Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back all of my time on the three judges. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I would feel really bad if I didn't take a few moments to speak about my friend, Ron Reagan. I, as much as anybody in this body, revered him, respected him, and loved him.

When I was running back in 1976, I filed literally on the last day, May 10. I had zero name recognition except among the legal community and among my initial church community. But it was zero in the public polls. I ran through the preconvention, the convention, and came out second in the convention, which enabled me to force a primary, and through the primary on $35,000, $18,000 of which was my own, which was a lot of money then back in 1976. I was about 9 points ahead and pulling away at that time against the favored in the race--the Republican Party favorite and the favorite of most of the delegates of the State convention. But he had spent about $150,000, and he was starting to slip. I was starting to pull ahead by about 9 points, according to the polls.

Since I was the first to come out for Ronald Reagan in that race at that particular time in Utah as a candidate, we decided to ask Ronald Reagan if he would pre-primary endorse me in my race for the U.S. Senate.

I have to say when I called it didn't take them long, recognizing my friendship and my support for the first time in his political career, as far as I know--at least that is what I was told by those who were running his campaign, that he was going to pre-primary endorse me, and he did. By that time I was probably known by about 60 to 65 percent of the people in Utah.

After the endorsement, I won the primary. I probably would have won the primary between 10 or 15 percentage points. But after his endorsement, I won the primary 2 to 1, and I was known by, I believe, well over 95 percent of my fellow constituents in Utah.

I went to 36 States for Ronald Reagan as one of his major surrogates. I went to New Hampshire, and I was Nancy Reagan's date that night as I spoke for Ronald Reagan in the cattle call. That is what it was called in New Hampshire.

In 1980, I gave the keynote address at Plains High School, Jimmy Carter's own high school in Plains, GA, before 2,000 people.

I did everything in my power to elect Ronald Reagan. We had a friendship that transcended the usual friendships that are lovely and wonderful around here but nevertheless usually don't rise to the level that his friendship for me and mine for him really rose to.

I truly love Ronald Reagan. I know what a great President he was. I know he did bring down the Iron Curtain, that he was the primary mover and articulator of the themes that actually ended the cold war.

Most scholars will now say there are four reasons why Reagan was able to win the cold war: No. 1, his military buildup; he put too much pressure on the Soviets; No. 2, the placing of the Pershing II missiles in Europe, which was a very gutsy thing to do at the time, and highly criticized; No. 3 was the threat to build SDI, the Space Defense Initiative, and the Soviets knew we could do it; and, No. 4 was a placing of the Stinger missiles Afghanistan. I was here through all of those times.

I honor this great President, and I honor his dear wife who has been a wonderful wife and supporter, who I know deeply, who has been an advocate for so many things that are right, and especially in later times. Embryonic stem cell research--she is right on that

issue, and I support her. I honor both of them this day.

I join my colleagues, millions of Americans, and indeed countless more around the world in mourning the loss of the greatest American President of the 20th century, President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

After suffering nearly a decade, our beloved President died this weekend. I join those in this body here today in sending our condolences to Mrs. Reagan and their entire family.

It is hard to imagine any American alive who has not been touched by the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Even those born after he left office in 1989 have benefited from his selfless service, as they grew up in an era of unprecedented global freedom, a result of the end of the cold war brought on by President Reagan's bold vision of this country and our faithful mission in the world.

Certainly, I was touched by the life of President Reagan.

Perhaps I might not be here today were it not for the invigorating support of this great leader, whose endorsement of my candidacy in my first Senate run was certainly instrumental in my service to the people of Utah.

I was pleased and honored to return the favor at every opportunity-- and, in 1980 and 1984, I campaigned for Ronald Reagan in almost every State of the Union.

Let no one believe that this repaid my debt, political or personal, to this great man--because I believe I will remain in his debt as long as I live, and so will our country.

President Reagan was both political mentor and inspiration to me as a young Senator.

We both started as Democrats.

We were inspired by our country's bold international leadership and sacrifice during World War II, under a Democratic president.

Yet we both saw the political landscape shift early in our adult lives.

We both grew dismayed at our country's direction, as citizens lost faith, lost optimism and lost the dynamism that once made this land great.

At the same time, we both grew to appreciate the principles of the Republican Party, where individual initiative and personal freedom are enshrined, and where the fight against international communism took a backseat to no other foreign policy.

When I came to the Senate in 1977, our country was still fresh from the defeat symbolized by communist tanks crashing into Saigon in 1975.

By the time Ronald Reagan became President, the defeat in 1975 had been interpreted by our global nemesis, the Soviet Union, as a weakness in American resolve; it inspired the Soviets to proxy adventures in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

As the liberal elites of the 1970s denounced and disparaged our international sacrifices of the past decade, as it became commonplace to equate the use of American force with the encroachments of communist tyranny, America became uncertain of itself and turned inward.

It was not our finest moment.

Our late colleague, Senator Moynihan, once remarked, ``the central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.''

In the 1970s, liberal culture had brought this country to a period of social decline and international withdrawal.

As communist tyranny gained around the world, drug use here reached an all-time high.

The economy of the most productive nation in the world was unraveling with high taxes and higher inflation.

Our sense of mission was gone; our belief in our natural strengths and goodness receded.

One of the things I loved the most about Ronald Reagan was that he recognized his duty to lead a conservative movement back into the political majority; by so doing he declared that we would never concede to cultural decline.

Reagan's victory in 1980 put an end to this malaise and changed our country forever.

Originally from the Midwest, Reagan moved to California and found his talent in the industry of American dreams, showing our country that an American everyman could be a star.

Many scorned Reagan the actor for seeking political office.

But, once again, he showed them wrong. He won our hearts as a President--as he had as an actor--showing us all that a man well- practiced in the arts of both heart and mind could be a perfect leader for a nation which had lost its sense of imagination.

Only in America could a man from the middle class, from the middle of the country, rise to become the greatest American leader of the 20th century.

Ronald Wilson Reagan achieved this by appealing to the essential American values in all of us--the values of individualism and enterprise, initiative and optimism, charity and sacrifice. And he restored those values in our country's policies.

Many misjudged Reagan. Many underestimated him. Many confused a man of simple beliefs with a simple man.

Those of us who knew him well recognized Reagan as a man of deep convictions. Deft of wit, he always deflected a tough moment with humor. But, under it all, a gravity of purpose shone through.

What I came to admire in Ronald Reagan was his core belief that government could lead society, but not build society. He recognized that government's most important economic role was to foster American innovation and industry. And his policies followed that principle.

In foreign policy, he knew that communism was an abominable scourge on the face of the planet. He eagerly tackled that challenge as he had most obstacles in his life, and in so doing left a legacy unparalleled by any American leader.

Who can forget his momentous call, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that Wall?''

And who can forget watching as the wall fell just 2 years later?

In the most fundamental way, President Ronald Reagan inspired us all to believe in our great nation, and what it could do to help its people lead better lives.

As a junior Senator, I watched President Reagan take office, facing his first challenge: an economy misfiring on all cylinders, mired in the mud of inflation, high taxes and bureaucracy.

With a strong voice of optimism, President Reagan unfurled an ambitious plan to rejuvenate the economy and lead the nation to economic recovery.

I remember how excited we were to see his bold plan, the change in direction that our new President charted.

He led us to pass the landmark Economic Recovery and Tax Act, including the Kemp-Roth personal income tax cuts of 25 percent over three years.

This major initiative stimulated the economy by providing for accelerated depreciation deductions and an investment credit.

It also enhanced the retirement of millions of Americans by introducing Individual Retirement Accounts.

And perhaps most significantly, it indexed income tax brackets to inflation, limiting this punishing form of spending growth.

The result? The economic boom in the 1980s.

Inflation dropped from 13.5 percent in 1980 to 3.2 percent in 1983.

By 1986, the fourth year of the tax cuts, economic growth had increased a cumulative 18 percent.

And, when Ronald Reagan left office in January 1989, more than 18 million jobs had been created.

Some have criticized the Reagan era as years of profligate spending and an irresponsible increase in the federal deficit.

However, only in 1 year, 1983, did either personal income tax collections or total receipts go down from the previous year. It is true that the budget deficit did increase during the Reagan presidency, but this was clearly due to large increases in spending, not because of the Reagan tax cuts, without which we would not likely have had the increase in prosperity most Americans enjoyed.

President Reagan also led the way for Congress to approve the landmark 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Despite the naysaying of critics, President Reagan did it again. The 1986 Act lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to just 28 percent. Also, it reduced the number of tax brackets from 14 to just 2.

While I did not support some of the provision in the final product of the 1986 Act, particularly some of the drastic changes in depreciation, which I believed would help contribute to a crisis in real estate and the savings and loan industry, the Act itself with its simplification and lower tax rates was a major accomplishment.

The fact that subsequent presidents and Congresses have reversed the gains made in terms of simplicity does not take away from the monumental victory that President Reagan scored by his leadership of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Throughout the Reagan era, I had the privilege of serving on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, much of it as chairman. I worked closely with the President and his staff on issues related to public health and welfare issues showcasing the President' compassion and dedication to improving the quality of life of all Americans.

The country was still in a major recession, and we worked to pass the Job Training Partnership Act. This legislation changed the emphasis of job assistance from providing government jobs to unemployed workers to providing them job training which would help unemployed find jobs in the private sector.

The President's initiatives often focused on releasing decision- making initiatives from an old federal bureaucracy, as with the innovative health block grants that returned decision-making to the states, providing them with the resources and flexibility to deliver preventive services, maternal and child health care, and mental health services in a totally new model.

As chairman of the committee, I was criticized for putting this legislation through. But we are vindicated when the General Accounting Office reviewed these initiatives several years after their creation, it included that they were successful, and provided a more efficient way to address the health needs of America's diverse population.

I also remember how strongly the Reagan administration supported biomedical research, a love for and appreciation of the power of scientific inquiry Mrs. Reagan carries forward to this day.

Other key accomplishments under President Reagan's tenure were significant Food and Drug Administration legislation, such as the Orphan Drug Act, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Resolution Act, the National Organ Transplantation Act, pediatric emergency medical services, vaccine compensation, tobacco warning labels, and the national practitioner data bank.

How well I remember the battle President Reagan waged to seat C. Everett Koop as the Surgeon General.

Again recognizing that the country needed inspired leadership more than bureaucracy, President Reagan informed us that he wanted to nominate C. Everette Koop to be the Surgeon General.

Many balked, citing Dr. Koop's age--65--as a barrier. The Public Health Service Act limited the age of PHS Commission Corps officers to 64\1/2\.

But our President, himself past that age, recognized the superior leadership skills of Dr. Koop.

It was a long battle, but one which one which had to be fought. Dr. Koop defined the modern-day role of Surgeon General, and today is revered by all, Democrats and Republicans alike, for his independent minded advocacy of public health, from AIDS awareness and prevention to anti-tobacco initiatives.

I would be remiss if I didn't highlight President Reagan's other significant healthcare accomplishment.

As we know, the use of illegal drugs had hit a historic high in the late 1970s.

Again, President Reagan recognized that government needed to find new ways to address this social blight. He proposed and we legislated the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which has taken the leadership role in anti-drug policy ever since.

Once again, however, the President recognized that leadership was as much in the message as in the bureaucracy.

His beloved First Lady introduced the ``Just Say No'' campaign, a flat rebuttal to an ingrown acceptance of drug use in our society.

Derided by some elites, this program of declaring unequivocally the unacceptable use of illegal drugs has become a foundation of all subsequent drug use.

No one suggests--then or now--that the problem of drug use is simple, and that prevention and treatment policies can be cauterized from interdiction policies.

But no one suggests, after years of confirming studies, that a drug policy can be effective absent a strong component of social rhetoric.

I loved President Reagan, and I loved his personal style of leadership.

But I loved even more his undying love and affection for one of the classiest first ladies this country has come to know.

Nancy Reagan's quiet support of her husband, so evident in all his successes, is often overlooked, as is her courage in leading the ``Just Say No'' campaign.

I remember as if it were today when President Reagan signed the 1986 drug law, the one that created the Office of the drug Czar and gave added resources to prevention and treatment.

I was standing behind the President when he signed the bill. He said with that special twinkle in his eye, ``I am going to give this pen to the women who has crusaded to end drug use in this country.''

With that, he walked past expectant advocates and lawmakers straight to his wife Nancy, and presented her with the pen.

Some focus on President Reagan's talents as an actor and image-maker. Yet I have never known a more authentic man.

And when he concluded that AIDS was a challenge to the public health that was reaching emergency proportions, he declared this as national policy.

At the time, some criticized his administration. They wanted him to act sooner. They wanted more money. They wanted more research.

But what I remember was a compassionate man, who recognized that we needed to build the research infrastructure to make effective use of new funding.

While the HIV virus was not identified until 1983, the Reagan administration invested close to $6 billion in fighting the disease by the end of his term in 1989. Once the President recognized the challenge, he radically increased the response of the government, and the breakthroughs with retroviral medicines in the 1990s would simply have not occurred were it not for those investments.

We all know that one of a President's greatest legacies is his nominations to the third branch of government.

In appointing more judges than any president in American history, President Reagan's judicial legacy can be seen on two levels.

First, he described, in both principled and practical terms, the kind of judge America needs.

We had seen decades of judicial activism, through which judges took more and more control over the policies governing the country and the culture in which Americans lived.

President Reagan came into office not just saying judges were going too far, but explaining why. He refocused Americans on the principles America's founders laid down at the dawn of the Republic: the people, through their elected representatives, decide how they wish to be governed and make the law to do so. Judges can only interpret and apply that law, they cannot make or change it.

Implementing those basic principles, President Reagan shaped the judiciary by the individuals he nominated and appointed. He appointed some of the legal academy's best minds to the U.S. Court of Appeals-- such as Ralph Winter to the Second Circuit, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner to the Seventh Circuit, and of course Robert Bork to the District of Columbia Circuit.

I served on the Judiciary Committee during those years, seeing first hand the depth and breadth and quality of President Reagan's nominees.

America's founders insisted that this separation of powers, this restriction on judicial power, was absolutely critical for the freedom that self-government under a written constitution makes possible.

For some whose agenda the people do not favor, however, a judiciary that won't make law means their preferred law just won't get made. And they

fought President Reagan's nominees with increasingly intensity.

The first cloture vote ever taken on an appeals court nominee, for example, occurred during President Reagan's first term, and the confirmation process changed entirely in his second.

The seeds sown then have borne fruit today in the filibusters being used against President Bush's nominees. But the issue remains the same, whether unelected federal judges may take over from the people the business of making law and defining the culture.

President Reagan's record of judicial appointments is certainly a profound legacy. He truly blazed a trail on this issue and, through his leadership, Americans now know more about how appointing the right kind of judge is so important to protect their freedom.

Many believe that President Reagan's lasting legacy will be his successful leadership during the last stage of the cold war.

Ronald Reagan's tenure began at what was our lowest point in the cold war. The loss in Vietnam and the Watergate debacle led to a withdrawal from our global policy of containment. The Soviets filled the gap, and their proxies gained around the globe.

Emboldened, the Soviet Union engaged in its most extensive military expansion in that dictatorships history; during the 1970s, the Soviets expanded their nuclear missile arsenals as well as their conventional arsenals in virtually every armament category. At the end of the 1970s, the previous president as left shame-faced, following the invasion of Afghanistan, declaring his ``surprise'' at Soviet behavior.

President Reagan came to office dedicated to redressing the military balance and engaging the Cold War.

His administration saw the largest peace-time growth of military spending in modern American history. That escalation combined American resolve with American ingenuity, and this was no more evident than in President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.

The President rejected conventional deterrence doctrine when he stated, ``We must seek other means of deterring war. It is both militarily and morally necessary . . . I propose to channel our technological prowess toward building a more secure and stable world . . . Our only purpose is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.''

What President Reagan imagined, when he stated this back in 1984, is slowly coming to be, 20 years later. We have moved too slowly, but not because we lacked in vision.

President Reagan was willing to challenge the Soviets diplomatically, militarily and by proxy. He was unabashed in declaring that regime an ``evil empire''. Who today denies the inherent evil of the gulag?

He was bold in responding to the emplacement of Soviet SS-20s in occupied Europe with Pershing's in Germany. Who today denies that this didn't signal to the Soviets our new-found resolution to combat them geopolitically?

Ronald Reagan rejected the so-called ``Vietnam syndrome'' long before our victory in the first Gulf War allowed Americans to believe in the justice of our use of force. He knew that the U.S. had a role in the world, that the use of American force was not immoral and that the U.S. could do good for the world.

This military escalation challenged the Soviet leadership and ultimately bankrupted its coffers. The decision to roll-back directly challenged and refuted the fundamental ideological tenet of communism, that it would prevail as an inexorable law of history.

This perverted notion was based, of course, on the acceptance that the highest stage of history would be rest on imprisoning nations and extinguishing history.

Reagan knew in his heart that this was the greatest falsehood perpetrated on modern history and he built his foreign policy--the Reagan Doctrine--on the idea of rolling back this ideology, this tyrannical power, and tearing down the walls that kept its citizens imprisoned.

Ronald Reagan did not accept the status quo.

He did not accept a static geopolitical division of the world between the free nations and the captive nations of the evil empire.

He and his allies--and I will be proud to my dying day to have considered myself one of his allies--believed that we could roll back communism, on the ground, and in the minds of people.

Ronald Reagan went to England in 1983, before the leftist Oxford Union, and announced the creation of what would become the National Endowment for Democracy, which would support programs around the world fostering democratic principles and practices.

Last year, on the 20th anniversary of this bold initiative, President Bush announced a major push by the NED into the Arab world.

Democracy remains relevant after it has triumphed over communist tyranny.

But for democracy to succeed, people striving to break the yoke of tyranny had to have a friend in the United States. Ronald Reagan did not limit his friendship to diplomacy and military posturing.

A key aspect of the Reagan legacy was the Reagan Doctrine's policy of support for anti-communist movements around the world. We supported Solidarity in Poland, using the International Labor Organization.

We supported the resistance in Nicaragua--and the wars over that policy were sometimes almost as intense here on Capitol Hill.

And we supported the Afghan resistance.

We've had democracy in Poland for over a decade, and Poland is the shining example of the New Europe, a country whose government and soldiers have bravely and proudly served besides ours in Iraq.

Nicaragua has also had democratic elections over the past decade.

And while the Iran-Contra episode was a policy debacle, I remain proud of my service in this Senate during that investigation, as I remain unflinching in my belief that it was right to help Nicaraguans resist the tyranny and thuggery of the Sandinistas.

And our support for the Afghan resistance led to the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, dealing the Soviet Union a military, financial and psychological blow from which it would never recuperate. This blow created a major fissure in the notion of communist inevitability that, many of us believe, would lead to the crumbling of the Soviet empire.

Many are quick to disparage that policy, because of what arose from the tumult of the Afghan resistance and the rise of the Taliban. We made mistakes in implementing the policy, we now see, primarily having to do with recruiting Saudi participation and relying on Pakistani management of arms flows.

But our biggest mistake was abandoning Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet puppet regime, leaving that poor country an orphan child of the cold war. But we made no mistake in contributing to a devastating Soviet defeat, a defeat that brought about the end of the cold war.

When Ronald Reagan left office, this country had been transformed.

Malaise was not associated with the American economy, nor the American spirit.

Optimism, that personal trait of Ronald Reagan, was what characterized our standing in the world, our economy, and our belief in ourselves.

Reagan, a child of the Midwest who understood mythically the role of the western frontier in the American psyche, left us looking to the horizon, to the future.

Ronald Reagan was a humble man, who left office gladly, having served his term, but who never stopped loving the American people.

It was such love that led to one of the most moving letters to the American public ever written in our history, the letter he wrote on November 5, 1994, announcing that he was slowly succumbing to Alzheimer's Disease.

This is a horrible disease, as so many American families know.

My colleagues in the Senate know that, after much soul-searching and study, I have become a strong proponent of embryonic stem cell research, because of the promise it offers for treatment of some of the most wrenching illnesses Americans face today, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinsons and juvenile diabetes.

President Reagan's widow, my dear friend Nancy, knows that I will remain dedicated to supporting this research through all my days in the Senate.

Even though retired and enjoying the privacy that was always important for

him and his family, President Reagan wrote on November 5, 1994 one of the bravest and most moving letters in American history.

He said:

Upon learning this news, Nancy and I had to decide whether

as private citizens we would keep this a private matter or

whether we would make this news known in a public way. So

now, we feel it is important to share it with you. In opening

our hearts, we hope this might promote greater awareness of

this condition. Perhaps it will encourage a clearer

understanding of the individuals and families who are

affected by it.

After speaking of the burdens he knew his long illness had in store-- not for him, but for his beloved Nancy, he thanked his fellow Americans. He said:

Let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the

great honor of allowing me to serve as your President. When

the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave

with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal

optimism for its future.

I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset

of my life. I know that for America there will always be a

bright dawn ahead.

These are the virtuous and loving words of a patriot, of a brave and humble man, of a man who lived every day in the belief that our best days lie ahead. It is America that pauses this week, and I thank God for the gift of the greatest American president of the twentieth century, Ronald Reagan.

We have lost a great American.

I think it is fitting to quote another great American, Daniel Webster who spoke so eloquently about the passing of two other Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Webster's words were never more true than today:

A superior and commanding human intellect, a truly great

man, when Heaven vouchsafes so rare a gift, is not a

temporary flame, burning brightly for a while, and then

giving place to returning darkness. It is rather a spark of

fervent heat, as well as radiant light, with power to

enkindle the common mass of human kind; so that when it

glimmers in its own decay, and finally goes out in death, no

night follows, but it leaves the world all light, all on fire

from the potent contact of its own spirit.

I pray that America will always be alight with the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Justice Sandra Townes, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Justice Townes comes to us with an impressive record of public service and accomplishment. She left a successful teaching career to attend Syracuse University College of Law. Following her graduation, she went to work in the Onondaga County District Attorney's Office, where she had a long and successful career as prosecutor. She left the district attorney's office in 1987, when she was elected judge of the Syracuse City Court--becoming the first African American woman to do so. She made history again in 1999, when she became the first African American to be elected locally to the New York State Supreme Court. Two years later, Gov. George Pataki appointed her to associate justice of the Appellate Division of that court, where she now sits.

I applaud President Bush for his nomination of Justice Townes and am confident that she will continue her outstanding record of public service on the Federal bench in the Eastern District of New York.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Kenneth Karas, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Karas, a graduate of Columbia University School of Law, is a distinguished veteran of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he is co-chief of that office's unit specializing in terrorism cases. He is known among his peers as an ``al-Qaida expert,'' for his assistance in successfully prosecuting four of Osama bin Laden's followers for the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa. He is currently the lead prosecutor in the case against alleged al-Qaida terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.

Mr. Karas is, by all accounts, a gifted prosecutor whose familiarity with Federal trial procedure will benefit him immensely on the Federal bench.

I applaud President Bush for his nomination of Mr. Karas and am confident that he will serve on the bench with compassion, integrity and fairness.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Judith Herrera, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Ms. Herrera is an exceptional nominee and has a distinguished record of service in both the private and public sectors. After graduating from Georgetown Law School, Ms. Herrera worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Santa Fe, New Mexico where she prosecuted a variety of misdemeanor and felony offenses. She later entered the private sector and practiced in the areas of education and employment law.

Ms. Herrera distinguished herself as one of the most effective advocates in New Mexico for employers defending wrongful discharge and discrimination cases. She later founded her own law firm, and currently serves as shareholder and president of that firm. Ms. Herrera has also served the local community of Santa Fe in a variety of ways. She was a member of the Santa Fe City Council, the Board of Trustees for St. Vincent Hospital, and the Board of Regents for the University of New Mexico. Ms. Herrera's broad experience as a trial attorney and her many hours of community service have prepared her for the challenges she will face as a Federal judge. I am confident that she will make a fine addition to the federal bench in the District of New Mexico.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of F. Dennis Saylor, nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Mr. Saylor is a highly regarded litigator with a history of public service. Upon graduating from Harvard Law School, Mr. Saylor joined the law firm of Goodwin Proctor where he worked for several years before joining the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts.

He left his Assistant U.S. Attorney position in 1990 to serve as the Special Counsel and Chief of Staff to the Assistant Attorney General here in Washington, D.C. In 1993, Mr. Saylor rejoined Goodwin Proctor as a partner where he remains to this day.

This highly respected attorney has focused much of his professional career on criminal matters, however--as his record illustrates--he has distinguished himself on the civil side as well.

Mr. Saylor will bring 20 years of legal experience and sharp acumen to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, I have enjoyed listening to my colleague here today. I have been concerned with some of the things my good friend has said.

First of all, you know, I don't think anybody doubts that what we have done over there has put a tremendous dent in terrorism all over the world. Because of the fortitude of this President and this administration, we have stood up against terrorists all over the world--in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but if the truth be known, in so many other countries that are fraught with terrorism. I can't talk much about that. But I can say one thing as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, this administration is on top of this all over the world.

Probably the two greatest experiments right now against terrorism are in Afghanistan--where we are slowly moving that country forward, and showing a commitment of the international community in a very real sense. But we are having a very difficult time locating al-Qaida, which slips across the border into the ungovernable part of Pakistan.

But probably the most important steps taken against terrorism in our world today are being exhibited right in Iraq.

In the 20th century, Iraq has been a very difficult area, with all kinds of animosity, tribal difficulties, tribal conflicts. Many of the current conflicts existed long before we had to get involved, and it is easy to understand why this is taking a bit of time to get done.

The one thing I am very concerned about--that is happening day in and day out with colleagues on the other side of the floor--is the undermining of morale, the undermining of efforts of our troops over there. What happened to the unity that we need in America to support our troops?

War is never easy, and it is never something that is pleasant. Anybody who thinks you can just walk out of Iraq and turn it over to the Iraqis at this point is not only whistling ``Dixie,'' but you have to wonder if the confidence is really there.

By the way, having said that, I feel badly that the minority leader in the House of Representatives has chosen to use such unwise language about the President of the United States. She should be ashamed of herself. I know she is trying to do her job over there. I think having two parties is very important, and having a loyal opposition is important as well. But to call the President incompetent, and to call what he is doing incompetency undermines every soldier in Iraq and every soldier around the world. It undermines our fight against terrorism. It undermines so many things that are important for our country, for our troops overseas, and for those who are here. It undermines our young people who might believe that bunk. If you hear it enough, and the media presents it enough, people start to think that type of irresponsible talk is true. It is not only not true, it is irresponsible, mean, vindictive, and, I think, beneath the dignity of any leader in either of these bodies.

It is one thing to criticize the policies. That is what we are here to do. It is one thing to criticize a different philosophy and to try to have yours preeminent, but it is another thing to undermine the President of the United States at a time when we are in grave difficulties in Iraq and when we are in a grand experiment of trying to institute a democracy in lands that have never seen democracy.

I think it undermines our whole process for anybody to come on this floor and say we should leave now and let Iraq go to the Iraqis. What do you think we are doing? On June 30 we are going to turn it over to their Governing Council.

By the way, Mr. Bremer will be gone. He has this incredibly difficult job of trying to bring peace and stability to Iraq. He has done a terrific job. But he is going to be gone, and we are presently in the process of installing John Negroponte--one of our top foreign service officers, one of the top Ambassadors that this country has ever had, who is a wonderful family man who has been all over the world, who has served this country with distinction all over the world--to be our Ambassador in Iraq. This is evidence that Iraq is going to be turned over to the Iraqis. But the Iraqis should be the first to say we still need the stability that only the United States of America and its allies--some 30 countries--can bring about.

I am getting a little tired of people saying this is just the United States against the world. There are some 30-plus countries over there supporting us.

I would like to ask, Where are the French, where are the Germans, where are the Russians, and where are the Chinese? Aren't they concerned about stability in the Middle East? Of course not. They do not share the vision of sacrifice to improve other parts of the world.

I also would like to make a few points on what we have done over there and what we are in the process of doing, hopefully without being undermined by Members of this body or Members of the other body. This is not a grand experiment, but it is a grand approach to try to put a dent in terrorism and create at least a representative form of government in the Middle East, for the first time in history in that area in Iraq.

The U.S., in coalition with allies, has overthrown two terrorist regimes. We have rescued two nations. We have liberated 50 million people.

Some of these people who have been such big critics ought to acknowledge that.

This coalition has captured or killed almost two-thirds of these terrorist leaders around the world--two-thirds of the known senior advisers and al-Qaida operatives.

We have captured or killed 46 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq. We have disrupted terror cells on most continents. Mr. President, $200 million in terrorist assets have been seized or frozen.

Where are the compliments coming from the other side about some of these things?

The coalition persuaded Libya to eliminate its chemical- and nuclear- related programs and to accept international inspection.

That could never have happened without the President of the United States, George W. Bush; without his guts and without his ability and his foresightedness.

We have put up with Libya all these years, with their irresponsibilities in the Middle East and all over the world, and their sponsorship of terrorism.

Had it not been for what President Bush has done, Libya would never have agreed to start acting responsibly. Qadhafi would never agree, but he has finally seen the handwriting on the wall that we have some fortitude.

Al-Qaida is taking credit for getting rid of that government in Spain. They are going to try to do that to us. We had better be prepared for it.

This President has had the guts to stand up to the terrorist threat. He is certainly the leading person in the world who has had the guts to stand up against international terrorists for the first time in a long time.

I want to give all of the counterparts from the other nations credit, too, especially Tony Blair in Great Britain.

If we eliminate tyranny in the Middle East by doing what is right in Iraq, it is amazing what we can do throughout the rest of the world. It would be a crucial setback for international terror.

Just some of the things that have been accomplished over there in Iraq: The Transitional Administrative Law approved by the Iraqi Governing Council is now considered the most liberal basic governance laws in all of the Arab world. It assures freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. It also guarantees the fundamental rights of women for the first time.

That wouldn't have happened but for the courage of this coalition built up by our President.

Iraq's new currency is the most heavily traded currency in the Middle East now. A lot of people do not know that. Oil production and power generation are way beyond prewar levels now.

It is the United States that has done that and the coalition partners that have done that. It is a tremendous advancement.

All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are now open in Iraq.

Can you imagine in that, in this short period of time, we have accomplished this?

The coalition forces have rehabilitated more than 2,200 schools, all 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 health clinics are now open.

Health care spending in Iraq has increased 30 times over prewar levels. There have been so many great changes over there that the Iraqi people are now starting to feel they have a chance.

If we leave now, the old regime's gangsters can come right back in, the instability can come back in. We have not finished the job of helping the police be able to run the place.

There are now 170 newspapers being published in Iraq.

As of May 4, the estimated crude oil export revenue was over $5.6 billion for this year alone. I could go on and on.

I am saying this: Why aren't we supportive of all the good things that have been done and are going on in Iraq? Why are we openly condemning this President, who had the guts to do what is right, and doing it so the whole world can see, so our young men and women are undermined and demoralized over there? Is it political advantage that some people are seeking? Some would say yes. Some might say no. Is it because it is an election year? I think many people would say yes. Is it because some people just hate George W. Bush? The answer to that is yes, too. Is it because of irresponsibility on the part of some in the Congress? Some might even say yes to that, although I personally would not take that position. But some who are saying yes may be right. It is certainly undermining our troops over there, certainly making it difficult for any President to have the guts to do what has to be done against terrorism.

I have worked on terrorist problems from the beginning around here, all 28 of my years. I was the prime sponsor of the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996--by the way, we were trying to put some of the provisions that are now in the PATRIOT Act in that bill. That was stopped by these naysayers and the people who are always talking about civil liberties. What about the civil liberties of the 3,000 people who died on September 11 because we were not prepared because we did not give law enforcement the tools to be able to stop that kind of terrible activity?

I get a little tired, to be honest with you. It is time to stand with this President, as Democrats and as Republicans, and back our soldiers over there. Yes, what happened at Abu Ghraib is not right. We know that. As far as I can see--and I went to Guantanamo Bay last week; I have been in all of the intelligence meetings as a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence--as far as I can see, it is limited to a limited number of people in Iraq who just plain got out of line and acted like goons. None of us can justify any of that. Now that we have made that clear, why do we dwell on it every day, every night, all day long, all evening long, on the news and everywhere else? We know it is wrong and we know darned well we will have to clean it up. And we will because this is a free Nation, and we believe in the rule of law.

I have said maybe more than I should have said, but I was disappointed in the remarks of the minority leader in the House yesterday. Talk about remarks that undermine everything this President is trying to do--and coming from one of our leaders. I hope she thinks it through and does not make any more of these irresponsible comments in the future. I hope we on this side think it through, too, and are more responsible in some of the things we do. It would be wonderful if we could work together more than we are in this body. I have never seen it so partisan in the whole time I have been in the Senate.

F/A-22 Raptor

I will change the subject to something that is very important to me.

I stand before you today as an ardent supporter of the F/A-22 Raptor. I urge that the Senate restore the President's budget by authorizing appropriations for 24 F/A-22 Raptors.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Tyndall Air Force Base to be briefed on the capabilities of this extraordinary aircraft. As a result of these meetings and discussions with the pilots who are training to fly the aircraft and the ground personnel who are learning to maintain the Raptor, I have come to the conclusion that the Raptor is absolutely vital to our national security.

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has been able to maintain air superiority in every conflict largely due to the F-15C. However, with the great advancements in technology over the past several years, the F-15 has struggled to keep pace. For example, the F-15 is not a stealth aircraft and its computer systems are based on obsolete technology. My colleagues should remember that the F-15 first flew in the early 1970s. It has been a magnificent plane but it is starting to age. During the ensuing years, nations have been consistently developing new aircraft and missile systems to defeat this fighter.

Realizing that the F-15 would need a replacement, the Air Force developed the F/A-22 Raptor. The result is a truly remarkable aircraft.

The F/A-22 has greater stealth capabilities than the F-117 Nighthawk. This is a powerful attribute when one remembers that it was the Nighthawk's stealth characteristics that enabled that aircraft to penetrate the integrated air defenses of Baghdad during the first night of the 1991 Gulf War.

The Raptor is also equipped with super-cruise engines. These engines do not need to go to after-burner in order to achieve supersonic flight. This provides the F/A-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By comparison, all other fighters require their engines to go to after- burner to achieve supersonic speeds. This is not just our country but all the other countries fighters, as well. This consumes a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limits an aircraft's range.

The F/A-22 is also the most maneuverable fighter flying today. This is of particular importance when encountering newer Russian-made aircraft which boast a highly impressive maneuver capability.

Yet a further advantage resides in the F/A-22s radar and avionics. When entering hostile airspace, one F/A-22 can energize its radar system, enabling it to detect and engage enemy fighters far before an enemy's system effective range.

However, one of the most important capabilities of Raptor is often the most misunderstood. Many critics of the program state that, since much of the design work for this aircraft was performed during the Cold War, it does not meet the requirements of the future. I believe that this criticism is misplaced. The F/A-22 is more than just a fighter it is also a bomber. In its existing configuration it is able to carry two 1,000 pound GPS-guided JDAM bombs. Shortly, it will be able to carry the small diameter bomb and in 2008 the aircraft's radar system will be enhanced with a ``look-down'' mode enabling the Raptor to independently hunt for targets on the ground.

All of these capabilities are necessary to fight what is quickly emerging as the threat of the future--the anti-access integrated air defense system. Integrated air defenses include both surface to air missiles and fighters deployed in such a fashion as to leverage the strengths of both systems. Such a system could pose a very real possibility of denying U.S. aircraft access to strategically important regions during future conflicts.

It should also be noted that for a comparably cheap price, an adversary can purchase the Russian SA-20 surface-to-air missile. This system has an effective range of approximately 120 nautical miles and can engage targets at greater then 100,000 feet, much higher then the service ceiling of any existing American fighter or bomber. The Russians have also developed a family of highly maneuverable fighters, the SU-27/30/35, which have been sold to such nations as China. Of further import, 59 other nations have fourth generation fighters.

It has also been widely reported in the aviation media that the F- 15C, our current air superiority fighter, it not as maneuverable as newer Russian aircraft, especially the SU-35. However, the F/A-22 is designed to defeat an integrated air defense system. By utilizing its stealth capability, the F/A-22 can penetrate an enemy's airspace undetected and, when modified, independently hunt for mobile surface- to-air missile operational systems. Once detected, the F/A-22 would then be able to drop bombs on those targets.

Some correctly state that the B-2 bomber and the F-117 could handle those assignments. However, the F/A-22 offers the additional capacity of being able to engage an enemy's air superiority fighters, such as the widely proficient SU-35. Therefore, the Raptor will be able to defeat, almost simultaneously, two very different threats that until now have been handled by two different types of aircraft.

Despite the obvious advantages of this aircraft, there has been resistance to this program in the halls of Congress. As with many military procurement programs, the primary concern is, naturally, cost. This, in part, led to the planned procurement of the aircraft to be reduced from over 600 to the current planned procurement of 277.

In response, the supporters of the F/A-22 devised a new procurement strategy called ``Buy to Budget.'' This strategy capped the total cost for the procurement of the aircraft and forced the Air Force and the Raptor's primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cut the cost of the plane. These efforts, so far, have been successful, and last year an additional F/A-22 was procured, solely based on savings.

Unfortunately, as with any complicated aircraft, especially one whose computer power equals that of two supercomputers, schedule delays have occurred. However, these delays have also largely been resolved. Lockheed Martin has placed the former head of its very successful F-16 production line in charge of F/A-22 production. As a result, it is believed that F/A-22 production will be back on schedule by early 2005.

Now, despite this progress, criticisms of the aircraft continue. As a result, colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee have reduced the number of aircraft to be purchased this year to 22. In contrast, the President's budget requested 24 aircraft--2 more.

To be fair, it sounds reasonable to see this as a modest reduction in order to ensure existing production schedules are met and possibly decrease the cost of the aircraft. However, production schedules will be met. Due to the already drastic reduction in the number of aircraft to be procured, many have developed the very real concern that there will not be enough aircraft to meet the operational needs of the Air Force, based on the proven Air Expeditionary Force model. Not having sufficient numbers of F/A-22 for some of these contingencies would be an abdication of our congressional responsibilities, especially now that we are faced with war.

However, I wish to add one final point. I have talked about the capabilities of this aircraft and how those capabilities are designed to defeat the threats of the future. But what impressed me most was the way the pilots and ground crews of Tyndall Air Force Base spoke about the F/A-22. They are truly excited about its potential. They understand that this aircraft will ensure American dominance of the skies for the next half century. These young men and women stand ready to sacrifice so much for us. We owe them the best our country has to offer. Therefore, I respectfully urge the Senate to restore the President's budget proposal on this remarkable aircraft.

Preserving Traditional Marriage

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about preserving traditional marriage--an institution which is under attack from so many directions today.

This past week, as everyone by now undoubtedly knows, the Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court went into effect in Massachusetts. This 4-to-3 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and prohibits the State from defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to reports, more than 1,000 same-sex couples have been ``married'' pursuant to the radical change handed down by the split court.

We all know that it is the legislative branch, and not the judiciary, that makes the laws--or at least should make the laws. But there are some courts, such as the one in Massachusetts, that want to take away the public policy role that the legislatures and people have always had. Senator Talent of Missouri and I wrote an opinion editorial on this issue that was published in Monday's Washington Times. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will not read it, but I will say that people have the right to govern themselves. When a court forces a radical decision on the people--well before the people have had the opportunity to oppose the change--it dramatically undermines democracy's vitality and legitimacy.

Some of the comments from the first same-sex couples to take advantage of the Massachusetts court decision underscore what is wrong with deviations from our culture of traditional marriage. According to the Boston Herald, the first recipients of a Provincetown, MA, same-sex marriage license said: ``the concept of forever is overrated.'' One gentleman in this couple added that he, as a bisexual, and his partner, who is gay, ``think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner. In our case, it is, so we have an open marriage.'' I am sorry, but this simply is not a marriage. I simply do not understand why these two men felt they needed to be declared to be married by the State. There is not even a pretense of fidelity here.

The reason that maintaining traditional marriage is so important can be summed up in one word, and that is ``children.'' Children are simply better off with a mother and a father than with two mothers or two fathers or any other alternative arrangement. Advocates for same-sex marriage cite studies to the contrary, but, as Professor Steven Nock, a leading marriage scholar at the University of Virginia, points out, ``not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.'' Not a single one of those studies was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.

Marriage is not about adult desires for affirmation and benefits; it is about the well-being of children. Two men being intimate are simply not the same as a husband and a wife, and alternative family forms are not just as good as traditional families. The fact is that fathers and mothers both matter to children. The science confirms this, but common sense tells us this as well.

Some advocates for same-sex marriage argue that traditional marriage will continue the same as before. Unfortunately, this has not been the experience of other countries. Some in Scandinavia, for example, witnessed a dramatic drop in traditional marriages once same-sex marriages were permitted or the equivalent thereof. The net effect was to diminish the importance of marriage altogether, and that is what will happen here if we do not maintain the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

It has become clear that we need a constitutional solution to this problem. There is simply no other means of reining in activist judges who seek to impose their will and not their judgment. Some say the Defense of Marriage Act is adequate enough, but based on decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas, this statute will undoubtedly be struck down. People across the political spectrum, including such liberal stalwarts as Professor Lawrence Tribe, agree that this is inevitable.

Without a constitutional amendment, we are headed for a resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. We should not and cannot wait for this to happen. We simply must protect traditional marriage now by passing a constitutional amendment.

Some suggest that it is not ``conservative'' to amend the Constitution over such an issue. Baloney. Traditional marriage is perhaps the most fundamental institution in our culture and history. It dates back over 5,000 years. If the only way to protect this institution is by amending the Constitution--and we know that to be the case--then we have an obligation to do so.

What is worrisome to most constitutional scholars, including myself, is that if this supreme court case of one State--a 4-to-3 decision; hotly contested, not only by the court itself but in the State legislature and among the people of Massachusetts themselves--if that is allowed to stand, then will we, under article IV of the Constitution, the original Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was added to it, will we have to give in every other State full faith and credit under the full faith and credit clause to whatever is called marriage done within the State of Massachusetts? There are many constitutional scholars who say we will have to. That does not mean that Utah will have to have same-sex marriages done within our State or any other State in the Union.

It does mean we will have to recognize as valid same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. Now we have people coming from all over the country to Massachusetts to be married so that under the full faith and credit clause that marriage will have to be recognized in their respective States. I cannot begin to tell you the difficulties legally that will come from that type of an approach.

We simply need to resolve this problem. We need to resolve it in accordance with the will of the vast majority of people in this country. Cultural decisions such as this that have existed for over 5,000 years should not be thrown into the wastebasket by an activist court in one very activist liberal State. Nor should an activist court in an activist conservative State impose its will on us. We should, of course, allow the elected representatives of the people to make this decision.

If you don't do that, then you have nothing but another huge, unnecessary, harmful to America culture battle, perhaps for decades. We can name the decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that have caused us to be torn apart in America over a number of issues that, 5 to 4, 7 to 2, the Supreme Court has culturally imposed upon everybody in America.

I don't believe in discrimination of any kind. But like a number of my colleagues in this body, I draw the line when it comes to traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is one of the most important cultural concepts in any country's history but certainly our country's history. This debate needs to occur. We need to think it through. We need to have a constitutional amendment, and we need to support whatever constitutional amendment we can get to resolve this matter.

Having said that, we need to be fair to those who have a different point of view and to find some way of accommodation. Because it is a disgrace that a gay partner cannot go into an intensive care unit to care for or hold hands with or to be with his or her partner, just to mention one. We have to think this through. One way of thinking it through is to come to a conclusion that one liberal State's 4-to-3 decision by a

Supreme Court should not bind everybody in America to recognize something that I believe will be absolutely catastrophically disruptive to our culture.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. My colleague from Texas served on the Texas Supreme Court. He understands these issues very well, serving in a tremendous fashion on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I feel so blessed as chairman to have him and the other freshmen Senators on that committee, each one of whom is playing a significant role in this body and on that committee. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Raymond W. Gruender, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Our nominee has ideal qualifications for the Federal bench. An honors graduate of Washington University School of Law, Mr. Gruender has nearly ten years of experience as a trial attorney in private practice along with a solid record in public service. He joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1990, specializing in white collar and economic crimes, including fraud and corruption cases.

Mr. Gruender has the bipartisan support of the Missouri legal community, including: Senators Bond and Talent; Edward L. Down, Clinton appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri; Lee Lawless, First Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Missouri; Howard Shalowitz, President of the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis; Joseph Mokwa, Chief of Police of City of St. Louis; and Dean Joel Seligman, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law.

In 2000, Mr. Gruender returned to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Missouri, and specialized in fraud and corruption prosecution. A year later, he was unanimously confirmed as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, where he manages both the civil and criminal litigation handled by the office, as well as overseeing the administration of the office, which includes 60 attorneys. Mr. Gruender and his office have been active in helping to reduce violent crime in the St. Louis area. He has also been a leader in strengthening our nation's readiness in the war on terror.

Mr. Gruender also believes in giving back to his community, and in addition to devoting a significant amount of his career to public service, he has been very active in civic affairs. He has volunteered his time on domestic violence issues, serving at various times as President of the Board of Directors, Vice President, and Secretary of Alternatives to Living in Violent Environments, ALIVE. ALIVE is a not- for-profit organization dedicated to eliminating domestic violence. He also serves as a volunteer on the Allocations Committee of the Variety Club of St. Louis, which raises and distributes funds to disadvantaged and disabled children.

Raymond W. Gruender III has a fine background, which will serve him well as a circuit court judge. He will be a terrific addition to the Court, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Van Antwerpen is truly an impressive man and has the enthusiastic support of both Pennsylvania senators, along with a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' ABA rating.

Judge Van Antwerpen has exceptional qualifications for the Federal appellate bench. After graduation from Temple University School of Law in 1967, he worked as an attorney at the Hazeltine Corporation and served as Chief Counsel of the Northampton Legal Aid Society. He then spent 9 years in private practice, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in general litigation matters, with a particular specialization in municipal law.

In 1979, Judge Van Antwerpen commenced a 25-year career in public service when he joined the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County. He served in this position until 1987, when President Reagan appointed him United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the position he holds today.

Judge Van Antwerpen has a fine background which will serve him well as a circuit court judge. He will be a terrific addition to the court, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act. The purpose of the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act is to reform the statutory scheme governing judicial review of immigration removal orders. Currently, we have an absurd situation in which criminal aliens are entitled to

more review and have more opportunities to file frivolous dilatory appeals than non-criminal aliens. The legislation which I am introducing will streamline the process of reviewing final administrative immigration orders, thereby eliminating such unfair results under the current statutory scheme.

In 1961, Congress amended Section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, to specify the circumstances under which final orders of deportation and exclusion could be reviewed in the federal courts. The statute provided that petitions for review in the circuit courts of appeal were the ``sole and exclusive'' procedure for reviewing deportation orders, and that habeas corpus was available only to challenge exclusion orders of the custodial aspects of immigration detention. The jurisprudence was settled that there were no alternative or additional avenues of judicial review of immigration orders beyond those provided in Section 106.

In 1996, seeking to provide for the more efficient and expeditious removal of aliens who commit serious crimes in the United States, Congress attempted to streamline the judicial review of immigration orders against such aliens. Passed by wide, bipartisan margins, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) eliminated judicial review of immigration orders for most criminals. IIRIRA recognized that criminal aliens had already received a full measure of due process in their criminal cases, as well as in their immigration proceedings, and that additional review typically only served to delay their inevitable removal.

However, because the 1996 reforms lacked express language precluding habeas corpus review, the Supreme Court decided in INS v. St. Cyr that habeas review remained available to criminal aliens other than or in addition to the review specified in the INA. Consequently, under current law, criminal aliens may seek habeas review of their deportation orders in district courts and then appeal adverse decisions to the courts of appeals. By contrast, non-criminal aliens are governed by INA Sec. 242, and must appeal directly to the court of appeals without the additional layer of review in the district courts. The result is that criminal aliens who have no claim to relief from deportation file frivolous petitions, causing serious delay in securing final judgment against them. This is a complete perversion of the reforms intended by Congress in 1996, and it must be corrected.

Let me illustrate the extent of the problem. In 1995, just before IIRIRA's enactment, there were 403 immigration habeas petitions filed. In 2003, that number rose to 2,374. Over the same period, the total number of immigration-related cases in federal courts rose from 1,939 to 11,906. This is after Congress passed a law to limit the review for criminal aliens. Clearly, the intent of Congress has been frustrated.

Consistent with the settled principled that petitions for review should be the ``sole and exclusive'' means of judicial review for aliens challenging their removal (as reaffirmed in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(9) requiring that all issues pertaining to removal orders be brought to the circuit courts of appeal), the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act streamlines immigration review and protects an alien's right to review by an independent judiciary. It also ensures that even criminal aliens may receive review of pure questions of law and Constitutional claims, as dictated by the Supreme Court in S. Cyr.

With the expanded subject matter jurisdiction in the courts of appeals, the proposed legislation will eliminate the confusing, and indeed inequitable practice of allowing criminal aliens to obtain an additional layer of review through habeas corpus petitions. This legislation is fully consistent with both the Supreme Court's decision in S. Cyr and settled jurisprudence regarding the availability of habeas corpus. These reforms will ensure that aliens will have their day in court, and ensures that the law does not place criminals in a position that is superior to non-criminals. In sum, the Act restores order to the judicial review process in the courts as well as fairness for alien petitioners.

Moreover, the deportation proceedings too often are frustrated by activist judges who place unreasonable burdens on the government to show why a lawfully issued deportation order should be enforced, and who stop the lawful execution of deportation orders even though the aliens have advanced no legal basis to challenge the deportation order. Such activism combined with murkiness in the law have slowed and in some cases halted the government's ability to deport criminal aliens and others who have no right to stay. It is time we clarify the law so that the government can effectively deport those who should be deported.

Often, we hear complaints that the government is not doing enough to protect our borders against illegal entry, and that we need to do more to catch and deport the illegal aliens who have made their way into our country. Without question, sealing our borders and arresting every illegal alien is a monumental undertaking. But with this legislation, we can easily address the immediate problem of removing the illegal aliens that we already have in the system, and sometimes even in our custody.

I want to emphasize that the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act does not abridge an immigration detainee's right to challenge actual, physical custody through a habeas corpus petition. It is not my intention at all to take away the habeas petition as a legitimate way to challenge physical custody. Instead, this legislation narrowly applies to judicial review of final agency orders of removal, which involve legal issues that should be reviewed through a petition for review by the court of appeals.

I further want to emphasize that nothing in this legislation deprives deportable aliens of all the procedural and substantive due process that the Supreme Court said was required. It simply bars unnecessary delays through collateral attacks. In fact, the only ones who are affected by this bill are criminals who have had their review, but who want to avoid enforcement of their deportation orders by initiating dilatory, collateral attacks, and perhaps their lawyers who charge thousands of dollars to file petitions that they know to be without merit.

In sum, the legislation which I am introducing today will expand the subject matter jurisdiction of the court of appeals so that criminal aliens will receive the judicial review to which they are entitled according to St. Cyr. At the same time, the legislation will streamline the process so that we no longer have the absurd result of criminals getting more protection than non-criminals. The legislation also will reduce the possibility that criminals who are without any statutory relief from deportation can abuse the system by filing frivolous petitions solely to delay their eventual removal from the United States. Furthermore, the legislation will properly place the burden of showing eligibility for relief from deportation upon the applicants for relief, and will clarify our statute so that the government can more effectively execute deportation orders without encountering the obstacles that ambiguous statutes have created.

I ask for the support of my colleagues in passing the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act, which will restore procedural fairness for all immigrants, but will significantly reduce the backlog in our judicial system created by frivolous and dilatory appeals.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act. The purpose of the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act is to reform the statutory scheme governing judicial review of immigration removal orders. Currently, we have an absurd situation in which criminal aliens are entitled to

more review and have more opportunities to file frivolous dilatory appeals than non-criminal aliens. The legislation which I am introducing will streamline the process of reviewing final administrative immigration orders, thereby eliminating such unfair results under the current statutory scheme.

In 1961, Congress amended Section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, to specify the circumstances under which final orders of deportation and exclusion could be reviewed in the federal courts. The statute provided that petitions for review in the circuit courts of appeal were the ``sole and exclusive'' procedure for reviewing deportation orders, and that habeas corpus was available only to challenge exclusion orders of the custodial aspects of immigration detention. The jurisprudence was settled that there were no alternative or additional avenues of judicial review of immigration orders beyond those provided in Section 106.

In 1996, seeking to provide for the more efficient and expeditious removal of aliens who commit serious crimes in the United States, Congress attempted to streamline the judicial review of immigration orders against such aliens. Passed by wide, bipartisan margins, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) eliminated judicial review of immigration orders for most criminals. IIRIRA recognized that criminal aliens had already received a full measure of due process in their criminal cases, as well as in their immigration proceedings, and that additional review typically only served to delay their inevitable removal.

However, because the 1996 reforms lacked express language precluding habeas corpus review, the Supreme Court decided in INS v. St. Cyr that habeas review remained available to criminal aliens other than or in addition to the review specified in the INA. Consequently, under current law, criminal aliens may seek habeas review of their deportation orders in district courts and then appeal adverse decisions to the courts of appeals. By contrast, non-criminal aliens are governed by INA Sec. 242, and must appeal directly to the court of appeals without the additional layer of review in the district courts. The result is that criminal aliens who have no claim to relief from deportation file frivolous petitions, causing serious delay in securing final judgment against them. This is a complete perversion of the reforms intended by Congress in 1996, and it must be corrected.

Let me illustrate the extent of the problem. In 1995, just before IIRIRA's enactment, there were 403 immigration habeas petitions filed. In 2003, that number rose to 2,374. Over the same period, the total number of immigration-related cases in federal courts rose from 1,939 to 11,906. This is after Congress passed a law to limit the review for criminal aliens. Clearly, the intent of Congress has been frustrated.

Consistent with the settled principled that petitions for review should be the ``sole and exclusive'' means of judicial review for aliens challenging their removal (as reaffirmed in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(9) requiring that all issues pertaining to removal orders be brought to the circuit courts of appeal), the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act streamlines immigration review and protects an alien's right to review by an independent judiciary. It also ensures that even criminal aliens may receive review of pure questions of law and Constitutional claims, as dictated by the Supreme Court in S. Cyr.

With the expanded subject matter jurisdiction in the courts of appeals, the proposed legislation will eliminate the confusing, and indeed inequitable practice of allowing criminal aliens to obtain an additional layer of review through habeas corpus petitions. This legislation is fully consistent with both the Supreme Court's decision in S. Cyr and settled jurisprudence regarding the availability of habeas corpus. These reforms will ensure that aliens will have their day in court, and ensures that the law does not place criminals in a position that is superior to non-criminals. In sum, the Act restores order to the judicial review process in the courts as well as fairness for alien petitioners.

Moreover, the deportation proceedings too often are frustrated by activist judges who place unreasonable burdens on the government to show why a lawfully issued deportation order should be enforced, and who stop the lawful execution of deportation orders even though the aliens have advanced no legal basis to challenge the deportation order. Such activism combined with murkiness in the law have slowed and in some cases halted the government's ability to deport criminal aliens and others who have no right to stay. It is time we clarify the law so that the government can effectively deport those who should be deported.

Often, we hear complaints that the government is not doing enough to protect our borders against illegal entry, and that we need to do more to catch and deport the illegal aliens who have made their way into our country. Without question, sealing our borders and arresting every illegal alien is a monumental undertaking. But with this legislation, we can easily address the immediate problem of removing the illegal aliens that we already have in the system, and sometimes even in our custody.

I want to emphasize that the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act does not abridge an immigration detainee's right to challenge actual, physical custody through a habeas corpus petition. It is not my intention at all to take away the habeas petition as a legitimate way to challenge physical custody. Instead, this legislation narrowly applies to judicial review of final agency orders of removal, which involve legal issues that should be reviewed through a petition for review by the court of appeals.

I further want to emphasize that nothing in this legislation deprives deportable aliens of all the procedural and substantive due process that the Supreme Court said was required. It simply bars unnecessary delays through collateral attacks. In fact, the only ones who are affected by this bill are criminals who have had their review, but who want to avoid enforcement of their deportation orders by initiating dilatory, collateral attacks, and perhaps their lawyers who charge thousands of dollars to file petitions that they know to be without merit.

In sum, the legislation which I am introducing today will expand the subject matter jurisdiction of the court of appeals so that criminal aliens will receive the judicial review to which they are entitled according to St. Cyr. At the same time, the legislation will streamline the process so that we no longer have the absurd result of criminals getting more protection than non-criminals. The legislation also will reduce the possibility that criminals who are without any statutory relief from deportation can abuse the system by filing frivolous petitions solely to delay their eventual removal from the United States. Furthermore, the legislation will properly place the burden of showing eligibility for relief from deportation upon the applicants for relief, and will clarify our statute so that the government can more effectively execute deportation orders without encountering the obstacles that ambiguous statutes have created.

I ask for the support of my colleagues in passing the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act, which will restore procedural fairness for all immigrants, but will significantly reduce the backlog in our judicial system created by frivolous and dilatory appeals.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 minutes, not on this subject.

Madam President, I thank my dear colleagues for allowing me this time. I apologize for taking a little extra time today, but I think it is important.

(The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under ``Executive Session.'')

Madam President, I appreciate your patience and I appreciate this extra time. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want my remarks to be thought of as constructive remarks rather than not constructive.

Yet another week has gone by without this body confirming a judicial nominee. That makes more than 9 weeks since the last judicial confirmation. Only four judges have been confirmed this year, and that is hardly a record of progress.

It is not enough for the minority to point out how many nominees were confirmed under their watch 2 years ago. We must also look at what is going on now, and this is a dismal record even for a Presidential election year.

Over the last six Presidential election years, both Republicans and Democrats won the White House and both Republicans and Democrats controlled the Senate. On average, the Senate has confirmed 45 judicial nominees in the six most recent Presidential election years, and continued confirmations until October in four of the last six Presidential election years. At this same point in the last six Presidential election years, the Senate confirmed, on average, 21 judicial nominees by now. I repeat, so far this year we have confirmed just four judges.

This is not for any lack of activity on the part of the Judiciary Committee. The committee is actually one-third ahead of the average for recent Presidential election years in voting out judicial nominees to the full Senate. We have held 10 nomination hearings this year alone.

Yet 32 nominees languish on the Senate calendar in a minority-imposed limbo despite the fact that we all know that if we took the simple up- or-down votes on each and every one of these nominees that the Constitution contemplates, it is probable that virtually all 32 of these nominees would be confirmed.

Fully 22 of the 32 nominees on the calendar were reported out of the Judiciary Committee without even one negative vote in the Judiciary Committee. And that is saying something because our committee is known to be the home of some of the most vigorous debates and debaters in the Senate. As anyone who has ever attended one of our markups can verify, no one on the Judiciary Committee is shy about expressing an opinion on most any subject or reticent to reflect or register a dissenting point of view.

When a nominee goes through the Judiciary Committee without opposition, the nominee is truly a consensus candidate of high qualifications and deserves prompt consideration by the full Senate.

For me and many others, a nominee's American Bar Association rating is a factor to consider. I do not think it is the be all and end all of the confirmation process, but it is something that can be helpful in evaluating a nominee's qualifications. During the Clinton administration, I can recall that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle took the position that the ABA rating was the ``gold standard'' with respect to judicial confirmations.

Well, where are they now when 24 of the 32 nominees on the Executive Calendar have received the highest rating, ``well qualified,'' by the ABA? And what is more, 14 of the 24 nominees rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA received this ``well qualified'' rating by a unanimous vote of the ABA evaluators.

The Constitution requires, and this body has traditionally provided, a vote for every judicial nominee reaching the full Senate. Every Clinton nominee that reached the Senate floor got a vote, and President Clinton nearly broke the all-time confirmation record set by President Reagan who set this record with 6 years of a Republican-controlled Senate, while President Clinton only had 2 years of a Democratic- controlled Senate to help him. President Bush's nominees should receive the same treatment and get a vote on the floor.

I remain hopeful that this body will not abandon past practice and extend the recent spate of unprecedented filibusters of appellate court nominees to district court nominees. That is why I have continued to encourage the leadership on both sides of the aisle and the White House to arrive at an acceptable compromise on the 32 judges on the Senate Calendar.

I fully support the nomination of Ms. Marcia Cooke to serve as a District Judge on the Southern District of Florida.

Before the Senate votes on the Cooke nomination, it is only appropriate that we spend a few minutes considering her qualifications. Currently serving as Miami Dade County's Assistant County Attorney, Ms. Cooke is one of those nominees who received the ABA's highest ``well- qualified'' rating. Her experience includes service as both a public defender and prosecutor, a plaintiff's attorney and defense counsel, a private practitioner and public servant, and both an advocate and a jurist. I might add that Ms. Cooke is a graduate of Georgetown University and is an active leader in that fine school's alumni association.

Marcia Cooke served for 8 years as a Federal magistrate in Michigan. She has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Michigan and Florida. She has served as Florida's Chief Inspector General. Both of Florida's Democrat Senators support her. The position to which she has been nominated has been vacant so long it is now considered a judicial emergency. If confirmed she would be the first African-American woman to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Florida.

It is no wonder why the Judiciary Committee approved her without a single dissenting vote. Today, the full Senate should act to support her.

I am pleased that a more reasonable and responsible atmosphere has returned to the Senate and this cloture vote has been vitiated as part of a larger agreement on judges.

We should all recognize that a cloture vote on a highly qualified, highly respected district court nominee such as Marcia Cooke is not a positive sign. It indicates that our friends across the aisle may be prepared to extend their policy of delay and filibusters to even district court nominees.

Many believe that the true target of these unprecedented filibusters of judicial nominees is to set the stage for the next Supreme Court vacancies. What

they are trying to do is to, in effect, rewrite article II, section II, clause II, of the Constitution to require a 60-vote supermajority for Supreme Court vacancies. In the process, these misguided efforts have greatly damaged the confirmation process and diminished our efforts to work together on all judicial nominees.

Despite many challenges this year on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy and his Democratic colleagues have worked with us to approve many highly qualified consensus candidates.

I hope that the progress that we have made in the committee will not be derailed on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to my colleagues for moving forward on this nomination, and other nominations to follow over the next few weeks.

I know these have been difficult negotiations. So I express my thanks to the President, to his chief of staff, Andrew Card, to Senator Frist and to Senator Daschle for bringing this agreement to the Senate. I also thank Senator Leahy and other members of the Judiciary Committee for their cooperation. I look forward to continuing the work of the Committee, and this agreement will help us in that effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial published today by the Miami Herald in support of the confirmation of Marcia Cooke be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a national commission to study the potential establishment of a National Museum of the American Latino Community in Washington, D.C.

I am pleased to introduce this measure today, and I am joined by my colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Jeff Bingaman, all of whom have worked extensively with the Hispanic community on issues of importance.

The Hispanic community is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, and in my home State of Utah, Hispanics now account for nearly 10 percent of the population. Utah is a wonderful mosaic, encompassing a diverse number of peoples and cultures, and in fact, the latest census shows that Utah's Hispanic population has nearly doubled since 1990. But this phenomenon is not just happening in Utah.

It is clear we are seeing remarkable growth in our Nation's Hispanic population. And with this growth, we need to recognize and find ways to better highlight the accomplishments of Latinos over their rich history in America. We need to express the importance of diversity, pride, and the sharing of the cultures that contribute to the vibrancy and splendor of our Nation.

Every day we are reminded of the fact that Latinos are among our Nation's largest minorities, and numbers do have meaning. It is my belief that Latinos in America exhibit a strong desire--a commitment to building a nation where people are judged by their actions and not by their accents. They believe in the work ethic, patriotism, the importance of families, the free enterprise system, and the value of faith; they believe in these things and they experience these tenets, as they live them day in and day out here in America.

I believe strongly in preserving the sanctity of the heritage of cultures, and we should treasure these gifts. I believe that all Americans are enriched by learning to view the history of our Nation through the prisms of other cultures and languages.

When American and foreign tourists visit Washington, They expect to gain a better understanding of our collective history and culture. They see exhibits that educate visitors about our Nation's miraculous technological achievements, our military sacrifices and accomplishments, and the documents establishing the most sacred tenets of our democratic traditions. Yet, as demonstrated by the efforts to establish the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the lessons taught by our institutions are incomplete.

Children who visit museums in Washington should have the opportunity to learn the full history of who we are and who we are becoming as Americans. Nearly 40 million U.S. residents share a cultural heritage that is only beginning to be understood as wholly American, yet few of the exhibits in the Smithsonian's and other museums in Washington commemorate American Latino cultural contributions.

This legislation would take the next step toward ensuring that the lessons taught by our premier institutions for the arts and humanities include a better representation of American Latino cultural contributions. I hope that we will soon be able to say that the Nation's Capital truly exhibits America's rich cultural diversity.

I would like to note that Representative Xavier Becerra has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, and I am honored to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate. I hope this measure will be approved by the Senate in short order.