fact is a whitewash of history, something a democratic body should never do.

But worse, it is a calumny, a grave dishonor, on the memories of 200,000 civilians of southeastern Europe, people who died in a genocidal war in Europe less than 50 years after the Holocaust, civilian men and women and children who died while the international community failed, the U.N. failed and two administrations, including President Clinton's administration, for almost 3 years, waited for a power to act like only the United States can.

Mr. President, I yield our minute to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the nominations of Judge Richard Griffin and Judge David W. McKeague, who have been nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. These individuals each have a sterling resume and a record of distinguished public service. So I rise today to express my enthusiastic support for the confirmation of Judge Richard Griffin and Judge David W. McKeague to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is unfortunate that we have to continue coming to the floor to vote on cloture motions, to end debate on these nominations, rather than the Senate being able to vote up or down on the merits of the nomination. This unprecedented abuse of the process, by filibuster, to prevent a majority of the Senate from exercising its will is truly disturbing. What is going on is a hijacking of the constitutional process of advice and consent.

This abuse of the process isn't just being used on these two nominees. Unfortunately, we have now reached double-digit filibusters. There are ten judicial nominees who have been subjected to a filibuster. They are Miguel Estrada, D.C. Circuit; Priscilla Owen, 5th Circuit; William Pryor, 11th Circuit; Charles Pickering, 5th Circuit; Carolyn Kuhl, 9th Circuit; Janice Rogers Brown, D.C. Circuit; Williams Myers, 9th Circuit; Henry Saad, 6th Circuit; David McKeague, 6th Circuit; and Richard Griffin, 6th Circuit. In addition to these ten individuals, there are five additional Circuit Court nominations that are threatened to be filibustered--Claude Allen, 9th Circuit; Terrence Boyle, 4th Circuit; Susan Neilson, 6th Circuit; Brett Kavanaugh, D.C. Circuit; and William Haynes, 4th Circuit.

These individuals being filibustered represent a cross section of America and include men and women as well as members of various minority groups. And they are decent individuals with outstanding records in the law, in public service and in their States and communities.

It appears that these nominations are being tied up as some sort of payback for the way President Clinton's nominees were treated. However, a review of the record will demonstrate that this contention is without merit. What is happening is the creation of a stalemate for political purposes.

The current controversy surrounding the nomination of Henry Saad to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit dates back a decade. At the end of President George H.W. Bush's administration two Michigan nominees to the federal courts were denied hearings by the Democratic Senate and failed to attain confirmation. Those nominees were John Smientanka and Henry Saad, whose nomination we are considering again today.

As President Clinton named his nominees to fill judicial vacancies, there was no expectation, let alone demand, that the two previous nominees be renominated by a new administration. Accordingly, President Clinton did nominate Michigan nominees to both the Sixth Circuit and the district courts. In fact, nine of those nominees were confirmed. A majority were confirmed during Republican control of the Senate.

Two nominees, Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis, failed to attain confirmation. The primary circumstance for their failed nomination was the lack of consultation with one of the home State senators. In his letter to then White House Counsel Beth Nolan, Senator Abraham wrote to express his astonishment and dismay that President Clinton forwarded the nomination for a Sixth Circuit seat without any advance notice or consultation.

What was particularly troubling was that Senator Abraham had worked with the previous White House Counsel, Mr. Ruff, to improve the consultation process. In fact, despite previous difficulties, Senator Abraham had fully cooperated with the administration in advancing the nominations of a number of Michigan nominees. Unfortunately, the situation again deteriorated and the White House reverted to its previous pattern of lack of consultation. In fact, Senator Abraham was not consulted and in fact was told by the White House Counsel that despite earlier representations, the administration felt under no real obligation to do anything of the kind.

Because of the White House's lack of consultation, the nominations of the two individuals did not move forward. This was consistent with my well stated policy, communicated to Mr. Ruff, that if good faith consultation has not taken place, the Judiciary Committee will treat the return of a negative blue slip by a home state Senator as dispositive and the nominee will not be considered.

At the end of the Clinton presidency, the nominations of Ms. White and Ms. Lewis were returned to the President unconfirmed. Their renomination was urged by Senators Levin and Stabenow at the beginning of President Bush's administration. During the spring and summer of 2001, there was considerable consultation by the President with the Michigan Senators regarding nominations to judicial vacancies, and the Sixth Circuit in particular.

While the White House protected its constitutional prerogative to nominate individuals to the judiciary, there was an offer to consider nominating both of the two individuals to Federal judgeships in Michigan in an effort to advance the process. These overtures were not only rebuffed, but in fact holds were requested to be placed on all Sixth Circuit nominations.

This was an unfortunate escalation of the dispute, and was particularly unfair to other States in the Sixth Circuit. In addition, this left the circuit at half-strength. Fortunately, we have been able to confirm non-Michigan judges to the circuit court.

I regret that the cycle of acrimony and partisanship has escalated over the past decade. I believe the Bush administration made a good faith offer and regrets that the compromise was not accepted. However, even as the Judiciary Committee gives appropriate consideration to the views of home State senators, it is not in the public interest to permit this partisan obstructionism to continue.

So let me summarize regarding the treatment of Michigan judicial nominees. During the current Bush presidency the Senate has confirmed no Michigan judges. Six nominations are pending. During the Clinton presidency the Senate confirmed nine Michigan judges. Although two Michigan nominees were left unconfirmed at the end

of the Clinton presidency, two nominees were also left without hearings at the end of President Bush's term in 1993. During the first Bush presidency the Senate confirmed six Michigan judges. Two nominations were returned to the President.

So for those who like to keep score, the Michigan judge tally is as follows: Current President Bush: 0-6; President Clinton: 9-2; former President Bush: 6-2. The record is clear that previous Presidents were treated fairly by the Senate. It is time to give President Bush the same courtesy and move forward with his Michigan Judges to the Sixth Circuit and the District Courts. We can begin by approving the cloture motions we will vote on today for Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, and David McKeague.

Yesterday I spoke about the qualifications of Henry Saad. I would like to say a few words about the qualifications of the other two nominees whom we are voting on today.

Judge Griffin has exceptional qualifications for the Federal appellate bench. After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School in 1977, Judge Griffin spent 11 years in the private practice of law first as an associate at Williams, Coulter, Cunningham, Davison & Read from 1977-1981, then as a partner from 1981-1985. In 1985, Judge Griffin founded the firm Read & Griffin, in Traverse City, MI.

During his private practice Judge Griffin specialized in automobile negligence, premises liability, products liability, and employment law. Additionally, he provided pro bono legal services as a volunteer counselor and attorney with the Third Level Crisis Center. In 1988, Judge Griffin was elected to the Michigan Court of Appeals. He was elected to retain his seat in 1996 and again in 2002.

Judge Griffin was first nominated to this position by President George W. Bush on June 26, 2002. He was renominated to this seat on January 7, 2003. He is universally respected as one of the best judges in Michigan. He is not a controversial nominee. Yet he has been waiting for a vote for over 750 days because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, once again, playing politics with the Federal judiciary.

Judge Griffin has an exemplary record that includes service as both a committed advocate and an impartial jurist. The American Bar Association has rated him well qualified for this position. Although the ABA rating used to be the gold standard as far as my Democratic colleagues were concerned, I am only half joking when I say that an ABA rating of well qualified seems to have become the kiss of death for President Bush's judicial nominees. Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, David McKeague, William Haynes, Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, all received Well Qualified ratings from the ABA, and all are, or were, being filibustered by Democrats. Judge Griffin deserves to fare better, and I certainly hope we can give his nomination an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Simply put, Judge Griffin--along with the other qualified nominees to the Sixth Circuit--deserves a vote. I urge my colleagues to do what is right and join me in supporting his confirmation to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge David McKeague has also been nominated to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge McKeague was first nominated to fill a Federal judgeship in 1992, when the first President Bush nominated him for a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Judiciary Committee voted him to the floor with several other district court nominees en bloc, without any objection, and the full Senate confirmed him to the Federal bench by unanimous consent. Since 1992, he has served with distinction in the Western District of Michigan, and since 1994 has regularly been designated to sit on panels and draft appellate opinions for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On November 8, 2001, President Bush nominated Judge McKeague for a seat on the Sixth Circuit, the position for which we are considering him today. When no action was taken on his nomination during the 107th Congress, President Bush renominated him to the Sixth Circuit on January 7, 2003. As with the other nominees, it is time for the Senate to vote up or down on this nomination.

In Judge McKeague, we have a jurist with impressive credentials who will honor his hometown of Lansing and serve with great distinction as a Sixth Circuit judge, as he already has for more than a decade as a Federal district judge in western Michigan.

Judge McKeague graduated from the University of Michigan in 1968 and then attended the University of Michigan Law School. Upon his graduation from law school in 1971, he joined the law firm of Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., in Lansing, MI, and in 1976 was elected a shareholder and director of the firm. Judge McKeague served on the firm's executive committee in various offices, and was chairman of the firm's government and commerce department, from 1979 until his confirmation to the Federal bench in February 1992, where he serves as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

Since 1994, Judge McKeague regularly has participated by designation on, and authored appellate opinions for, panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. So he already has considerable experience in handling Federal appellate cases--in fact, I understand that none of the decisions he has authored for the Sixth Circuit have been reversed--and I am certain that experience will serve him well once he is handling cases full time on the Sixth Circuit.

Judge McKeague has been active as a member of several community, local, and professional organizations, including the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Federal Judicial Center, the Michigan State and Ingham County bar associations, the board of directors of a community museum that provides science education for children, Junior Achievement, which provides business education to high school students, and Camp Highfields, a private facility that provides housing and counseling for troubled youth. He has also been active as a member of the Wharton Center for the Performing Arts Advisory Council, the American Inns of Court, the Catholic Lawyers Guild, and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. While in private practice and since his service on the Federal bench began, he has directed and participated in numerous seminars, moot court competitions, and trial advocacy programs at high schools, universities and law schools throughout Michigan. In addition, prior to his confirmation to the Federal bench, he served 6 years in the United States Army Reserve. Since 1998, he has also served as an adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University's Detroit College of Law, where he teaches Federal jurisdiction.

Judge McKeague is a distinguished and well-respected Federal judge who, in the words of one of his current colleagues on the Federal district court, ``let the law and the facts take him where they take him.'' He will make an outstanding addition to the Sixth Circuit, and I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation.

Let me make something absolutely clear: We need to vote on these nominations because it is critical that these Sixth Circuit vacancies are filled as expeditiously as possible.

The Sixth Circuit has a vacancy rate of 25 percent, and the four vacancies are all deemed judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Among the twelve United States Courts of Appeal, the Sixth Circuit is last in the timeliness of its disposition of cases. For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2003, the median time interval from filing of Notice of Appeal to final disposition was 16.8 months. This was nearly 10 months longer than the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which was the fastest court that year at 7 months. By comparison, the average disposition time for appeals in all Circuits was about 10\1/2\ months.

Mike Cox, the Attorney General for the State of Michigan, wrote to the committee last year:

My office alone has over 430 cases currently pending before

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Those cases range the

gamut of the law, from habeas matters involving horrendous

murders to cases involving matters of broad public policy. .

. . [O]n behalf of the citizens of my state, I urge you to

quickly approve Judge Saad's nomination, and begin easing the

vacancy crisis that has lingered far too long at the Sixth

Circuit.

District judges and U.S. attorneys within the Sixth Circuit have publicly stated that the vacancy rate in the Sixth Circuit has slowed the administration of justice. Accordingly, nine members of Michigan's Congressional delegation have written to the Judiciary Committee, expressing their deep concern over the persistence of the Michigan vacancies and urging us to confirm President Bush's Michigan nominees. Under such circumstances, with the understanding that we will continue to work to resolve the Michigan Senators' concerns, we simply must move forward on these nominations and confirm Judge Saad, Judge Griffin, and Judge McKeague to the Sixth Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Federal courts propose legislation to improve their operational efficiency. Today, joined by Senator Leahy, I am introducing legislation requested by the Supreme Court of the United States. This bill is non-controversial and I hope the Senate can complete action on it in a timely manner after we return from our August recess.

There are three sections to this bill which I will describe for the benefit of my colleagues.

Section 1. Supreme Court Police Authority to Protect Court Officials Off of Court Grounds. This section would extend, for an additional four years, a ``sunset'' provision on authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices and other Court officials and official guests away from the Court building and grounds.

This authority was established by Public Law 97-390 (12/29/82) and was for a three-year period. Since 1985, the authority has been renewed regularly, generally with three or four year extensions and now expires at the end of 2004. The extension of the sunset provision would permit the Court Police to carry out this function until 2008. The Court Police regularly provide protection for the Justices away from the Court, and in light of the heightened security threats to symbols of our government, it is vital that the Police's authority to carry out this function continue without interruption.

Section 2. Venue for violations of Chapter 61 of Title 40. This section would add the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the existing statute establishing venue for the prosecution of violations of statutes or regulations governing the Supreme Court building and grounds under 40 USCS Sec. Sec. 6131 et seq.

Section 6137(b) currently permits prosecutions only in Superior Court. The amendment would provide an additional alternative, in light of the fact that there are prosecutions under these statutes where distinctly Federal interests are at stake.

Prosecutions under this chapter include the following: Sale of articles, signs, and solicitation in Supreme Court Building and grounds; destruction of property in the Supreme Court

Building and grounds; possession of firearms, fireworks, unauthorized speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds; and unauthorized parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds.

Section 3. Gifts to the Supreme Court. This section would authorize the Chief Justice or his designee to accept, hold, administer and use gifts of personal property for official Court purposes. Monetary bequests would be turned over to the treasury.

In 1978, Congress authorized the Director of the Administrative Office for United States Courts to receive gifts on behalf of the judiciary, recognizing at the time that the judiciary had already received gifts under its implied powers. [See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 604(a)(17)(B).] Generally, the Director does not have authority with respect to the Supreme Court, and this provision is intended to recognize that the Supreme Court has the authority to receive non- monetary gifts on its own behalf. The language of the provision closely tracks the 1978 legislation authorizing the Director to receive gifts for the judiciary.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperative effort that Senator Leahy and I have been able to undertake to bring this legislation to the Senate and am confident we can work together to ensure timely passage of this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Budget Protection Act of 2004, legislation to help bring our Federal spending under control. The companion to this bill, H.R. 3800, was introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year by Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who has been joined by 103 cosponsors.

As all of our colleagues know, our Federal budget situation has been under tremendous strain during the past several years. After enjoying several years of actual and projected surpluses in the later part of the last decade, we have unfortunately suffered a near perfect storm of events that has drastically turned the budget situation from one of sunny optimism to one of great concern. These events, of course, include the recession that followed the bursting of the high tech bubble and stock market adjustment, the corporate scandals, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent expenditures for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the need for increased spending for homeland security.

The result of these events, combined with the tax cuts that were necessary to get the economy back on a solid path of growth, have had a devastating effect on the Federal budget and its outlook. While I fully support President Bush's initiatives for pursuing the war on terror and protecting our homeland, along with his plan for helping the economy recover, which has obviously worked, I am very concerned about our Federal budget and in finding a way to get it back to balance.

Much of what has happened to our budget has been unavoidable, given the events of the past few years. In my view, we have simply had no choice but to spend the money necessary to fight the war on terror and improve our homeland security. Moreover, we will have to keep spending significant sums for these purposes. After all, providing for our national security has to be our first and highest priority.

I also believe that the tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all necessary to our future prosperity. In order to get our economy growing again and get our people back to work, we needed the economic stimulus that these tax cuts provided.

Not surprisingly, some of my colleagues point the finger solely at these tax cuts as the culprit for our Federal deficits. In fact, according to reports recently released by the Congressional Budget Office, the tax cuts accounted for only 24 percent of CBO's $2.9 billion deficit projection between 2002 and 2011. CBO also estimated that increased spending on entitlement programs and legislated spending increases, particularly homeland security measures, accounted for 76 percent of the deficit projection over this same period. The tax cuts did contribute to the deficit; however, they were crucial to the recent economic recovery we are experiencing.

However, there are other factors that have been and are continuing to contribute to growing deficits that are not vital to our national security or future prosperity. What I am talking about here is the growing tendency for Congress to spend money unnecessarily on various other projects that have far less merit. And, I am talking about the fraud and waste that continues to plague our government.

It seems that just about every time I return home to the State of Utah, I talk with Utah taxpayers who want to know why, given our deteriorating budget circumstances, Congress is not doing more to rein in excess spending. I find that Utahns, like other Americans, are generally willing to pay the high price of fighting the war on terror and of protecting our homeland. But no one wants to pay for wasteful spending or projects that are not necessary. Utahns are increasingly wondering why more cannot be done to ensure that their hard-earned dollars are not going to be wasted or misspent. I believe this bill goes a long ways toward addressing these concerns.

I recognize that it is always tempting to buy now and pay later, extend budget deficits, and increase the size and scope of our government. And, I realize that a government the size of ours is always going to have some fraud and waste associated with it. However, this irresponsible spending and this fraud and waste in government are mortgaging our children's future and shrinking our Nation's dynamic private sector. High deficits and the mountain of Federal debt represent real obligations that hurt our economic security and our ability to prosper, both now and in the future.

I believe that a large part of the problem with this unwarranted spending, and with this fraud and waste, is rooted in the Federal budget process itself. The current budget process is overly complicated, and in many respects, largely incomprehensible. More importantly, it encourages overspending. There is no doubt that its systemic problems contribute largely to our budget deficits.

The Family Budget Protection Act is an opportunity to overhaul a Federal budget process that desperately needs revision. It is an opportunity to tilt the process away from more spending and fraud and waste toward a more responsible way of determining where the taxpayers hard-earned tax dollars are to be spent.

I think Congressman Hensarling may have said it best when he noted that Washington clearly has a spending problem, not a taxing problem. It is irresponsible for us to continue to demand more money from taxpayers when we continue to flush much of that money straight down the drain by funding wasteful, useless, antiquated, or unnecessary government projects.

I recognize that it is very late in the second session of the 108th Congress and that in this very partisan election year, not much more legislation is likely to be approved. I also recognize that some of the provisions of this bill are controversial and that the House of Representatives recently defeated a bill that included some of these provisions. However, I believe it is important to lay before the Senate this year a comprehensive set of budget reform provisions, and to introduce in this body a budget reform concept bill that can be debated, discussed, examined over the next few months, and built upon in the 109th Congress.

Some of the major features of this legislation would accomplish the following:

Provide a Joint Budget Resolution. The Family Budget Protection Act would change the concurrent budget resolution into a joint budget resolution that is signed by the President and has the force of law. This provision would enable both the President and Congress to commit to the same budget before spending any money that year. Our current budget procedure does not bring Congress and the President to settle on even a basic budget framework until the very end of the process when the government is on the verge of shutting down.

Simplify the Budget. This bill would simplify the current budget into a one-page budget by replacing the current 20 budget functions with established spending levels for only four broad categories--mandatory spending, non-defense and defense discretionary spending, and a rainy day fund for emergencies.

Establish a Rainy Day Fund. This bill would abolish the practice of designating spending as ``emergency spending,'' which is a practice often used to avoid spending safeguards. Spending for true emergencies would be paid for through a ``rainy day'' fund. All spending that is incurred through the ``rainy day'' fund must be defined as sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. Emergencies that exhaust the rainy day fund would be permissible if they were able to overcome a supermajority point of order lying against them.

Set Up Government Shut-Down Protections. The Family Budget Protection Act would provide government shutdown protection through an automatic continuing resolution in the event that an agreement between Congress and the President on spending levels was not reached by the legal deadline. In order to avoid simple inaction by Congress, Federal agencies would receive one percent less funding each quarter the government operated under a continuing resolution.

Provide a Two-Thirds Supermajority Vote. New pay-go rules would be established setting up points of order against spending not included in the budget. This bill would raise the bar for points of order to require a two-thirds supermajority vote (rather than the current three- fifths), in both the House and the Senate, to sanction over-budget spending and spending in violation of the caps.

Set Up Spending Caps. The bill would limit growth in entitlement spending to the current inflationary adjustment for each program and growth in population. The bill would also set discretionary spending caps that would allow spending to grow for inflation, with a firewall separating defense, nondefense, and emergency spending. These spending caps would be protected by points of order and enforced with an across- the board sequester if breached.

Establish Family Budget Protection Accounts. Perhaps one of the most common-sense provisions of the Family Budget Protection Act would be the establishment of Family Budget Protection Accounts. These accounts would allow Congress to target spending during the appropriations process and redirect that spending for family tax relief or deficit reduction at the end of the fiscal year.

Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. Under the Family Budget Protection Act, every voluntary entitlement program and all discretionary programs would be sunset in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 to allow for a thorough cost-benefit analysis to see whether they still merit Federal funding. Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare Part A, and Federal retiree benefits would be exempt from this sunset. The bill would also set up a commission to submit recommendations on how to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. The commission's recommendation would either be approved or rejected by Congress as a package, eliminating votes on changes to individual programs. Unlike past proposals, this provision would include defense and entitlement spending in its assessment. The bill would also initiate enhanced rescission authority for the President to propose the elimination of wasteful spending identified in any appropriations bill. The President's proposal would be transmitted to Congress and provided expedited consideration through the legislative process.

The runaway freight train mentality of our Federal government spending simply cannot continue. It is imperative that we move to make these common-sense budget reforms while we are still in a position to do so--rather than continuing to let it control us.

I believe that strong economic growth, combined with tightly controlled spending, are the keys to reducing the deficit and getting the Federal budget in balance again. Although much more needs to be done, we have made great strides in restoring strong economic growth. Along with our continued focus on providing for our national security and fighting the war on terror, I suggest to my colleagues that now is the time to turn our attention to controlling spending. I have no doubt that the reforms included in the Family Budget Protection Act can make a significant contribution to this goal, and I recommend it to my fellow senators for their study and consideration.

Mr. President, the Federal courts propose legislation to improve their operational efficiency. Today, joined by Senator Leahy, I am introducing legislation requested by the Supreme Court of the United States. This bill is non-controversial and I hope the Senate can complete action on it in a timely manner after we return from our August recess.

There are three sections to this bill which I will describe for the benefit of my colleagues.

Section 1. Supreme Court Police Authority to Protect Court Officials Off of Court Grounds. This section would extend, for an additional four years, a ``sunset'' provision on authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices and other Court officials and official guests away from the Court building and grounds.

This authority was established by Public Law 97-390 (12/29/82) and was for a three-year period. Since 1985, the authority has been renewed regularly, generally with three or four year extensions and now expires at the end of 2004. The extension of the sunset provision would permit the Court Police to carry out this function until 2008. The Court Police regularly provide protection for the Justices away from the Court, and in light of the heightened security threats to symbols of our government, it is vital that the Police's authority to carry out this function continue without interruption.

Section 2. Venue for violations of Chapter 61 of Title 40. This section would add the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the existing statute establishing venue for the prosecution of violations of statutes or regulations governing the Supreme Court building and grounds under 40 USCS Sec. Sec. 6131 et seq.

Section 6137(b) currently permits prosecutions only in Superior Court. The amendment would provide an additional alternative, in light of the fact that there are prosecutions under these statutes where distinctly Federal interests are at stake.

Prosecutions under this chapter include the following: Sale of articles, signs, and solicitation in Supreme Court Building and grounds; destruction of property in the Supreme Court

Building and grounds; possession of firearms, fireworks, unauthorized speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds; and unauthorized parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds.

Section 3. Gifts to the Supreme Court. This section would authorize the Chief Justice or his designee to accept, hold, administer and use gifts of personal property for official Court purposes. Monetary bequests would be turned over to the treasury.

In 1978, Congress authorized the Director of the Administrative Office for United States Courts to receive gifts on behalf of the judiciary, recognizing at the time that the judiciary had already received gifts under its implied powers. [See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 604(a)(17)(B).] Generally, the Director does not have authority with respect to the Supreme Court, and this provision is intended to recognize that the Supreme Court has the authority to receive non- monetary gifts on its own behalf. The language of the provision closely tracks the 1978 legislation authorizing the Director to receive gifts for the judiciary.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperative effort that Senator Leahy and I have been able to undertake to bring this legislation to the Senate and am confident we can work together to ensure timely passage of this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Budget Protection Act of 2004, legislation to help bring our Federal spending under control. The companion to this bill, H.R. 3800, was introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year by Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who has been joined by 103 cosponsors.

As all of our colleagues know, our Federal budget situation has been under tremendous strain during the past several years. After enjoying several years of actual and projected surpluses in the later part of the last decade, we have unfortunately suffered a near perfect storm of events that has drastically turned the budget situation from one of sunny optimism to one of great concern. These events, of course, include the recession that followed the bursting of the high tech bubble and stock market adjustment, the corporate scandals, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent expenditures for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the need for increased spending for homeland security.

The result of these events, combined with the tax cuts that were necessary to get the economy back on a solid path of growth, have had a devastating effect on the Federal budget and its outlook. While I fully support President Bush's initiatives for pursuing the war on terror and protecting our homeland, along with his plan for helping the economy recover, which has obviously worked, I am very concerned about our Federal budget and in finding a way to get it back to balance.

Much of what has happened to our budget has been unavoidable, given the events of the past few years. In my view, we have simply had no choice but to spend the money necessary to fight the war on terror and improve our homeland security. Moreover, we will have to keep spending significant sums for these purposes. After all, providing for our national security has to be our first and highest priority.

I also believe that the tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all necessary to our future prosperity. In order to get our economy growing again and get our people back to work, we needed the economic stimulus that these tax cuts provided.

Not surprisingly, some of my colleagues point the finger solely at these tax cuts as the culprit for our Federal deficits. In fact, according to reports recently released by the Congressional Budget Office, the tax cuts accounted for only 24 percent of CBO's $2.9 billion deficit projection between 2002 and 2011. CBO also estimated that increased spending on entitlement programs and legislated spending increases, particularly homeland security measures, accounted for 76 percent of the deficit projection over this same period. The tax cuts did contribute to the deficit; however, they were crucial to the recent economic recovery we are experiencing.

However, there are other factors that have been and are continuing to contribute to growing deficits that are not vital to our national security or future prosperity. What I am talking about here is the growing tendency for Congress to spend money unnecessarily on various other projects that have far less merit. And, I am talking about the fraud and waste that continues to plague our government.

It seems that just about every time I return home to the State of Utah, I talk with Utah taxpayers who want to know why, given our deteriorating budget circumstances, Congress is not doing more to rein in excess spending. I find that Utahns, like other Americans, are generally willing to pay the high price of fighting the war on terror and of protecting our homeland. But no one wants to pay for wasteful spending or projects that are not necessary. Utahns are increasingly wondering why more cannot be done to ensure that their hard-earned dollars are not going to be wasted or misspent. I believe this bill goes a long ways toward addressing these concerns.

I recognize that it is always tempting to buy now and pay later, extend budget deficits, and increase the size and scope of our government. And, I realize that a government the size of ours is always going to have some fraud and waste associated with it. However, this irresponsible spending and this fraud and waste in government are mortgaging our children's future and shrinking our Nation's dynamic private sector. High deficits and the mountain of Federal debt represent real obligations that hurt our economic security and our ability to prosper, both now and in the future.

I believe that a large part of the problem with this unwarranted spending, and with this fraud and waste, is rooted in the Federal budget process itself. The current budget process is overly complicated, and in many respects, largely incomprehensible. More importantly, it encourages overspending. There is no doubt that its systemic problems contribute largely to our budget deficits.

The Family Budget Protection Act is an opportunity to overhaul a Federal budget process that desperately needs revision. It is an opportunity to tilt the process away from more spending and fraud and waste toward a more responsible way of determining where the taxpayers hard-earned tax dollars are to be spent.

I think Congressman Hensarling may have said it best when he noted that Washington clearly has a spending problem, not a taxing problem. It is irresponsible for us to continue to demand more money from taxpayers when we continue to flush much of that money straight down the drain by funding wasteful, useless, antiquated, or unnecessary government projects.

I recognize that it is very late in the second session of the 108th Congress and that in this very partisan election year, not much more legislation is likely to be approved. I also recognize that some of the provisions of this bill are controversial and that the House of Representatives recently defeated a bill that included some of these provisions. However, I believe it is important to lay before the Senate this year a comprehensive set of budget reform provisions, and to introduce in this body a budget reform concept bill that can be debated, discussed, examined over the next few months, and built upon in the 109th Congress.

Some of the major features of this legislation would accomplish the following:

Provide a Joint Budget Resolution. The Family Budget Protection Act would change the concurrent budget resolution into a joint budget resolution that is signed by the President and has the force of law. This provision would enable both the President and Congress to commit to the same budget before spending any money that year. Our current budget procedure does not bring Congress and the President to settle on even a basic budget framework until the very end of the process when the government is on the verge of shutting down.

Simplify the Budget. This bill would simplify the current budget into a one-page budget by replacing the current 20 budget functions with established spending levels for only four broad categories--mandatory spending, non-defense and defense discretionary spending, and a rainy day fund for emergencies.

Establish a Rainy Day Fund. This bill would abolish the practice of designating spending as ``emergency spending,'' which is a practice often used to avoid spending safeguards. Spending for true emergencies would be paid for through a ``rainy day'' fund. All spending that is incurred through the ``rainy day'' fund must be defined as sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. Emergencies that exhaust the rainy day fund would be permissible if they were able to overcome a supermajority point of order lying against them.

Set Up Government Shut-Down Protections. The Family Budget Protection Act would provide government shutdown protection through an automatic continuing resolution in the event that an agreement between Congress and the President on spending levels was not reached by the legal deadline. In order to avoid simple inaction by Congress, Federal agencies would receive one percent less funding each quarter the government operated under a continuing resolution.

Provide a Two-Thirds Supermajority Vote. New pay-go rules would be established setting up points of order against spending not included in the budget. This bill would raise the bar for points of order to require a two-thirds supermajority vote (rather than the current three- fifths), in both the House and the Senate, to sanction over-budget spending and spending in violation of the caps.

Set Up Spending Caps. The bill would limit growth in entitlement spending to the current inflationary adjustment for each program and growth in population. The bill would also set discretionary spending caps that would allow spending to grow for inflation, with a firewall separating defense, nondefense, and emergency spending. These spending caps would be protected by points of order and enforced with an across- the board sequester if breached.

Establish Family Budget Protection Accounts. Perhaps one of the most common-sense provisions of the Family Budget Protection Act would be the establishment of Family Budget Protection Accounts. These accounts would allow Congress to target spending during the appropriations process and redirect that spending for family tax relief or deficit reduction at the end of the fiscal year.

Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. Under the Family Budget Protection Act, every voluntary entitlement program and all discretionary programs would be sunset in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 to allow for a thorough cost-benefit analysis to see whether they still merit Federal funding. Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare Part A, and Federal retiree benefits would be exempt from this sunset. The bill would also set up a commission to submit recommendations on how to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. The commission's recommendation would either be approved or rejected by Congress as a package, eliminating votes on changes to individual programs. Unlike past proposals, this provision would include defense and entitlement spending in its assessment. The bill would also initiate enhanced rescission authority for the President to propose the elimination of wasteful spending identified in any appropriations bill. The President's proposal would be transmitted to Congress and provided expedited consideration through the legislative process.

The runaway freight train mentality of our Federal government spending simply cannot continue. It is imperative that we move to make these common-sense budget reforms while we are still in a position to do so--rather than continuing to let it control us.

I believe that strong economic growth, combined with tightly controlled spending, are the keys to reducing the deficit and getting the Federal budget in balance again. Although much more needs to be done, we have made great strides in restoring strong economic growth. Along with our continued focus on providing for our national security and fighting the war on terror, I suggest to my colleagues that now is the time to turn our attention to controlling spending. I have no doubt that the reforms included in the Family Budget Protection Act can make a significant contribution to this goal, and I recommend it to my fellow senators for their study and consideration.

Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished majority whip, the assistant floor leader, for what is an excellent set of remarks, long overdue and very much on point.

I am on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I remember when this whole brouhaha came up, how demeaned the President of the United States was, not only by the media but by this man, Ambassador Wilson, who immediately took great glee in slamming the President because of 16 words that happened to be accurate. We could not talk about it before now, but the British findings show the President was accurate. And I, for one, am very happy for the Butler report and for what came out.

I agree with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky that this was page 1 offensive media to the President of the United States, undermining what he was saying, what he was doing, and what we have backed him on this floor in doing. Now that this man has been caught in these shall I say discrepancies--some might be a lot stronger than that--we see hardly any comments about it. But having said that, I have to say I have been reading the Washington Post, and they have acted quite responsibly. Many of the other media have not acted that way. But the distinguished Senator from Kentucky covered this matter very well.

I feel sorry whenever partisan politics trumps truth, whenever, in the interest of trying to get a political advantage from one side or the other, anybody of the stature of a former Ambassador of the United States would participate in distorting the record, especially when he knew better.

So again, I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I want to comment that anybody with brains, when they saw that Iraqi team and knew of the Iraqi team--of course, they could not say much about it until now--knew the Iraqi team had gone over to Niger, why else would they have spent the time? Niger had hardly any exportable products other than food, except for yellowcake uranium. Why would they waste their time going to Niger?

I remember at the time thinking: This smells, this argument that the President has misused 16 words and that the CIA should be held totally responsible because those 16 words were wrong. And now we find they were not necessarily wrong. In fact, they were right.

That smacks of this whole matter of partisanship with regard to the current Presidential race. We have our two colleagues on the other side who are now running for President and Vice President who voted for our actions in Iraq. At least one of them spoke out on how serious the actions of the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein were, voted for it, and now they are trying to weasel out because they voted against funding it, saying they wanted to get it done right. Well, that is a nice argument, except that we have well over 100,000 of our young men and women over there, and others as well, who are put at risk if we do not fund the effort once it has started.

Secondly, I heard lots of comments from the other side as to weapons of mass destruction. They knew Saddam Hussein had them in the early 1990s. The U.N. knew they had them. Almost every Democrat of substance spoke out that he had them, were concerned about the fact that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction, including the distinguished candidate for President in the Democratic Party.

And to get cheap political advantage, they have tried to undermine the President of the United States because, so far, we have not been able to discover except small evidences of actual weapons of mass destruction.

What has not been said, for the most part, is any basement in Baghdad, any swimming pool in Baghdad--a city the size of Los Angeles-- could store all of the biological weapons necessary to kill a whole city such as Baghdad or Los Angeles and could store all of the chemical weapons that could cause havoc all over the world. The fact we have not found them yet does not mean they are not there.

It does appear the nuclear program Saddam Hussein had authorized in the early 1990s--and had been well on its way to accomplishing the development of a nuclear device--was not as forward advanced as many of us thought. But there is no question they had the scientists in place. There is no question they had the knowledge in place. There is no question they had the documents in place. There is no question he wanted to do that, no question that he would have done it if he could.

I think as time goes on, more and more information will come out that will indicate that the President of the United States has taken the right course, with the help of this whole body. It seems strange to me that so many are trying to weasel out of the position they took earlier in backing the President of the United States and in backing our country and in backing

our soldiers, and are trying to make political advantage out of some of the difficulties we have over there.

Now that political advantage has been tremendously diminished-- tremendously diminished--as of the time that jurisdiction was turned over to the Iraqis. They are now running their country, with us as backup to help them, to help bring about the freedoms all of us in America take for granted every day. I doubt they will ever have the total freedoms we take for granted every day, but they have a lot more freedom now than they ever even contemplated or thought possible under the Saddam Hussein regime.

That is because of our country. That is because of our young men and women who have sacrificed. I particularly resent it when, for cheap political advantage, some of our colleagues get up and moan and groan about what is going on over there. Every time they do it, it undermines the very nature of what our young men and women are sacrificing to accomplish.

Fortunately, it is the few who do that. But nobody on this floor on either side should be undermining our young men and women over in Iraq, who are heroically serving, some dying--over 900, as we stand here today.

Cheap political advantage--that is the era we are in, I take it. Both sides from time to time have used efforts to accomplish cheap political advantage, but I have never heard it worse than what I have seen this year against this President. I have never seen a more vicious group of people than the outside commentators who hate President Bush. In all honesty, we can sit back and let these terrorists run around this world and do whatever they want to do and act like it won't affect us or we can take action to try to solve the problem.

It is a long-term problem; it is not a short-term one. It is going to take a lot of courage and good leadership, and it is going to take people who don't just quit and hope they will go away. They are not going to go away. These people are committed ideologues. They are theocratic ideologues. And in many respects throughout the history of the world, that is where most of the really dangerous difficulties come. It is through vicious, radical, theocratic ideologues. Frankly, that is what we are facing. Anybody who thinks this is going to be just an easy slam dunk to resolve has not looked at any of the intelligence, has not thought it through, and really has not spent enough time worrying about it on the Senate floor or otherwise.

I have not always agreed with our President. I probably have been wrong when I haven't. The fact is, I sure agree with him in supporting our troops and supporting freedom in the world. Think about it. If Saddam Hussein had been allowed to go on unchecked, not only would millions of Iraqis be kept in terrible conditions, upwards of a million killed viciously by that regime, but ultimately he would have developed nuclear weapons, as he was trying to do in the early 1990s and came close to doing by everybody's measure who knew anything about it. Had that occurred and we didn't do anything about it, guess who would have had to. And if they had to, as they did in the early 1980s in taking out the nuclear reactor, we would have world war III without question.

So there is a lot involved here. This is not some simple itty-bitty problem, nor is it something conjured up by the President of the United States, nor is it something that really intelligent, honest, bipartisan people should ignore. We need to work together in the best interests of this country and of the world to make sure that these madmen do not control the world and continue to control our destinies and that these madmen don't get so powerful that they can do just about anything they want to in the world. You can see how they try to intimidate just by threats and even action. Well, great countries cannot give in to threats, nor can we give in to offensive action that needs to be dealt with. This country has led the world in standing for freedom.

I have to say that I loved the comment of Colin Powell when somebody in a foreign land snidely accused the United States of attempted hegemony or trying to be imperial. He basically said: Our young men and women have given their lives all over this world for freedom, and the only ground that we have ever asked in return is that in which we bury our dead. That is true to this day. I think if the rest of the world looks at it honestly, they will have to say America really does stand for that principle: freedom and decency and honor and justice, not just in this land but for other lands as well.

Mr. President, as I understand it, we are on the Saad nomination.

As we begin the debate on this nomination, I want to put it in the larger context of the judicial nomination process.

On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated 11 outstanding individuals to serve on the Federal bench. I would note that this was months earlier than previous new Presidents, giving the Senate plenty of time to begin considering his nominees. In the 3-plus years--over 1,100 days--since those nominations, the Senate has confirmed only 8 of the first 11 nominees. By comparison, the previous 3 Presidents saw their first 11 appeals court nominees all confirmed in an average of just 81 days following their nomination. We are now 1,100 days past. Not so for President Bush.

While three of his first nominees were confirmed within 6 months, many others waited for 2 years or more before they were confirmed. But even this long wait was better than the fate of the three remaining nominees who have been subjected to filibusters.

One of those, Miguel Estrada, waited for more than 2\1/2\ years and became the target of the first filibuster against a judicial nominee in American history. This Hispanic man deserved better treatment, but he was mistreated for crass partisan purposes. Though a bipartisan majority of Senators supported Miguel Estrada, he had to withdraw after an unprecedented seven cloture votes, meaning seven attempts to try and get to a vote where he could have a vote up or down. Those seven cloture votes, any one of which would have ended the filibuster and allowed that vote up or down, he went through seven of them, the most in the history of this country for any judicial nominee. By the way, the only nominees who have ever had to go through cloture votes in a real filibuster or in real filibusters have been President Bush's nominees. We have had cloture votes before, but there never was any question that the nominees were going to get a vote in the end.

Several weeks prior to those first nominations, shortly after President Bush's inauguration, the Democratic leader stated that the Senate minority would use ``whatever means necessary'' to block judicial nominees they did not like. We have seen the fulfillment of that statement as a variety of techniques have been employed to delay or obstruct the confirmation of nominees, including bottling up nominees in committee, injecting ideology into the confirmation process, seeking all unpublished opinions, requesting nominees to produce Government-owned confidential memoranda, repeated rounds of written questions, and multiple filibusters. It is a sad commentary on the deterioration of the judicial confirmation process that we are now approaching double-digit filibusters in the U.S. Senate of 10 judges or more.

Let me reiterate a few points which I made yesterday concerning the process of confirming judges. Despite this range and frequency of obstructionist tactics which we have seen, some of them entirely new in American history, the Senate has confirmed 198 judges during the past 3 years. I will note that this is behind the pace of President Clinton in his first term. And the minority has made even these confirmations as difficult as possible. Yet some of my colleagues think that the constitutional duty to advise and consent has a time clock attached to it and that the time has run out for the Senate to do its duty. I reject this analysis, either that the previous agreement to allow the vote on the 25 judges was the sum total of our work in the Senate or the notion that judicial nominations cannot be confirmed after some mythical deadline is announced.

There are plenty of examples of confirmation of judges in Presidential election years during the fall, some of which occurred during or after the election was held. Stephen Breyer is a perfect illustration. He now sits on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stephen Breyer was confirmed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. That is just one example. I was the one who helped make that possible because Reagan had been elected.

The Republicans had won the Senate for the first time in decades. There was no real reason to allow what many thought was a liberal Democrat to be appointed to any court at that point or to be confirmed to any court at that point. But Stephen Breyer was an exceptional man. He not only had been chief of staff to Senator Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee, and not only was he a Harvard law professor and a brilliant legal theorist, he was a very honest, decent, honorable man. I helped carry that fight. It wasn't much of a fight in the end because the Republicans agreed, and we confirmed Stephen Breyer late in the year after the election took place.

I helped facilitate that confirmation which took place after the November 1980 presidential election. That nomination was made by President Carter, who had just been defeated by President Reagan, and yet we acted on it. I note that Senator Thurmond was the ranking member at that time. Yet his name continues to be invoked as the authority of a binding precedent. I reject the notion of this purported rule and would hope that the service of the longest serving and oldest Member to have served in this body would not be used in the manner I have heard repeated in the committee and on the Senate floor.

Besides, Senator Thurmond was chairman of the committee, and at one time he did say: We have had enough confirmations, and this is what we are going to do. We are going to stop this year.

But even then he didn't.

Under the Senate Democrats' theory, the Senate has apparently confirmed enough judges. The remaining vacancies, half of which are classified as judicial emergencies because of the backlog, just don't seem to matter to them. According to their analysis, because of some acceptable vacancy rate or because of the mythical time clock, the remaining 25 judges pending before the Senate should be dismissed out of hand. This is not logical, nor is it the proper approach to take under the Constitution.

I will also respond to some of the arguments made that Senate Democrats have only rejected six or seven nominees. The fact is, the Senate has not rejected the nominees which have been filibustered. If they have the votes to defeat the nominee, then let those votes be cast and let the results stand. But a minority of Senators are denying the Senate from either confirming or defeating some of these nominees. That is what we are seeking today--an up or down vote.

Mr. President, unfortunately, one of the battlegrounds of this judicial obstructionism has been the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite President Bush's attempt to fill four critical vacancies on that court, and two district vacancies in Michigan, these nominations remained stalled in the Senate. There are many factors contributing to the stalemate we have found ourselves in with regard to confirmations on the Sixth Circuit, some of which go back to the Clinton administration. I will discuss that in detail at a later point, but for now, everyone knows that I have been working to reach an accommodation that would help move this process forward.

I have great respect for Senators Levin and Stabenow. I have worked for many years with Senator Levin and have reached agreements with him on many difficult issues. For example, Senator Levin and I worked with Senators Biden and Moynihan to dramatically revise the regulations pertaining to heroin addiction treatment. That effort is paying off. I remain hopeful that we can do so here.

On this issue, I have continued to work with Senators Levin and Stabenow. I have carefully listened to their concerns. And while the Michigan Senators' negative blue slips were accorded substantial weight--that is why this has taken so long--I delayed scheduling a hearing on any of the Michigan nominees because of the Michigan Senators' views. Their negative blue slips are not dispositive under the committee's Kennedy-Biden-Hatch blue slip policy. It was started by Senator Kennedy, confirmed by Senator Biden, and I have gone along with my two liberal colleagues on the committee.

I don't think there is any doubt that I have attempted to reach an accommodation that would fill these seats. Unfortunately, my efforts have not been successful. I remain hopeful that we can come to a resolution, and I will keep trying to do so. But I must emphasize, in my view, integral to any accommodation is the confirmation of Judge Saad, Judge Griffin, and Judge McKeague--at least votes up or down. Since they have a majority of people in the Senate who would vote for them, I believe they would be confirmed in the end.

These are exceptional individuals. Judge Saad and Judge Griffin both serve on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Judge McKeague is a district Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. He was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

It has been nearly 1 year since the Judiciary Committee first considered the nomination of Henry W. Saad, who has been nominated for a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. This is an historic appointment. Upon his confirmation, Judge Saad will become the first Arab-American to sit on the Sixth Circuit, which covers the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan.

It is long past time for the Senate to consider Judge Saad's nomination. He was first nominated to fill a Federal judgeship in 1992, when the first President Bush nominated him for a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The fact that he did not get a hearing may have worked to his benefit, since he was appointed in 1994 by Governor Engler to a seat on the Michigan Court of Appeals. He was elected to retain his seat in 1996 and again in 2002, receiving broad bipartisan support in each election.

On November 8, 2001, President Bush nominated Judge Saad for a seat on the Sixth Circuit, the position for which we are considering him today. When no action was taken on his nomination during the 107th Congress, President Bush renominated him to the Sixth Circuit on January 7, 2003. All told, Judge Saad has been nominated for a seat on the Federal bench three separate times. It is high time the Senate completed action on his nomination.

Judge Saad's credentials for this position are impeccable. He graduated with distinction from Wayne State University in 1971 and magna cum laude from Wayne State University Law School in 1974. He then spent 20 years in the private practice of law with one of Michigan's leading firms, Dickinson, Wright, specializing in product liability, commercial litigation, employment law, labor law, school law and libel law. In addition, he has served as an adjunct professor at both the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and at Wayne State University Law School.

Judge Saad is active in legal and community affairs. Some of the organizations he has been involved with include educational television, where he serves as a trustee, the American Heart Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and other nonprofit organizations that serve the elderly and impaired. As a leader in the Arab-American community, Judge Saad has worked with a variety of organizations in promoting understanding and good relations throughout all ethnic, racial, and religious communities. He is an outstanding role model.

Judge Saad enjoys broad bipartisan support throughout his State, as evidenced by endorsements in his last election by the Michigan State AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers of Michigan. He has received dozens of letters of support from leading political figures, fellow judges, law professors, private attorneys, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and a variety of other groups.

Let me quote from just a few of the letters received in support of Judge Saad's nomination. Maura D. Corrigan, Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, wrote: ``Henry Saad has distinguished himself as a fair-minded and independent jurist who respects the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the constitutional role of the judiciary in our tripartite form of government. . . . Judge Saad is a public servant of exceptional intelligence

and integrity. He has the respect of the bench and the bar.'' Other judges have written that he is ``a hard-working and honorable individual'' and that he is ``an outstanding appellate jurist with a strong work ethic.'' Roman Gribbs, a lifelong Democrat and retired judge, wrote, ``Henry Saad is a man of personal and professional integrity, is fair-minded, very conscientious and is above all, an outstanding jurist.'' Judge Saad has clearly earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues on the Michigan State court bench. His nomination deserves consideration by this Senate.

I hope that our consideration of Judge Saad's nomination is not overshadowed by collateral arguments about the propriety of his nomination, the committee blue slip process, an attack on his personal character and qualifications, or other diversionary arguments. The question before the Senate is the qualifications of Judge Saad to sit on the Federal bench.

We have heard from the other side about the President just steamrolling these nominations, without consulting with the home state Senators.