Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003, the EnFORCE Act. This bill makes three sets of narrow, but important, changes that will build greater flexibility and accountability into our system of intellectual property laws.

First the EnFORCE Act will expand an existing antitrust exemption to conform the law to market realities. Today, an antitrust exemption in the Copyright Act gives record companies and music publishers the flexibility they need to negotiate mechanical royalty rates in the rapidly evolving market for legal music downloading. These parties now need the same flexibility to ensure that they can negotiate royalties associated with innovative forms of physical phonorecords, like enhanced compact disks and DVD audio disks.

The music industry has sometimes been criticized for being too slow to

adopt its business models to new technologies. The industry is now responding to such concerns by developing new products and new distribution channels. The EnFORCE Act will ensure that Federal law allows the music industry to provide consumers with these innovative products and services.

Second, the EnFORCE Act will also resolve two narrow issues relating to statutory damages in copyright infringement litigation. Some accused infringers have tried to avoid liability for statutory damages by challenging the accuracy of the information in copyright registrations; this bill clarifies that courts should resolve such challenges by applying the existing judicial doctrine of fraud-on-the-Copyright- Office. In other cases, disputes have arisen about how many ``works'' have been infringed for purposes of computing statutory damages. These disputes are important for the music industry, which has received inconsistent adjudications about whether an album consisting of ten songs counts as one or ten works for statutory-damages computation. The bill gives courts discretion to conform the law of statutory damages to changing market realities.

Third, and finally, the EnFORCE Act will also enhance both the enforcement and oversight of federal intellectual property law. The bill authorizes appropriations to ensure that all Department of Justice units that investigate intellectual property crimes have the support of at least one agent specifically trained in the investigation of such crimes. The bill also requires the Department of Justice to report to Congress detailed information about the scope of its efforts to investigate and prosecute crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors or intellectual property.

For the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the affected public to ensure that this bill achieves its important objectives.

I ask unanimous consent that Grace Becker, a detailee from the Sentencing Commission, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. It has been a long, long time since we could claim to have a national energy policy, and I am very proud to say that we are about to deliver an energy plan to the American people that is comprehensive and forward looking. It is a balanced bill that promotes greater energy independence and cleaner air.

It is no simple task to construct complex legislation of such a broad scope. A good deal of the credit for the fact that we have a conference report today goes to the heroic leadership of Chairman Domenici and Chairman Grassley, and the respective Democratic ranking members Senator Bingaman and Senator Baucus. I congratulate our colleagues for their leadership.

And when it comes to leadership, we all know that it was President George W. Bush who first put us on the path to a national energy plan. One of the President's earliest acts was to establish the National Energy Policy Development Group, which produced the National Energy Policy Report, an early template for the legislation we have before us today.

We don't have to convince the American people that we need this energy bill. They already know. They are the ones who paid more than $2 per gallon to fill their cars this summer. They are the ones who sat in blackouts for days. And, they are the ones who have watched their natural gas bills go through the roof.

I am pleased to report to the American people that the Energy Policy Act addresses each of those problems--and more.

My State of Utah is an energy resource State. Utah has long helped to fuel our Nation's growth, whether it be by supplying the uranium that fueled our early nuclear industry, the oil and natural gas for our vehicles and homes, or the clean coal which powers our coal-fired electricity plants. Utah has also been a leader in producing renewable electricity with our large hydro-power facilities and our significant geothermal plants. Thanks to environmental protections, labor laws, and health and safety regulations, our Nation is cleaner and stronger than ever before. And I am glad these protections are in place. However, the many layers

of these rules and regulations do make energy production more expensive. In Utah, where we have many millions of acres of beautiful public lands, we have the extra difficulty of developing energy while trying to preserve significant portions of scenic areas. In my State we want all the protections our laws provide, but we recognize the need for assistance from the Federal Government to keep this activity going in this country. And in doing so, this legislation leaves almost no stone unturned.

The act will help us to leap forward in creating more efficient buildings and homes in this Nation, and it starts at home by addressing congressional and other Federal buildings. The act takes large strides forward in promoting the use of renewable energy in the United States. The bill also covers solar energy, wind energy, hydro power, and geothermal energy, the latter being particularly important in my State of Utah.

I am pleased that the Energy Policy Act includes important provisions to increase the reliability of our electricity system.

We have seen what happens when we lack a reliable affordable electricity supply; our modern society comes to a near standstill. Reliable electricity is one of the most important services we can provide our Nation. Most of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants. The newer coal plants which are prevalent in the West are very clean and very efficient. This legislation promotes the most advanced technologies in this industry which will lead to further improvements in the reliability of our electricity system and in the quality of our air. The bill also provides programs to improve electricity service to our Native Americans.

Importantly, the Energy Policy Act addresses our need for a more reliable fossil fuel supply. This includes home heating oil, natural gas, and our other basic transportation fuels, petroleum and gasoline.

The transportation sector in the U.S. accounts for nearly two-thirds of all oil consumption, and we are almost entirely dependent on petroleum for our transportation needs. Is it any wonder, that 50 percent of our urban smog is caused by mobile sources? If we want to clean our air and address our Nation's energy dependency, we must focus on the transportation sector. And we must focus first on those technologies and alternative fuels that are already available and abundant domestically.

To that end, 14 cosponsors and I introduced S. 505, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act of 2003, or the CLEAR Act. The CLEAR Act is the most comprehensive and effective plan we have seen in this country to accelerate the transformation of the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of fuel cell vehicles. And it would do so without any new Federal mandates. Rather, it would offer powerful market incentives to promote the advances in technology, in our infrastructure, and in the alternative fuels that are necessary if fuel cells are to ever reach the mass market. As a result our Nation benefits from cleaner air and greater energy independence.

I am very pleased to report that a large portion of the CLEAR Act was included in the Energy Policy Act. And for that I give my heartfelt thanks to Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus.

First, the bill offers CLEAR Act credits to consumers who purchase alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrid- electric vehicles. These credits would lower the price gap between these cleaner and more efficient vehicles and conventionally-fueled vehicles of the same type. This is a direct attack on our Nation's huge appetite for petroleum as a transportation fuel, and I am confident that the CLEAR Act credits will accelerate our shift toward a more efficient and cleaner transportation future.

When I introduced the CLEAR Act, it contained a significant tax credit for the installation costs of retail and residential refueling stations. I was disappointed that this provision was weakened in conference and replaced with a provision that extends and expands an existing tax deduction for infrastructure. However, I am pleased that an infrastructure incentive did survive in the Energy Policy Act.

As originally introduced, the CLEAR Act also provided a very important tax credit of 50 cents per gasoline-gallon equivalent for the purchase of alternative fuel at retail. This would have brought the price of these cleaner fuels much closer in line with conventional automotive fuels and contributed significantly to the diversity of our fuel supply.

This was a very important component of the CLEAR Act that did not survive the conference process. It was important because of the combination of this incentive, the infrastructure incentive, and the alternative fuel vehicle credit working together was meant to have a larger effect on the market than could have been accomplished by providing these incentives alone at different times. For instance, the fuel credit would have combined with the vehicle credit for an added incentive to consumers to buy cleaner cars. The fuel credit also would have combined with the infrastructure credit for a very powerful incentive to install new fueling stations. The presence of more fueling stations also opens the way for the purchase of more clean vehicles, and so on. Because all three incentives are not in the final bill, we will not achieve the synergy that would otherwise have been possible, and the potential benefits of the CLEAR Act may not be fully realized.

In spite of this disappointment, I am very pleased that such a large portion of the CLEAR Act was included in the energy bill. I can see the day when alternative vehicle fuels, fuel cells, and other advanced car technologies will be common. And considering the environmental and security costs associated with our petroleum-based transportation system, that day cannot come too soon.

As I have outlined in my statement, the Energy Policy Act will go a long way to bringing our nation into the future. It will increase our energy security and clean our air. I urge my colleagues to support these goals and throw their support behind it.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1531, the Chief Justice John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act. I am the sponsor of this significant legislation and I believe its passage is indeed a tribute to the most important Chief Justice to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States since our nation's founding.

John Marshall served as the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for over 34 years. He is the longest serving Chief Justice in our Nation's history. Throughout his years on the Supreme Court, he authored over 500 opinions, many of which significantly impacted the operations and interpretations of the Constitution. He was a distinguished leader who made a lasting impression on the Supreme Court.

For example, probably Marshall's most famous opinion, Marbury v. Madison, instilled in the Supreme Court the authority to review the constitutionality of congressional acts and instituted the doctrine of judicial review. Without judicial review, the Supreme Court and the lower courts of our great nation would not have the ability to uphold and sustain the Constitution and stop any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred freedoms that great document protects.

The Marshall Court decided numerous landmark and historically significant cases that have forever fashioned the Nation's constitutional law and history--including McCullough v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, Stuart v. Laird, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, and Gibbons v. Ogden, just to name a few. These cases are still cited today by our Federal courts and State courts as impressive precedents important to recognize that establish significant legal doctrines and relevant constitutional interpretations.

Chief Justice Marshall is not only the longest serving Chief Justice in the history of the United States, but he has authored more opinions for the Court than any other Chief Justice in the Supreme Court's history. That impressive record remains in place today.

It is noteworthy to recognize that Chief Justice Marshall also introduced and implemented the practice of allowing one justice to speak for the Court while having the remaining justices either sign on to that opinion or issue their own concurring or dissenting opinion. Prior to Chief Justice Marshall's tenure, Justices usually wrote their own opinions and a party in a case had to thoroughly study the particular nuances in each individual Justice's opinion in order to discover which side prevailed.

Chief Justice Marshall was also a Revolutionary War veteran, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to France, Member of the United States House of Representatives, and Secretary of State under President John Adams.

I believe minting a coin is a fitting honor for the Great Chief Justice. This coin will commemorate the 250th anniversary of the birth of Chief Justice Marshall, which will take place in the year 2005.

This legislation will allow the Supreme Court Historical Society to receive the necessary revenue it needs for worthwhile endeavors. The Supreme Court Historical Society is an established national organization whose programs and endeavors benefit Americans in every State in the Union. The Supreme Court Historical Society operates a Summer Institute for Teachers, with brings teachers from across the nation to Washington to study the Supreme Court and the Constitution first hand. This particular program helps to improve public school education about the role and importance of the Court in our Government.

The Supreme Court Historical Society collects antiques and historical artifacts for the use of the Court Curator's educational displays at the Supreme Court Building. There are still many artifacts and antiques that would preserve the precious history of the Court that the Society lacks the funds to acquire.

The Supreme Court Historical Society also holds public lectures at the Supreme Court Building and around the country which usually feature current Justices on the Supreme Court and other important leaders in constitutional and legal scholarship.

The Chief Justice John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act will allow for 400,000 coins bearing the likeness of the Great Chief Justice, John Marshall, in 2005, with a surcharge of $10 per coin. The sale of these coins has the capability to produce nearly $4,000,000 in direct support of the Supreme Court Historical Society's programs and functions.

Furthermore, I put a provision in this bill to ensure that there is no net

cost to the Federal Government in minting this coin. This provision is important, especially in a time when many are concerned about controlling deficit spending and making sure Congress does not unduly burden the American people with unnecessary debt.

Never in the history of this country has a coin been minted focusing on the history of the Supreme Court or on its profound influence on our constitutional form of government. Unless citizens have some form of legal training or a scholarly interest, the Supreme Court and our Federal courts are usually the least understood of the three branches of the government. Yet what it does has an impact, both direct and indirect, on the rights of every citizen.

The Chief Justice John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act has the support of every sitting Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is likewise supported by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee and the former Solicitors General across party lines.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, as many have. I am confident this bill will benefit the entire country and as it will help preserve and protect the history of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, I was hoping that my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, might yield for a question.

As I was reading the Defense authorization bill, I noticed that under section 336, entitled ``Pilot Program for Best-Value Source Selection for Performance of Information Services,'' the conference committee had modified the normal examination procedures for determining the source, either public or private, for the performance of information technology services. My question therefore is: Does section 336 modify, change or interfere, in any way with provisions of Title 10 Sec. 2460, Sec. 2464, or Sec. 2466 commonly referred to as ``Core'' and ``50/50''?

I thank the Senator for that answer.

tanker provision

Mr. President, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization conference report. This report is not only a tribute to the Congress's hard work, in particular that of my good friend, Chairman John Warner, but it is also a reaffirmation of our commitment to meet the challenges of this War on Terror.

The conference report contains a number of provisions designed to alleviate some of the burdens placed on our fighting men and women. For example, I am proud to state that the report deals directly with a concern of many service members, including Utah National Guard and Utah-based Reserve families, by continuing payment through December 31, 2004, of special pay for duty while subject to hostile fire or imminent danger in the amount of $225 a month and $250 a month for family separation allowance. Additionally, all service members will receive at least a 3.7 percent pay raise. In order to help retain our mid-career service members, their pay will be increased between 5.25 and 6.25 percent. The burden for many of our Reserve forces will also be lifted regarding healthcare. The report provides TRICARE coverage for members, and their families, of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve and each member of the Individual Ready Reserve, if they do not already have health insurance.

Keeping our word to our Nation's veterans is vital to maintaining the honor of our country. No other issue is as important to our veterans as that of concurrent receipt, that is, simultaneously paying veterans a military pension and providing them with disability benefits. Under the current law, many veterans' retirement pay is reduced or offset dollar- for-dollar for any disability benefit they receive. Unfortunately, proposals to remedy this situation remain controversial due to cost. Therefore, I must commend and congratulate

Chairman Warner once again for devising a compromise plan that boldly expands upon his previous efforts by providing full concurrent receipt for those veterans suffering disabilities from combat or combat-related operations and by phasing in this benefit, over a 10-year period for those retirees whose disability is rated at 50 percent or greater.

This legislation is also important because it reaffirms our transformation policy. Many at home will ask what is ``transformation'' and what does it mean to the future of our Nation's military? Simply put, transformation is a process of reform that will revolutionize the way the military conducts operations. We saw a glimpse of this emerging reality during the Iraqi conflict where information was gathered from a variety of sensors, whether on the ground or in the air, and that information was transmitted very quickly to commanders who could then exploit the weakness of our enemy. It was a remarkable operation and it reflects the high level of competence and expertise of our Nation's service men and women.

This Defense bill will accelerate transformation and ensure that our forces maintain their decisive edge. It is an important accomplishment and the chairman, ranking minority member and all the members of the committee deserve our thanks. Their efforts to make military transformation a reality have led them to fund the research and development of such revolutionary systems as the Army's Future Combat System, or FCS. FCS will allow our forces to deploy an army brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours. The DDX and the Littoral Combat Ship will also be revolutionary in their stealth characteristics, automation systems, and command and control capabilities. The committee is also continuing its support for the Joint Strike Fighter, which will bring a stealth fighter to all of our air and naval/marine air forces.

That being said, I was disappointed to see that the President's request for full funding of the F/A-22 did not occur, although the report did authorize the President's request for the procurement of 22 F/A-22s. This is a system that is a transformational aircraft at its core. The F/A-22's supercruise engines allow for extended supersonic flight--a magnitude longer than its after-burner predecessors. Using stealth capabilities, the F/A-22 is able to penetrate an opponent's airspace and engage enemy aircraft at great ranges. Additionally, unlike our current air superiority fighter the F-15C, the F/A-22 will be able to engage integrated surface-to-air missile systems. Once again using stealth technology, the F/A-22 will be able to approach these missile sites and destroy them, utilizing internally carried GPS-guided bombs. The F/A-22, using this bombing capability, will also have the ability to track and launch attacks against ground-fixed and mobile targets. However, the truly transformational aspect of the aircraft is that it can accomplish all of these missions almost simultaneously. Paraphrasing the Air Force's motto, no aircraft comes close to the F/A- 22's capabilities. I cannot say how proud I am and the rest of the State of Utah is that the sustainment and maintenance work on this extraordinary aircraft will be handled at Hill Air Force Base/Ogden Air Logistics Center.

I am also grateful that the committee was able to maintain the momentum toward transformation regarding our industrial policies. Instead of reverting to a protectionist posture, the report enables the Department of Defense and Congress to gather information on this issue. I believe that as the cost of research and development of our Nation's weapons systems continues to grow that it will become increasingly in our interests to harness the strengths of other nations in joint ventures. The future belongs to programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter, where the United States has been joined by the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Singapore and Israel to develop this stealthy and capable aircraft that will protect the forces of freedom at an affordable price. I commend the committee for its foresight on this matter.

As I close, once again I wish to congratulate my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, especially Chairman Warner, on this fine piece of legislation. It was a hard road, but once again the committee has risen to the challenge and supported our men and women in uniform. The Nation is in their debt.

I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the half hour taken by the Democrats, I be given an additional 11 minutes. I will take 4 right now.

No, I said I would take the 4 minutes now and then take the 11 minutes after you had half an hour. How is that?

Mr. President, I think it is appropriate to have the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who has had to go through all this rigmarole to say a few words before we get into this debate. I know the distinguished majority leader wanted me to do so.

To be honest with you, Mr. President, just think about it. All we want to do is what the Senate has always done. Once a nominee comes to the calendar, that nominee deserves a vote up or down under the advise and consent clause which is clearly a majority vote.

Never in the history of this Congress have we had what has been happening over the last number of years caused by the Democrats on the other side.

We should be voting on judges tonight, not debating judges. Frankly, there is a vocal minority of Senators preventing us from doing our constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominees. The American people need to know this, and although some of these folks have been moaning and groaning on the other side that we are taking this time, I suggest to them that there is hardly anything more important in a President's life, whoever that President may be, than getting his or her judicial nominations through.

Frankly, it is extremely important because this involves one-third of the coequal branches of Government. We found a continual filibuster on a number of these nominees.

Let me say this. Democrats seem to be very fond of saying: We passed 168 and we only filibustered 4. The fact is, that raw number of 168 we have had to fight pretty hard to get as well. But we have. Never in the history of this country have we had four stopped. That is only part of it.

I can name at least 15 that I have had various Democrats tell me they are going to filibuster. Most of them are circuit court of appeals nominees for the very important circuit courts in this country, people who have the ABA imprimatur, people such as Miguel Estrada; Priscilla Owen, who broke through the glass ceiling for women; Bill Pryor--even though he is conservative, he has always upheld the law even when he disagreed with the law; Charles Pickering, unanimously confirmed to the district court in 1990 and treated like dirt in the Senate--a racial reconciling. Yet he has been treated just like dirt. Carolyn Kuhl--we are going to have her first cloture vote on Friday because they are going to filibuster. Janice Brown--they are filibustering her; Claude Allen, I am told they are going to filibuster Claude Allen. How about Terrence Boyle of the Fourth Circuit? It looks as if they are going to filibuster him. James Deavers is being held up. Bob Conrad is being held up.

Four Circuit Court of Appeals judges for the Sixth Circuit out of Michigan are being held up by our colleagues on the other side; two district court nominees, and I could name some others.

The fact is, for the first time in history, they are treating a President of the United States in a ridiculous, unconstitutional fashion and not allowing him to have an up-or-down vote on his nominees. If they can defeat these nominees, that is their right, but they should not be dragging their feet and making it very difficult for these nominees to come up.

I heard some of the comments about how important the appropriations process is. It is important, but I can tell you we have had foot dragging almost all year by our colleagues on the other side, and it is important, but there is nothing more important than making sure that our courts are well staffed with competent judges who are going to enforce the law for the benefit of the American citizens.

There is nothing more important than that. Frankly, it is the one legacy that any President can leave. When Bill Clinton was President, we helped him put through 377 judges, the second all-time record. I might add Ronald Reagan was the all-time record holder at 382, 5 more than President Clinton. President Reagan had 6 years of a Republican Senate to help him and President Clinton had only 2 years of a Democratic Senate, and he was treated abundantly fair.

There were 47 holdovers at the end. Contrast that to when Democrats controlled the committee and Bush 1 was President. There were 54 holdovers.

Mr. President, this is really wrong what they are doing. It has the potential of exploding this body. Frankly, we can't allow it to continue. It is time for the American people to understand this. I understand my time is up.

As I understand it, I have 11 minutes left; is that correct?

Mr. President, we should be voting on judges tonight. Instead we are debating judges tonight because a vocal minority of Senators is preventing us from doing our constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominees.

The American people need to know that. That is why we are here. If you stop and think about this sudden new set of arguments or at least arguments they have used for a long time, the Democratic leadership has been blocking all kinds of passage of bills that are America's priorities for the whole year.

Now they are complaining because we want to let the American people know how bad they have been about Federal judges, which, after all, is one of the most important things we do around here. Just think about it. The long overdue fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills were finally enacted on February 20, 2003. For the first time in history, there were filibusters to defeat the President's circuit court nominees, now up to six who are actually filibustered, and at least another nine whom, I have been told, they will filibuster. The sign they have is an absolute outright falsehood.

We needed legal reforms to stop lawsuit abuse against doctors, businesses, and industries that have been virtually banned by the tactics of the minority. Medical liability, class action reform, gun liability, and asbestos reform: they have all been subject to delays or filibuster by the minority.

Similar delays led to a record number of days spent on the budget resolution and the near record number of rollcall votes on amendments, many of which were virtually identical. The distinguished Senator from Alaska understands that as chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

The most innovative waste of time came on the Energy bill. After spending 22 days on the Energy bill last year, we spent 18 days on the Energy bill this year, only to pass the same version of the Energy bill that passed the Senate last year.

Bioshield legislation necessary to ensure proper vaccines in medicine to counter bioterrorism attacks has still not cleared.

The State Department reauthorization has been stalled by Democrats insisting upon unrelated poison pill amendments be voted on prior to passage. I could go on and on.

The fact is, there has been a steady slowdown, steady slow walk around here, ever since we became the majority.

Now, the issues we are highlighting tonight could not be more fundamental to our country, to democracy, to the rule of law: separation of powers. All are at stake in this ongoing debate. Among the constitutional Framers' conceptual breakthroughs was that the judicial branch would receive equal status to that of the executive and legislative branches. An independent judiciary is the thread that binds the country together and ensures law and order. It is important. It is indispensable to the survival of a civilized society.

If it had not been for the restraining force of an independent judicial branch, either the executive or the legislative branches would have usurped incredible power and destroyed the checks and balances that are at the very foundation of our constitutional form of government. So we all have a stake in this debate tonight, and it is my hope that our opponents across the aisle will act to restore the constitutionally required up-or-down vote for judicial nominees. Ultimately, through the ballot box, the people in my home State of Utah and across America will decide who nominates and who confirms judges.

Let me repeat that our Nation's founding document requires that every judicial nominee who reaches the Senate floor receive an up-or-down vote. It is a simple, clear, and fair fact that lies at the heart of this debate. Once they hit the floor, they have always gotten a vote.

Every one of President Clinton's judges who hit the floor got a vote up or down, and only 1 out of 377 was defeated. But a minority of the Senate is rigging the system by engaging in an unfair set of unprecedented filibusters which are the culmination of an outright assault on the independence of the Federal judiciary.

When our colleagues across the aisle controlled the Senate, we saw nominees with the full support of their home State Senators denied hearings and votes for months and months. We saw nominees stalled by demands for unpublished opinions and volumes of written questions. We saw this become more and more serious since the beginning of this year.

We have continued to see ideology used to threaten the independence of our Federal judiciary by essentially requiring nominees to announce their views on issues that may come before them as Federal judges, something that has not happened in the past. But that is what they are requiring of President Bush's nominees, at least some of them.

They treated Miguel Estrada like dirt, while they allowed John Roberts to go through. Roberts was also in the Solicitor General's office. They did not ask for the highly privileged confidential matters for Roberts, but they did for Miguel Estrada.

By the way, most all of these people have high ratings from their gold standard, the American Bar Association.

We have seen for the first time in American history true filibusters of judicial nominees which are preventing the Senate from exercising its constitutional right and duty of advice and consent. This is harmful to the Nation, it is harmful to the judiciary, and it is certainly harmful to our institution. It is harmful to the President. It is harmful to these people who are willing to put their names up and to do this.

Article II of the Constitution of the United States invests in the President alone the power to nominate judges. There is no room for interpretation. The words are explicit. Yet we have seen efforts to usurp the President's constitutional authority not by constitutional amendment but through various proposals on how nominations should be made and demands on who should be nominated that exceed any reasonable interpretation of consultation.

We have also seen the filibusters of judicial nominees that brought us here tonight and prevent us from exercising our constitutional obligation of an up-or-down vote.

This assault on the judiciary is not without victims. There is no question that it is harmful to the Federal judiciary. More than half of its existing vacancies are considered judicial emergencies. So it is harmful to the President. He is not being treated fairly compared to all Presidents before him. And it is harmful to the Senate, whose constitutional roles are turned on their heads. It is perhaps most harmful to the individual lives of the nominees who have been denied a simple up-or-down vote, which they have always gotten before when they have been brought to the floor on the Executive Calendar.

Now let me talk about some of these nominees because I think it is important to remember that they are very real people who want to get on with their very real lives instead of hanging in the limbo of what has become the Senate's confirmation stall.

Let me turn to this particular picture. Former DC Circuit nominee Miguel Estrada, who is an American success story, unanimously gets the highest rating from the American Bar Association, the Democrats' gold standard. He was stopped for over 2 years--actually 3 years. Priscilla Owen broke through the glass ceiling for women and made it so women could become partners in major law firms, one of the most brilliant people in our society. She was an excellent witness, but they just do not want her.

William Pryor, of course, in my opinion, the outside groups tried to smear Pryor, and they did so with regard to his strongly held personal beliefs on abortion.

I might add that Charles Pickering, who I mentioned before, was passed by this body unanimously in 1990. Yet all of a sudden in the next 13 years he is unworthy to be on the circuit court of appeals?

No. It all comes down to abortion. We can go further. We can go further than just these nominees. I have mentioned a whole raft of others. I could name at least 15 colleagues on the other side who have indicated they are going to filibuster. Now that is abominable. All four of those nominees have been waiting years, and in some cases many years, for confirmation. All of them have been denied up-or-down votes.

On Friday, the Senate will consider the nomination of two more outstanding jurists, and let me just put up this second chart. Carolyn Kuhl served in the Reagan administration. She was only 28 years old at the time and they have tried to act like she had all kinds of authority to do things with which they disagree. She has virtually unanimous support from her fellow judges in California, many of whom are Democrats, who say she will make a terrific addition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Take Janice Rogers Brown, this African American woman who was the daughter of sharecroppers. She put herself through college and law school as a single mother--just think about that--and yet she is being treated in a very improper fashion.

I might add that nearly 100 of her fellow judges on the Los Angeles County Superior Court are in support of Carolyn Kuhl. She is a terrific nominee, but they suspect that she is probably pro-life. I do not know what she is. I do not know what Janice Rogers Brown is. They may be right on that, but so what?

I think if a person is otherwise qualified, no single issue should stop them from being able to serve their country on the Federal bench, and if we had taken the attitude they are taking, my gosh, President Clinton would have got very few judges. Instead he got 377, the second all-time record for confirmations.

DC Circuit Court nominee Janice Brown has spent nearly a quarter century in public service, including nearly a decade as a judge in the California State courts. This daughter of a sharecropper became the first African American woman to sit on the California Supreme Court in 1996. Why are they against her? Because they know she is conservative, and they want just one way of thinking among African Americans. She does not qualify because she happens to be conservative. No matter that she won 76 percent of the vote in the last election, more than any other nominee for the California Supreme Court, and wrote most of the majority opinions in the last year.

On Friday, we will have the opportunity to give these two nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve, but it is apparent the minority whip has said they are going to filibuster them.

I am proud to say in my 27 years in the Senate, some of my Democratic colleagues expressed similar views when a different President was in the White House. For example, the distinguished minority leader stated:

As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: The Senate is

surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee,

but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him

up or vote him down. An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask.

That was their philosophy when they had the Presidency and they had the Senate Judiciary Committee and were the leaders in the Senate.

On this point, I agree with Senator Daschle. All we ask for is an up- or-down vote. If they want to vote against these people, that is their right, but they need to have an up-or-down vote. Why are they afraid of allowing simple up-or-down votes in the cases of these excellent nominees? Well, because we think--I think--there is more than adequate evidence that on a bipartisan set of votes these nominees would be confirmed by the Senate. If not, let the chips fall where they may. But these nominees deserve a vote. Vote them up or vote them down, but just vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate and the populist arguments being made by Democrats who seem to think that having Federal judgeship nominees treated fairly, as they always have been in the past, once they have been brought to the floor, seems to be not right because they think we ought to do something about jobs.

Well, why haven't they? This recession began in the last year of the Clinton administration. I went through just some of the things that show they have had a pattern of obstruction from day 1 around here since we have taken over control of the Senate.

The pattern of obstruction was set on the first day of the 108th Congress when the motion to adjourn was forced to a rollcall vote, something that is usually never done. The long overdue 2003 appropriations bills were finally enacted after we became the majority in 2003, on February 20.

For the first time in history, filibusters were used to defeat the President's circuit court nominees. I have mentioned upwards of 15 that some Democrats have told me they are going to filibuster. They are not going to filibuster all of them, but they are certainly filibustering already more than four. There are six right now by the time you get through with Friday.

I can tell you, there are a whole raft of others they are planning on filibustering. First time in history, treating a President like dirt, and these nominees, which is even more important in this sense, because these nominees--we are going to find that we cannot get the top people in the country to take these positions, especially if they are very liberal or very conservative, even though they are in the mainstream. And that is a big phony shibboleth. Every time they say: Well, they are outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. They were saying that about Bill Pryor, criticizing the cases that he won as the Alabama attorney general before the Supreme Court. So who is out of the mainstream? It certainly is not Bill Pryor, nor is it any of these other nominees.

Like I say, Priscilla Owen, who has been held up for 3 years now-- better than 3 years--Priscilla Owen is on the Texas Supreme Court. She was one of the first women partners in this country. She broke through the ``glass ceiling'' for women. They ought to be giving her a medal instead of treating her in this despicable fashion, and they are only doing it because these inside-the-beltway groups control, in many respects, what they do. It all comes down to abortion.

Now, there are sincere people on both sides of that issue. That is why I did not allow the issue of abortion to stop otherwise qualified candidates from getting a vote up or down on the floor, even though I am personally pro-life and cannot imagine why anybody would want to go for a regime of abortion on demand. There were 1.6 million abortions a year at one time. Forty million abortions in this country--the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, which many of my colleagues voted for, even some on this side.

Let me go down a few further here: Needed legal reforms, I mentioned, to stop lawsuit abuse against doctors, businesses, and industries have been virtually banned by the tactics of the minority.

Jobs have been lost right and left because of their refusal to allow decent laws to be passed. Medical liability, class action reform, gun liability, and asbestos lawsuit reforms have all been subject to delays or filibusters by our colleagues on the other side.

As I said, we spent 22 days on an Energy bill last year, and then we had to spend 18 days on an Energy bill this year, when we basically enacted the same bill we did last year.

Bioshield legislation is very important for those of us who work heavily in the area of health care and antiterrorism. Bioshield legislation is necessary to ensure proper vaccines and medicines to counter bioterrorism attacks has still not cleared objections.

The State Department reauthorization was stalled by Democrats insisting upon unrelated poison-pill amendments being voted on prior to passage.

The District of Columbia appropriations bill is subject to a rolling filibuster threat over a provision giving low-income students school choice, where we spend over $11,000 per student and have the lousiest school system in the country.

Last year Senate Democrats failed to pass a budget resolution for the first time since the Budget Act was written in 1974, and they have the gall to come in here and say: Well, we ought to be taking care of jobs.

We are going to take care of jobs if we can get some cooperation from them. But all the taking care of jobs in the world may not amount to much if we do not have a good Federal judiciary to make this system work, to make sure our constitutional way of life continues.

They passed no welfare reform. They took no action to ban cloning. They passed no Medicare prescription drug plan. They confirmed a record low number of judges. They enacted only 2 of the 13 appropriations bills and delayed enactment of a Homeland Security Department for months. It is this

dismal record of inaction that Democrats hope to repeat.

Now, we are committed to delivering the Healthy Forests bill and the CARE Act to the President's desk. The Democrats are refusing to name conferees to the bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. I could go on and on.

But my friend from Nevada--it is kind of interesting to me that he would take 10 hours out of the Senate's time on Monday to filibuster, when we all came here prepared to vote on appropriations bills.

I think it is pretty bad to come in here and say that we should not do what we should for judges, when they themselves have been filibustering not just judges but virtually everything else with a slow walk.

I am glad to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Sure.

That is correct.

That is correct. These are the most confidential private papers of the Solicitor General's Office, the lawyer who represents all of the public.

That is correct. Four of the seven former Solicitors General were leading Democrats, who said that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.

Right.

Right.

That is right.

They both worked there. They both were excellent appellate lawyers. By the way, Estrada worked not only with the Bush administration but with the Clinton administration. And he had high marks.

Right.

A unanimous voice vote on the floor, but only after waiting 12 years through three nominations by two different Presidents.

Right.

John Roberts, who was one of the finest appellate lawyers in the country, as was Miguel Estrada, was treated completely differently once the Judiciary Committee considered him. And I had to force them to consider him. Yet he passed this body by unanimous consent.

That is exactly right. They treated Miguel Estrada differently from John Roberts.

Not a legitimate reason. The only reason was they believed him to be pro-life. I don't know whether he is to this day because we do not ask those questions.

The phony reason.

The phony reason they hid behind.

But let me make this point. Miguel Estrada, as great an attorney as he is, having argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, having the highest recommendation of the American Bar Association, their gold standard, they did not want him to come through this process because they knew, or at least they perceived, that he was on the fast track to become the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court and they just cannot tolerate having a conservative Hispanic on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, let alone on the Supreme Court.

That is absolutely right. But even Roberts had to go through a lot of pain to get there--12 years waiting, nominated three times by two different Presidents.

We put him out of the committee after a 12-hour hearing. You hardly have that much for Supreme Court nominees. There were two others on that list. They complained because there were three on one day's hearing. They ignored the fact that Ted Kennedy, when he was chairman, had seven circuit nominees one day, and another four. We had at least 10 other times when we had three.

Then once we put him out of the committee, I had to bring him back in the committee so they could have another crack at him. They could not touch him. He was that good. So he had to go through an inordinate process to get there. But they knew they did not have anything on him. They know they didn't have anything on Miguel Estrada.

It was a double standard.

Absolutely right. Roberts was treated like all other nominees during the Reagan years, Bush 1 years, and the Clinton years. He was not asked to give his opinions on future issues that might come before the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

Because Miguel Estrada answered the same way basically as all the other people who had passed in prior years, they held that against him. The big phony issue was knowing that the Solicitor General's Office did not give the most privileged, private documents in that department without making that department unworkable.

That is right. They did treat Roberts differently, no question about it. They gave him a rough time, too. Miguel Estrada is in a league of his own in the way he was mistreated, but Roberts was mistreated, too. Roberts sits on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after having been unanimously approved here.

Let's talk about how important that is. We have had 40 rollcall votes on the floor. You talk about delays. You talk about fouling up this body. We have had 40 rollcall votes on people who got unanimously confirmed. Can you imagine what it takes to go through 40 rollcall votes? It slows down the Senate like you can't believe, and muscles up the Senate like you can't believe. It is all a big game to try and make this President not successful. But Miguel Estrada had to go through that as well.

And, by the way, was never applied to any nominee, to my knowledge, in the past. Miguel Estrada was singled out with a double standard for the sole purpose of defeating his nomination and getting him to withdraw.

Their gold standard.

Very few people even argue one case.

It shows the lengths they would go to on that side--at least the leaders on that side--to screw up a nomination of a very good person.

Take Janice Rogers Brown. She is a terrific African-American justice on the California Supreme Court. She wrote the majority of the majority opinions on that court last year, and yet they come here and say she is outside the mainstream. They are outside the mainstream when they make arguments such as that.

There is only one reason they are against Janice Rogers Brown and filibuster her: because she is an African-American woman who is conservative and pro-life. For these inside-the-beltway groups, that is their single issue.

I had friends on the other side tell me, when I asked, ``Why are you doing this,'' say, ``Well, the groups will score this as a vote, and then they will come against whoever votes that way in the next election.'' These guys don't have the guts to take on the groups.

That is right.

Better than that. She got 76 percent of the vote. She was the top vote-getter among four supreme court nominees.

I think the Senator makes a very good point.

It certainly is. I went to one of my friends on the other side--and I won't mention the name because I don't think that would be proper--and I said: What did you think of Janice Rogers Brown? His answer was: She's terrific--which she was in front of the committee. Yet every Democrat went against her in committee and I think cited horrendously bad arguments to do it.

They can point to 8 or 10 cases with which they didn't agree, but with which a lot of people do agree, and then they say she is outside the mainstream when she has tried hundreds of cases and decided, as a majority opinion writer, the most majority opinions in that court last year and I think in prior years as well.

It is really unseemly, and that is why we are so upset here. Let me tell you, if we continue down this course, we are going to severely harm the Federal judiciary and get only people who really are not only outside the mainstream, but are Milquetoast, who can't make a decision to save their lives. Once you get to the Federal bench, you have to be able to make tough decisions.

That is a frequent argument. I think the best illustration of that happens to be Bill Pryor.

They criticized him for cases he won before the Supreme Court, saying he is outside the mainstream because they disagreed with the cases. In fact, they think Rehnquist is out of the mainstream. They think Scalia is out of the mainstream. They certainly think Clarence Thomas is out of the mainstream because they want a single approach, a minority approach to everything that has to be liberal, and if you are not liberal, you are outside the mainstream, even though some of the greatest judges ever to sit on the Federal courts and Supreme Court were conservatives. Some of the great ones were liberals, too, but understood the role of judges.

Right.

Bill Pryor is getting savaged by the rightwing because he basically sued to have the chief justice removed for not following the rule of law.

That is absolutely correct. Just fast forward to this week. As the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported this week, Bill Pryor filed a pretrial brief asking the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to remove Judge Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court because of Moore's defiance of the Federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments display. Bill Pryor's brief stated, quoting from the Atlanta Journal Constitution article: Moore should be removed because ``he intentionally engaged in misconduct and because he remains unrepentant for his behavior.''

I could go on about Bill Pryor. During his hearing--a lengthy hearing--he was asked over and over by virtually every Democrat who showed up about his deeply held personal beliefs. He answered every question the way a judicial nominee should. Even though he had deeply held beliefs, he would obey the law.

I thank the Senator for his excellent questions.

Mr. President, I enjoyed the stirring remarks of my colleague. However, I think he completely ignores the fact that the filibuster rule did not even begin until 1917, and it did not come into fruition until the 1940s. Nevertheless, we have changed the rules in this body many times. But we are not asking for a change of the rules. We are asking for a recognition. There is a difference between the Executive Calendar, where the precise meaning of the Constitution is advise and consent under section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, and the legislative calendar where we do have a right to filibuster. So that distinction needs to be made.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and then I will be happy to take questions on this side.

I yield without losing my right to the floor a question of the Senator from----

I yield to the Senator from Colorado without losing my right to the floor.

I have laryngitis. What a time to have laryngitis. But that is the way it is. I apologize for my voice.

I sure do. The paper got it just right. I have seen three major editorials from the Chieftain and from the Rocky Mountain News calling the Democratic filibuster an irresponsible escalation of the judicial nominating war.

I agree with both. The Denver Post said ``a change in Senate procedure is long overdue.'' ``[T]here is no good reason to oppose a supermajority of the Senate that was not contemplated in the Constitution.''

They got it just right.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia without losing my right to the floor.

That is a good question because it seems as if our friends on the other side forget when they were in the majority and they had the Presidency and they all wanted votes up and down and all of a sudden they do not.

The Senator is right in pointing out these disparities. All of a sudden when the worm is turned, they do not want to live up to their own words. I am not sure that Senator Levin does not want to live up to his own words, but if he does want to live up to his own words, then he should not be voting with the Democrats. He should be voting for cloture.

Zero. Until this.

I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia for a question and then I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota without losing my right to the floor.

The Senator will have his half hour in about 15 or 20 minutes.

That is the way I view it. I have to say this is a very dangerous thing the Democrats are doing for the first time in history. It has caused a tremendous amount of angst on everyone's part and awful partisanship because it has never been done before. It is time to move on.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

I certainly do. That is what is behind this. I think the Senator points it out very well. So did George Will.

Not on my time.

About what? I did not hear the Senator.

I am not going to yield at this time to the distinguished Senator. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

Yes.

That is right, in the history of the Senate. Absolutely, Will was right, because that same commentary was pointed out by Alexander Hamilton. He wrote in Federalist Paper 76 the Senate's role is to refuse nominations only for ``special and strong reasons'' having to do with ``unfit characters.'' That is not what our Democratic colleagues are doing. What they are doing here is denying up-and-down votes to very qualified people, who by their own gold standard, the American Bar Association, are proven to be qualified.

I believe it is abysmal that has happened. I think Senators have pointed out here this evening this is a very important debate that has to occur.

The American people need to know a militant minority, 45 Democrats, basically, is thwarting the will of the majority and taking away the dignity of an up-and-down vote to qualified judicial nominees by this President, which has never happened, once they hit the floor, which has never happened before.

In the Clinton years, all 377 judges were confirmed--only one was rejected, but he got an up-and-down vote, which is more than our people are getting.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, without losing my right to the floor.

Well, to be honest with you, it all comes down to abortion, according to some of my top Democrat friends. That has become a litmus test issue for Democrats because the inside-the-beltway groups the Democrats talk about do not want people on the courts who are pro- life, even though they are committed to upholding Roe v. Wade because that is the law of the land.

In the case of Judge Pickering, Judge Pickering was unanimously confirmed as a Federal district court judge in 1990. He has served well. He is one of the people who brought about racial conciliation in the State of Mississippi and was treated in a despicable fashion here.

In the case of Bill Pryor, I do not think anybody who looks at his record can say he will not uphold the law, no matter how much he disagrees with it, because that is what a judge will have to do.

That is correct.

That is right. If I recall it correctly, it had to do with partial-birth abortion, even though he hates partial-birth abortion, as anybody who looks at it carefully. It is a barbaric practice, at the very least. He upheld the law.

I do not know you can ask anything more of anybody than that. Plus, this is a fellow who graduated No. 1 in his class from Tulane University School of Law, who is very bright and was very candid and open with the committee, and yet being filibustered for no good reason. It really is unseemly.

Yes.

That is right.

The distinguished Senator raises some good points. There is no question the filibuster rule was despicably used during that time. But I still believe most of us would agree that rule XXII, the filibuster rule, can and should apply to the legislative calendar. We have a right to set our own rules through the legislative calendar. But the Executive Calendar is a calendar that is subject to our right to advise and consent, which under article II, section 2 is a majority vote, and it is being distorted by our friends on the other side.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I would like to ask the distinguished Senator, we have seen this poster they have over there: 168, and only 4 stopped. But isn't it true that there are at least 12 circuit court of appeals nominees, ones who correct lower courts who many times make mistakes, who are being held up in filibusters here--not just four?

Right.

Normally in the Reagan-Bush I-Clinton years, 80 to 85 percent--85 to 90 percent.

By the end of the third year.

Well, in the case of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, 91 percent, if I recall correctly.

People don't realize how important these circuit courts of appeals are. We have shown this chart that they have is not only inaccurate, it is a bold-faced lie. Because they can't really come out here with a straight face and admit they are going to filibuster at least 12 circuit judges and some district court judges.

It is a total misrepresentation is what it is.

Mr. President, I apologize to those listening in and to my colleagues for having laryngitis.

Your voice is not much better than mine, from what I can hear.

Whenever you are losing an argument, you try to bring up something that might help you to win. This argument about jobs is very important, but I remember all last Monday being wasted by our colleagues on the other side. I can list all of the obstructions that have occurred this year, time after time, when we tried to do something that might be good in that area. This phony chart of 168 to 4, it doesn't take any brains to realize that is totally false.

Tomorrow, we are going to have two cloture votes on two more, so there are at least six. If you go through all those they really do plan to filibuster, you get up around 15, 16, or 17. This is the first time in history this has happened.

I rise to speak about the judicial nominees being filibustered by a minority of Senators. I have served in the Senate for 27 years, and I can honestly say President Bush's nominees are among the best I have ever seen. They are experienced, intelligent, ethical, hard working, respected in their communities, and they have given their lives to public service. We honor these great men and women for volunteering to serve their country. They have put forward their good names for evaluation by the Senate and they deserve a simple up-or-down vote-- just the dignity of the vote. Our priority is to vote on these nominees. We owe them no less.

By June of this year, we had two well-qualified nominees blocked by filibusters. These filibusters were the first two in the history of this body. By the end of July, we again made history, adding a third filibustered nominee. By October, we had four nominees filibustered, another record. Shortly, we will have two more filibustered nominees, yet another record. The number continues to rise.

Those who are watching this, don't believe this phony chart. That has never happened before. Like you say, it is one thing to say we gave the 168 a trial. Most of them are district court judges now. So we gave 168 a trial, but we only lynched 4 of them--6 of them now, or 8 probably next week. It will be up to 17 before long.

I promise not to talk about the color of somebody's tie or my favorite fast food. I want to talk more about numbers tonight. I want to talk about President Bush's nominees to the Federal court. Ambrose Bierce defined nominee as a ``modest gentleman [or gentlewoman] shrinking from the distinction of private life and diligently seeking the honorable obscurity of public office.'' That may or may not be the case, but I want to highlight several of the distinguished and respected judicial nominees who are currently being filibustered by the Democratic Party members, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Justice Priscilla Owen, and Judge Carolyn Kuhl. We can talk in terms of numbers, but I prefer to talk about why these three distinguished judges deserve a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, and why they deserve to be confirmed as Federal judges.

We started hearing from the other side that, according to my colleagues, these nominees have despicable views, or are wildly out of the mainstream, or from the hard right, are mean people, have embarrassing records, are far out and off the charts, are unqualified, are activist, are extremists, or rightwingers who would like to take the country back to the 1890s, are deeply hostile to and actively seeking to undermine civil rights, women's rights, and workers rights-- gee--seek to turn back the clock on constitutional rights, have records of not really helping women, seem to have little regard for the rights of women, and represent the ``worst of the worst,'' as one colleague on the other side put it the other day. Those were the nice things they have said.

Actually, Judiciary Committee hearings often remind me of an old Far Side cartoon showing three cowboys on Main Street in the Old West. One cowboy lies sprawled on the dusty street, with a revolver lying next to his arm. The cowboy on the left stands with a smoking gun, staring at the fallen man, and saying: ``OK, stranger . . . What's the circumference of the Earth? . . . Who wrote the `Odyssey' and the `Iliad'? . . . What's the average rainfall of the Amazon Basin?'' The cowboy on the right stands stunned, with his hands to his face, saying, ``Bart, you fool! You can't shoot first and ask questions later!'' In a similar vein, Ambrose Bierce wrote that to nominate someone was to ``designate for the heaviest political assessment. To put forward a suitable person to incur the mudglobbing and deadcatting of the opposition.'' I often fear we do not give

our judicial nominees a fair chance before shooting them down.

The other side, before they heard one word out of Janice Rogers Brown's mouth, was already shooting her down; they didn't give her a chance.

I hope we can move past applying labels to the fine men and women who have volunteered to serve their country through judicial service. Our duty under the Constitution is to determine whether judicial nominees possess the experience, intelligence, and temperament needed for judicial service. Our constitutional responsibility is to judge whether judicial nominees are willing and able to place the rule of law above all other concerns in rendering justice. The Senate cannot fulfill its constitutional duty when a minority of Senators refuses to allow an up- or-down vote for the President's nominees. As it stands, a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators stand ready to vote on and confirm each of these excellent nominees.

Yes, I am happy to.

That is true. Remember, all throughout the Clinton administration, on all their nominees, our friends on the other side were saying if the ABA approves them with a qualified rating, then they deserve to have an up-or-down vote. When they have a well-qualified rating, the highest rating you can possibly have, then there is no question they deserve an up-or-down vote. Like the three cowboys in the street I talked about, they shoot them down before they even get a chance to have that vote up or down.

Absolutely true.

Yes. I might add Justice Owen, to get back to her, had 84 percent of the vote in the year 2000. That is the highest support of any State supreme court justice that year. Most every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. Our colleagues on the other side say she is out of the mainstream. Give me a break.

In the case of Justice Brown, she won 76 percent of the vote. I think there were four, if I recall correctly, supreme court justices up for election. She won the highest vote of all of them in a State not known for conservative politics. Yet they have tried to paint her like she is some sort of a rightwing nut. Well, just look at NBC News. They made it pretty clear she is no rightwing nut. She is a very good person.

Yes, of both Democrats and Republicans. She is one of the most highly rated judges in California. She is outstanding. Frankly, these are Democrats saying she made one of the best judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Well, I suppose the overwhelming majority in the most populated State, in the case of California, is out of the mainstream. I guess the overwhelming majority in one of the largest States in the Union, Texas, is out of the mainstream. You know, I suppose having the support of her fellow judges, in the case of Carolyn Kuhl, across the board, Democrats and Republicans, is out of the mainstream. According to these people over here--I will tell you who is out of the mainstream, it is these people over here who are filibustering judges for the first time in history and really endangering this process. It is ridiculous. It is wrong. I think the American people have to rise up and let them know it is wrong.

I am happy to.

I have been on the Judiciary Committee for 27 years. I have to say I have not seen any better nominees in that whole time. As far as ethics, the only one the Democrats demanded an answer to every question--questions about future cases that will come before them--not the only one, but the main one, was Bill Pryor. The other one was Miguel Estrada. To make a long story short, it has been a very unfair process for these people. We have more than made the case that Miguel Estrada was treated completely different from John Roberts. Both of them served in the Solicitor General's Office. They asked these stupid questions about documents that are the most highly privileged documents in the Government today, and seven former Solicitors General said these cannot be given, and they used that as a phony excuse to shoot down Miguel Estrada, who is well qualified by the American Bar Association. When Bill Pryor answered all the questions, they said you answered too many questions. You are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It is pretty clear, they just wanted to shoot these people down right from the beginning. To come out here and make such a fuss about jobs when they have been obstructive all year long is so phony that I have to admit, it almost brings tears to my eyes. Maybe it does bring some tears to my eyes because phony things tend to do that.

I do. Sometimes the district courts are involved and that is why we need the circuit court of appeals. Yet this President is treated different than prior Presidents, including President Clinton. About two-thirds of the circuit court nominees haven't even had a vote. Usually by this time in a President's career about 90 percent have had a vote.

I am delighted to.

I was hoping somebody would ask that. We have a chart prepared. They put it up. Filibuster comes from a Spanish word ``filibustero,'' meaning a pirating or hijacking, one word for obstruction. That is what it is. Look, I have no problem with filibusters on the legislative calendar because the Senate can set its own rules. But when it comes to the Executive Calendar, that calendar depends on your exercising restraint by advising and consenting, which means a simple majority vote up and down.

In the Clinton years, every Clinton nominee who came to the floor got a vote up or down. We did have a few who wanted to filibuster Clinton nominees. I personally stopped that because I recognized it would be disastrous for the Senate if we went down that road. As you can see, it is disastrous. We are in the middle of going down that road. We have already gone down it because our colleagues on the other side just don't seem to understand how important it is for them not to filibuster Federal judicial nominees. But I thank my colleague for bringing it up.

I will be happy to.

As the Senator will recall, right in the middle of a couple of very controversial nominees, Judge Paez, now Judge Berzon, there were some on our side who legitimately felt they should filibuster both of those----

Maybe I can bring it down here. Maybe it will work better here. I have it too close to my mouth. I am glad the Senator corrected that.

Judge Paez had been an activist judge in the eyes of many of our colleagues on the district courts out there in California. Marsha Berzon was one of the leading labor lawyers in the country. We had some who wanted to filibuster them. I stood up in caucus and said that is not going to happen. To his credit, the then majority leader Trent Lott stood up and said that is not going to happen.

We are both leading conservatives, but we knew that was a disastrous thing to do in this body because it would lead to animosities you could never quite--that would remain. It would lead to partisanship. It would violate the Constitution, it would violate the very advice and consent clause, the great power we have been given by the Founding Fathers.

Frankly, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, I stood up and said that is not going to happen and it did not.

Did we have some cloture votes? Yes. But the cloture votes were to get to the nominee so we could vote. Every Clinton nominee who came to the floor, who was brought to the floor, got a vote up or down. Only one was defeated and that was Ronnie White, on a straight vote up or down. But every other one, all 377 of them, the second highest total in history, passed.

Did I agree with all those judges? You bet your life I didn't. But they were qualified. The fact I didn't agree with them ideologically was irrelevant. What is relevant is, Are they qualified? I certainly would not take away the opportunity of serving in the Federal Government for an otherwise qualified person just because I disagreed with that person on abortion or on any other issue, for that matter.

Yes, I yield.

Virtually every Democrat said it, took the position a filibuster should never take place. All they asked for was an up-or- down vote. That is all they wanted, if we would just be decent enough to give them an up-or-down vote. We did. We were decent enough.

What does that imply about what is going on on the other side? I will let the public draw their own conclusions. But we were decent. We did what was right. We gave them up-or-down votes. Frankly, what is going on here is just appalling.

No, it has not, because a filibuster is inappropriate when it comes to judicial or even executive nominees, especially judicial nominees. Our ability to give advice and consent means if you don't like the nominee, vote against him or her. If you do, vote for them. But, above all, don't obstruct, which is exactly what they are doing here, obstruction, from the Spanish word, ``filibustero,'' meaning a pirating or hijacking. Just one more objection. Now we have six more objections, as of tomorrow--actually they require cloture votes to be filed on Janice Brown, and of course Carolyn Kuhl, so we now have six. I could name up to 17 they have threatened to filibuster and probably will.

To keep bringing that phony chart up here is an insult to everybody on this floor. It is an insult to everybody watching. It just shows they are void of any real arguments. To now try to change the nature of the debate to jobs, when they have obstructed all year long, is an insult.

I will be happy to.

It has not changed. But their positions have changed.

No question. They were very forthright and very strong that there should never be filibusters of judicial nominees. Now all of a sudden when it is to their advantage, they think--I think it is to their great disadvantage. They lost the 2000 election in part because of the way they are treating judgeship nominees. I think they are going to lose a lot of standing in this country. The way they are treating southern nominees is abysmal, like Bill Pryor. Like Charles Pickering.

It doesn't take any brains at all to realize they just don't think these two able people are worthy of being on the bench when in fact they are more worthy than many of the nominees we approved for them in the 8 years of the Clinton administration.

I will be happy to.

She was born a sharecropper's daughter. This woman had it rough all the days of her life. She put herself through college and law school as a single mother. She has worked in State government now for I think it is 26 years. And they are trying to say she is against government? My gosh, she has worked there and been supportive for I think 26 years. She is one of the best nominees I have ever seen.

If we had done to three woman nominees what they are doing to these three--Priscilla Owen, who broke through the glass ceiling, getting women a right to be partners in law firms; Carolyn Kuhl has the support of 100 of her fellow judges out there, Democrats and Republicans; Janice Rogers Brown, sharecropper's daughter, has risen to the top of the heap, who has fought her way all her life--if we had done this to any of their nominees they would be screaming about it right up to today. It is unbelievable they are trying to do this on these three women nominees. They want a regimented liberal approach to everything, and if it is not there, then they are out of the mainstream, according to them.

I think most people in this country are in the middle and, I think, the middle or moderate conservative. But, be that as it may, these are competent, qualified, well-qualified women, and they are treating them like dirt. I don't understand it, myself.

I will be delighted to.

Yes, the distinguished Senator makes a good point. She was elected by 76 percent of the vote. I would have to say, she wrote a majority of the majority opinions, and joined in some 73, if I recall correctly, unanimous opinions. In other words, she is not only in the mainstream, she is one of the best justices, State justices in the country. They are treating her like dirt. I don't understand that kind of treatment.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? It will only take a few seconds.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

I ask unanimous consent at 8:30 a.m. on Friday the Senate begin an hour of debate equally divided prior to the first cloture vote; further, that the last 20 minutes be equally divided, the first 10 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the last 10 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I appreciate our colleague's comments about the necessity of jobs. I agree with him. We are debating the third branch of Government, without which there wouldn't be any jobs for anybody, without which the Constitution wouldn't be alive today, without which we wouldn't have the freedoms we have.

In all this talk about jobs, I haven't heard any real ideas as to how we get more jobs. It is as though they think Republicans aren't concerned about jobs. Of course, we are. We are debating something that is equally important; in fact, over the long run, much more important than almost anything else we can debate. That is, are we going to have an honest, decent judiciary to uphold the Constitution?

I have seen this body and the other body pass unconstitutional legislation many times in my 27 years. I have seen Presidents act unconstitutionally a number of times in my 27 years, and before that. It has been the judiciary that has saved the Constitution. It has been the judiciary that has corrected matters. It has been the judiciary that has helped small business, where the jobs are. It has been the judiciary that has given justice to this country, that has protected Americans from criminals, that has done so much good for this country. That doesn't mean all judges are perfect or right. But by and large, it has worked very well. That is why we make these positions lifetime appointments, so they don't owe anything to anybody but the law.

Here we have a distortion for the first time in history, filibustering judges and phony, untrue charts of 168 to 4. Let me tell you, they wouldn't have allowed the 168 to go through had we not been fighting as hard as we could and forcing them to allow those judgeships to be brought up. We would have nowhere near 168.

With regard to the four, we are already up to six. We were there last night. We were there months ago when they indicated they were going to filibuster Janice Rogers Brown and Kuhl, in addition to the other four who have been mentioned. Then there are probably at least 13 others who I can name. There will be more, because there is an arrogance here, it seems to me, that goes beyond doing what is right for this country.

Very few things rise to the dignity of the importance of judges and getting a good Federal judiciary. I am for jobs like everybody else, but because they don't have any other arguments, that is why they are doing that.

I would be happy to listen to my colleagues on any suggestions they have with regard to jobs. Usually it is another big Federal program that literally doesn't create any jobs. It just creates another burden for taxpayers. That is what they think creates jobs.

I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Well, of course, she is subject to the same advice-and- consent rule of article II, section 2 of the Constitution, as are all of these Federal judges. But she deserves the dignity of an up-or-down vote.

The senior Senator has brought out she is an African-American woman who has come from nowhere, in a sense, a sharecropper's daughter, to being a justice on the California Supreme Court.

That is right.

I appreciate my dear colleague. But we will find out tomorrow that the other side is going to vote against cloture. They are filibustering this terrific African-American woman justice who has made it on her own throughout life, who wrote most of the majority opinions in the California State Supreme Court while joining unanimously with others in over seven cases just last year.

They have tried to paint her as though she is out of the mainstream. I would like to suggest who is out of the mainstream. It is a high percentage of those on the other side of the aisle who think that only the left has any ideas in this country. Because she is a conservative black woman and she is not monolithically in step with what they think black people ought to be, they are against her. If we did that to one of their nominees, the whole world would come down on us.

I do, too. I hope the Senator is right. But from what I have seen here, she is going to be filibustered right along with the rest of them.

I recognize the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and then I will come to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

That is my understanding.

Well, the Senator raises a good point. But not according to that side. It is out of the mainstream. Just think about it. The Senator is correct. Eighty-two percent of the people are for parental notification laws. Challenging the reasonableness of parental notification statutes lies somewhere between hard and impossible. That is why an overwhelming majority of Americans support those laws, including the parents of Holly Patterson. Holly was a young girl who died 7 days after taking RU-486, the abortion drug.

Her father learned about her abortion just hours before her tragic death. If there was a parental notification statute, Holly might still be alive today.

Parents do have some rights here. Most people acknowledge that. But that is one of the big reasons why our friends on the other side are against all three of these women nominees, I suppose. If there had been a parental notification statute, young Holly would be alive today.

It is ridiculous to criticize these two fine nominees for their opinions upholding parental notification statutes. Justice Brown's opinion on the parental consent statute is well within the legal mainstream. The U.S. Supreme Court has routinely found notification statutes constitutional.

So the Senator has raised a very important point. But that is considered out of the mainstream by our colleagues. Again, we know who is out of the mainstream. It certainly isn't Janice Rogers Brown.

I will just point to the side that is out of the mainstream. Yet they are trying to make everybody march in unison, in accordance with their liberal plan for America. That is not right. I turn to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

I would be delighted.

Absolutely true. By the way, one of the arguments that the side across the aisle from us is out of the mainstream again is over parental consent, a dissent that she had written, upholding the finder of fact in the lower court. The majority just ignored those facts and overruled the right of parents to consult with their daughter before the daughter had an abortion.

She is not out of the mainstream. Guess who is out of the mainstream? I thank the Senator.

That is correct. These are people who know her or who have worked with Justice Owen on the Texas Supreme Court. They are all Democrats. They are all partisan Democrats, by the way. They think she would make a fine judge on the circuit court of appeals.

Victor Schwartz is one of the law professors who wrote the book on torts. He is one of the most distinguished legal thinkers in the country. In fact, Professor Schwartz wrote:

Any characterization of Justice Owens as pro-plaintiff or

pro-defendant is untrue.

But we are getting used to that. The reason they are all talking about jobs, it is a political reason, of course. They are trying to get people to not pay attention to this debate. But the reason they are talking about jobs is because they don't have a good argument against Priscilla Owen, nor do they have one against Janice Rogers Brown, nor do they have a good argument

against Carolyn Kuhl. And three outstanding women who, if we treated three of their women justices like that or nominees like that, all hell would break loose.

In all honesty, Professor Schwartz said that just isn't true.

Not yet, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

The distinguished Senator from Texas knows that is true. That is not easy in the State of Texas. There are some very liberal newspapers down there that scrutinized every aspect of her life.

No question about it. She is a terrific person.

That is true. In fact, all three of them do.

Well, I think it is because she is not a liberal. That seems to be the only mainstream the other side is interested in. I cannot say she is all that conservative either. But the fact of the matter is, she is not a liberal Democrat. Here is a woman who has every credential in the world, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, who broke through the glass ceiling for women so women can now become partners in law firms, when that was tough to do. Here is a woman who has fought every day of her life to excel, who has excelled. Yet look how she is being treated, like she is ``outside of the mainstream.''

Since they don't have any real legal arguments, any real philosophical arguments--they don't have any real arguments, and that is why we are getting a filibuster on one of the best nominees I have seen. By the way, she got the highest rating from the not-conservative American Bar Association, which during the Clinton years was called the gold standard. If you got a ``qualified'' from the ABA and you were a Clinton nominee, that meant you were OK, you were in the mainstream.

Here is a woman with a ``well qualified,'' the highest rating from the ABA, and they are trying to say she is outside of the mainstream. That is just another misuse of terms because they don't have a real argument against her.

I cannot see a good reason. It is a mystery to me why our Democratic colleagues refuse an up-or-down vote. Like the distinguished Senator from Texas said--and I really admire the Senator from Texas, who is a lawyer, from the University of Texas, and the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Dole, who is a lawyer, who graduated from Harvard Law School. I think the other side ought to be listening to the two of you, especially with regard to an eminent woman jurist named Priscilla Owen, and another jurist named Janice Rogers Brown, and another one named Carolyn Kuhl.

To make a long story short, if they don't like these nominees, then vote them down. The reason they are stopping them is because all three of them have a majority of the Senate willing to vote for them. They are flying in the face of the advise and consent clause, refusing to give them the dignity of an up-or-down vote. I think women across this country ought to be outraged by it--liberal women, moderate women, and conservative women. It is a slap in the face to every one of them, the way these three women are being treated by the other side. I have heard for 27 years how much greater they are for women. Don't believe it. If they were, they would not be arguing against these wonderful women nominees. Don't believe that for one second. It is all politics.

The only reason they are talking about jobs, in all honesty, is because they don't have the arguments against these eminent women lawyers and judges. It is pathetic.

How much time is left?

I surely will.

No question about it. That 168 to 4 doesn't even begin to tell the story, because if it had been up to our colleagues on the other side, there would not be 168. We had to fight for every one of those people, and we had to fight hard fights. We had to force them to vote. They cannot vote against everybody. So there is not just four. We have already got six. We had to file cloture on Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown, which will be up tomorrow. I can name probably another 11 they are going to filibuster. So that is a blatant, outright lie.

Not one. Our side would not permit that because of the detriment to the Senate, the detriment to the Federal judiciary, the detriment to the Constitution, the detriment to just good reasoning. We didn't filibuster one.

That is right. Once they hit the floor, they have had a vote up or down. And 377 Clinton judges are serving in the Federal judiciary today because we had the decency to give them the dignity of votes up or down--something not being accorded our nominees.

It is 2,372.

That is right. Actually, it is more than that. We have two more tomorrow. That gets us up to six. Then probably there are another 11 I can name. I won't take the time to do that now. There hasn't been one filibuster by us. There have been cloture votes, but they were used for time management purposes to get us to a vote. In every case, the Clinton nominee got voted up, except for one.

I thank my colleague. The real number, for the past 11 Presidents of judicial nominees confirmed versus the filibustering they are doing, is 2,372 that were confirmed. None were filibustered, until President Bush became President. He is being treated wrongfully. It is unfair to him, unfair to these nominees. I like what the Senator said earlier. I think he said we gave a fair trial to 2,372--actually 168. We gave a fair trial to them and with regard to the four, we just hung them. That kind of shows in that one sense it is great to give a fair trial, but we are not giving a fair trial to these four. They are arguing it is all right for four because it is only four. Well, it is not all right if people are hung without a fair trial. They are certainly not getting a fair trial.

I surely will.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Let me just say that it is true.

I don't recognize the number. However, I do recognize the argument.

Let me answer the question, if I may.

May I please finish?

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

I have a question.

I object to that, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it has been a good debate. But I have noticed the folks on the other side of the aisle want to shut down the debate on judges because they don't have an argument. Jobs is where it seems their only argument is, and more Federal Government programs. In fact, they don't even have very good arguments there. It is ``increase the minimum wage.'' I am not sure it will create jobs. And ``re-up insurance,'' which certainly doesn't create more jobs.

On the other hand, I am not saying they are not compassionate. They are decent people wanting to do those things. But when you do not have any arguments against the judges we are talking about, then you change the subject. That is exactly what they have done.

If the distinguished Senator from Louisiana were here, I would ask her why she took the number 129 because, of course, that is a number of confirmed judges that were left off her chart. We have had distortions of the facts. We have had distortions of the statistics. You can prove anything with statistics if you want to manipulate them. There are 129 judges left off that chart she was showing. We confirmed 377 Clinton judges--not 248. If you want to be factual, be factual. Don't distort the facts.

I was a little surprised that now at the 29th hour of debate an awful lot of Democrats come on the floor without any arguments that are really valid against these nominees we are talking about. They are changing the subject because their arguments don't hold water.

As for Democrat claims that they have been blocking only the most extreme Bush judicial nominees, let us look at the facts.

Priscilla Owen won 84 percent of the vote in her last election for the Texas Supreme Court. Bill Pryor won 58 percent in his last election for the Alabama attorney general's position. Janice Rogers Brown won 76 percent in her last election for the California Supreme Court. And Charles Pickering was confirmed to the Federal district court in 1998 by this body by unanimous vote. Yet he has been treated like dirt. You wonder why people in the South are getting sick of it.

By the way, the unanimous consent vote included the support of 24 of the Democrats currently in the Senate, 23 of whom now refuse to give him the dignity of an up-or-down vote. Why? Because they know he would be confirmed.

These nominees are hardly extremists as painted by the other side who claim that is what they are talking about. Give me a break.

Let us look at this a little differently. What is more extreme? Receiving 84 percent of the votes in Texas, the second most populous State in the Nation, as Judge Priscilla Owen did in her last election? They are filibustering a qualified nominee for the Fifth Circuit for the first time in American history. That is what they are doing, without any real arguments against her. They don't have any. They do not have the facts on their side so they change the subject.

I think jobs are important. I will tell you, there will not be any jobs in this country if we lose our freedoms because we don't have the Federal courts staffed by competent and decent judges.

I would be happy to yield.

We are not going to let these people through.

Absolutely right. In every case it was Democrats who led the filibuster. In every case, including this one. It is not the truth.

Janice Rogers Brown, 76 percent of the vote, State of California Supreme Court; Priscilla Owen, 84 percent; William Pryor, 59 percent of the vote.

What is more extreme, receiving 76 percent of the vote in California, the most populous State in the Nation, as Janice Rogers Brown did in her last election to the California Supreme Court--filibustering a brilliant nominee to the DC Circuit, the Nation's second highest court? If Justice Brown is so extreme and leftwing, California voters certainly would have recalled her, but they didn't. Three-quarters of them voted to keep her on the bench.

By the way, the late Justice Stanley Mosk on the California Supreme Court was the California Supreme Court's well-known liberal voice for decades. In that same election, she got 76 percent. He only got 68 percent of the vote in the last retention election.

Does anyone want to guess whether the Senate Democrats would call him more extreme than Justice Brown in left-leaning California if he were up for the District of Columbia Court? Of course not. He would be in the mainstream.

Once more, extreme--receiving 59 percent of the votes in Alabama, as Bill Pryor did in his 2002 election to the office of attorney general of that State. They are filibustering a nominee with broad bipartisan support across the Eleventh Circuit for a judicial emergency vacancy on that appellate court. In each of these cases, these unprecedented filibusters of qualified nominees to the appellate courts are undoubtedly extreme.

There is extreme action by our colleagues on the other side. There is nothing else you could call it. It is demeaning to this body. I don't care how excited someone gets on the other side. Sooner or later they run out of arguments and start talking about jobs because they have to change the subject and hopefully get the American people off of the importance of putting people on the Federal bench.

The Senator brings up a very important point. Every one of those unjust filibusters was conducted by Democrats. It was the Republicans who basically pushed through the civil rights law, along with some good Democrats as well. I want to make sure credit is given on both sides.

The fact is, the leaders of those filibusters were Democrats. But in this case, 168 to 4, virtually all Democrats--not all. I know one or two who do not believe filibustering should be done to the judges. But all the rest of them are leading this unjust filibuster.

Yes, I would.

That is right. Frankly, yes. It is as important as these four and tomorrow's six. Next week, who knows how many nominees are being filibustered. It is demeaning to the Senate. It is detrimental to the country. It is detrimental to the judiciary. It is unfair to the President. It is unfair to these qualified nominees who have been rated so highly by the ABA--their gold standard, by the way, during the Clinton years. If you got a qualified rating from the ABA, that is all you needed, you should be confirmed. We did confirm 377 of them, the second highest total number of confirmations in the history of this country--Bill Clinton's judges. We did it because we were fair. We didn't filibuster those judges. Every one of them got a vote. It was 377 to 0. We didn't filibuster them.

For all I have heard from the other side--I heard some of the emotional remarks--I was the one, along with Senator Lott, who made sure we didn't filibuster their nominees. I don't think they are in a position to criticize me.

By the way, in the past, there were 11 Presidents' judicial nominees confirmed versus those who were filibustered, the past 11 is when the filibuster rule came into being in the current filibuster rule. We can go all the way back to the beginning of this country 214 years ago. We have never had a filibuster before these folks on the other side have been doing it this year, 2,372 judges have been confirmed to zero filibustered.

The history of the successful Senate filibuster, from July 4, 1789, to March 6, 2003, there is no question about the successful or unsuccessful because there were not any until March 6, 2003. March 2, to the present, we have had four so far as successful filibusters. We are apparently going to have two more tomorrow even though all six of these folks would win an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

One of the Senators said we are going to vote on these judges tomorrow. No, we are not going to vote on the judges. We will be voting granting the right to vote on these judges. Since only 41 Senators are necessary on this side to stop us from granting that right for these judges to have an up-or-down vote, there will be six of them tomorrow. I suppose when we go down the line there will be as many at 17.

Let me make a couple of other points that I think are important. Look at three of the President's nominees who have been accused by the Democrats of being out of the mainstream. They don't look to me like outside the mainstream. They have received overwhelming support in each of their home States. Apparently, these are not only a majority of the Members of the Senate outside the mainstream who support them but a vast majority of the citizens of California, Texas, and Alabama are all outside the mainstream, too, I guess.

Democrats seem very fond of their 268-to-4 chart and believe this number 168 of President Bush's judges who have been confirmed since he took office will distract people from the important fact that the Democrats have filibustered four appellate nominees, Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Charles Pickering, and now Janice Rogers Brown and Carolyn Kuhl for the first time in American history.

The point is that no raw number of confirmations means anything in and of itself while these unprecedented filibusters continue. While the number of filibusters as of today stands at four, Senate Democrats are virtually certain to add others to the list, including Janice Rogers Brown nominated to the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Carolyn Kuhl nominated to the Ninth Circuit. That makes a total of six.

There are other filibuster targets on the horizon, a Fourth Circuit nominee Claude Allen and Terrence Boyle, North Carolina District Court nominee, James Dever and Bob Conrad. They are also potential for filibuster. These are just some of them who we have already been told will be filibustered.

That figure is extremely misleading, all the while more vacancies in our Federal courts continue to be classified as judicial emergencies.

I would be happy to yield.

The President has nominated 209 judges; 168 have been approved. So 20 percent of his nominations have not made it.

I don't know. I knew what the distinguished Senator from Louisiana was driving at. Again, a distortion of the facts.

That is right.

This chart is just the beginning of what they intend to do to the Federal judiciary. Democrats have also implied that it is just fine to prevent an up-or-down vote on at least these four nominees because we blocked 60 or so of President Clinton's nominees. That is extremely misleading. I think their number is 63.

Let me briefly break that down. First, 18 of those nominees were withdrawn by Clinton himself--18 of them. Second, 25 of these nominees were either nominated after the August 2000 recess, do not have home- State support because the Clinton administration did not consult at all with the relevant Senators, or there were confidential investigative reasons that prevented the nominations from moving forward. At most, there were about two Clinton nominees who the Republican Senate did not confirm.

The numbers are even more stark. If you look at the difference between 168 and 209, you can see that it is about the same. The numbers are even more stark when you compare the number of nominees left hanging at the end of the first Bush administration by Senate Democrats with the number of Clinton nominees awaiting confirmation at the end of the Clinton administration.

Let me refer to this chart. There were 54 judicial nominations not confirmed at the end of Bush 1. That is when the Democrats controlled the Senate. Fifty-four of the first President Bush's nominees were unconfirmed at the end of 1992.

In contrast, at the end of the Clinton administration, only 41 nominees remained unconfirmed. But 9 of those were put up so late there was no way we could have confirmed them. There were really only 32.

At almost the end of the Presidencies you have that or more who just can't get through the system. Looking at that, according to the Senate Democrats, they don't even deserve the dignity of an up-or-down vote. Contrast this with the prior 3 Presidents' confirmations for their first 11 circuit nominees.

In every case, less than 100 days, Senate Democrats in the 107th and 108th Congress have been the most obstructionist of the President's judicial nominees in recent U.S. history. It is that simple. Confirmation times for the first 11 circuit nominees, Reagan-Bush, it was one. George Bush, look at how much that has gone up, and it is growing. This President is not being treated fairly. Neither are his nominees.

Furthermore, there are more Federal appellate vacancies today, 18, during President Bush's third year in office, than there were at the end of former President Clinton's second year in office, where there were 15. Over half of President Bush's appeals court nominees in this Congress have not been confirmed. There are 41 total vacancies on the Federal district and appellate benches, 22 of which are classified as judicial emergencies by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. A staggering 67 percent of the vacant appeals court slots are judicial emergencies.

There is a different scorecard that I find more significant. That is the 377 to

zero. President Clinton, with 6 years of a Republican Senate after 1994, had 377 of his judicial nominees confirmed without a single filibuster by Republicans, even though Republicans had to swallow hard on a lot of them. Only President Reagan, with 382, had more of his judges confirmed, 5 more than President Clinton. But Reagan had 6 years of a Republican Senate to help him. Clinton only had 2 years of a Democrat Senate. Yet he came out with almost the same number as Ronald Reagan. He was treated fairly. Clinton is No. 2 in U.S. history, even though his opposition controlled the Senate for 75 percent of his term.

Just to give you a sense of how unprecedented Democrat current filibusters are, here is another scorecard we have talked about: 2,372 judges have been confirmed in the last 11 Presidents and zero were filibustered. The 11 Presidents that precede the current President Bush, back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, never had a judicial nominee filibustered and had 2,372 nominees confirmed. So these filibusters are empirically unprecedented.

How about this scorecard? Years since the Judiciary Act in 1789 that we have gone without filibustering judges until this President. Since the beginning of the year, beginning with Miguel Estrada, there have been four, and there will no doubt be two more tomorrow. How many more? Up 10 percent, 15, 17? Up to 10 percent as Senator Schumer suggested last week in the Judiciary Committee? If there is some filibuster percentage the Democrats have in mind, what is it? The majority of the Senate and President Bush would really like to know. I think the American people would really like to know, too.

One final word on the Democrat scorecard. Even one filibuster of a judicial nominee is too many, because every judicial nominee who reaches the Senate floor should be afforded the dignity of an up-or- down vote. We owe our third branch of government no less. By way of analogy, would it be acceptable to enforce all but four of our criminal laws? Would it be acceptable to defend all but four of the constitutional amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights? Of course not. It is no more acceptable to allow up-or-down votes on all but four and counting of the President's judicial nominees. Vote them up or vote them down. But just vote. That is all we are asking.

The Democrats have a right to consent. They have a right to advise. If they don't want to give their consent, then they have a right to vote against any of these nominees. That I will find no fault with. I might disagree, but they have a right to do that. What they don't have a right to do is to subvert the Constitution for the first time in history and allow 41 Senators to prevent an up-or-down vote of these judicial nominees.

The distinguished Senator from Minnesota, with his chart on the terribly wrong filibusters, brought out a very good point. I don't want to compare rankings or anything, but this one is just as important as the others because without a good Federal judiciary, our civil rights would not be enforced. Explain the chart one more time, because I think people need to hear it. But in all four of those, those filibusters were conducted by Democrats, and every one of them was wrong, especially this 168 to 4 we are going through right now, but especially the other three as well.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator is absolutely correct. Here we have a situation where we have a terrific African-American justice on the California Supreme Court who won 76 percent of the vote, who came from nowhere to somewhere, who fought her way throughout life to be what she is, who has ruled in favor of plaintiffs, civil rights claimants, the poor, the disadvantaged throughout her career, who is being treated in this shabby fashion with a filibuster.

That is right. And let me just say this: Filibusters are not the only means the Democrats are using to obstruct. During the 3 years of the Bush administration, the Senate has taken 108 rollcall votes on judicial nominees at Democrats' insistence. Eighty-seven percent of these votes have been unanimous, 87 percent, calling into question why we needed these rollcall votes at all. Contrast that to 8 years of the Clinton administration during which the Senate took only 46 rollcall votes out of 377 judges, only 39 percent of which were unanimous. Couldn't we have been passing appropriations bills or creating jobs instead of wasting the time on unanimous votes?

Look at this chart. Clinton, 18 votes, 2.25 average votes per year, 486 minutes were consumed, 8.1 hours, 61 average minutes per year; Bush, 104 votes, 34.7 average votes, these are unanimous rollcall votes, 34.7 average votes per year, 2,808 minutes were consumed, 46.8 hours, 939 average minutes per year. In this body that is delay, obstruction, complete shutdown of the body while we have these votes everybody knows will be unanimous. It is just another illustration of how far they have gone to obstruct on these judges.

Finally, who is wasting time? Unanimous rollcall votes on judges, compare Clinton; we didn't require rollcall votes on unanimously to-be- approved judges. Look what they have done to the Bush administration. This President is being treated very unfairly.

When you hear them talking about jobs, look, I am as interested in jobs, and so is every other Republican, as they are. The only reason jobs is coming up is because they know they can't handle the criticisms that are coming their way for the way they are treating these judicial nominees. They just can't. They can distort the facts. They can distort the statistics. They can distort the record. But they really can't justify what they are doing.

Again, go back to your chart, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. Every one of those unjust filibusters that took away rights from people and kept people enslaved to a large degree, every one was led by Democrats.

Mr. President, let me personally express gratitude and thanks to Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, Senator Norman Coleman of Minnesota, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, all of whom stayed here all night last night to make the points they have made. I personally appreciate it.

Senator Graham asked me to take time to read the full quote of Senator Leahy that he was not given the benefit of. Senator Leahy said he was misquoted, so I will read the full quote: This is Senator Leahy in the Congressional Record of June 18, 1998, regarding delays in Senate action on judicial nominations:

I have stated over and over again on this floor that I

would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I

would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge,

whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt

the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the

President nominates, vote him or her down.

Now, that is the correct full statement by the distinguished ranking member of the committee. Senator Graham wanted me to make sure that the full statement was put in.

What is involved here is whether or not we are going to abide by the Constitution because the Constitution is pretty clear on this subject of advice and consent. This little book right here contains the Constitution of the United States. In article II, section 2, clause 2, speaking of the President, it says this:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of

the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the

Senators present concur, and he shall nominate, and by and

with the Advice and Consent of the Senate--

It goes on to say appoint judges. Now, that is what the Constitution says. The Founding Fathers knew what a supermajority vote was. They put that requirement in here, where it was necessary for treaties. It is very clear to anybody who reads it, and I think any constitutional scholar, that advice and consent means a vote up or down, a majority vote up or down.

During the Clinton years, when Democrats were afraid the Republicans were going to filibuster their nominees, Democrat after Democrat got up and said we should not filibuster, vote up or down one way or another. If my colleagues do not like a judge, vote against him or her. A lot of those

quotes have been put in the record during this 40-hour debate. The fact is, when push comes to shove, when it becomes to their political advantage to stop people on the floor of the Senate, they start filibustering.

This business of one-man filibusters, that is pure bunk. The fact is, everybody who came to the floor got a vote up or down. Now, there were a few on our side who wanted to filibuster some of those judges because they were so liberal, but I personally stood up in our conference and in our caucuses, as did Senator Lott, who was then the majority leader, and said that is not going to happen because that is constitutionally unsound. Plus, it is not right.

But it has happened, as our colleagues on the other side have not been able to stop themselves from taking political advantage.

Why are they doing this against these six people? I get a kick out of the use of 168 to 4. Today it is 6. What will it be tomorrow? I can tell my colleagues the number is going to go up continuously because they do not want anybody on these circuit courts of appeals who may be pro-life. That is what this is all about. It is about abortion. Otherwise, how could anyone find one fault with Priscilla Owen? I do not even know what her position is on abortion. I know that question is not asked by the White House or by us. I do not know what her position is.

What fault can my colleagues find with a woman who was No. 1 on the bar exam in that State and who broke through the glass ceiling for women? Now, women are partners in law firms, where before they could not get secretarial jobs half the time. It was terrible what women went through. She was one of the people who broke through that problem. She won 84 percent of the vote in Texas, which is not particularly a Republican State, although it is fast becoming one looking at what is going on up here, just like Alabama is becoming a Republican State when they see the injustice and unfairness going on here.

Priscilla Owen won 84 percent of the vote; every newspaper in that State ran editorials supporting her, and yet she is being treated like dirt here. Why? Because in a dissent she would have upheld the rights of a parent to have notification that those parents' child was about to have an abortion. Eighty-two percent of the American people believe that is the right thing to do. She was merely evaluating whether the lower court finder of fact in that parental notification case had made an error, and he hadn't, so she thought that the factfinding judge ought to be upheld. What is wrong with that?

Going to Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown won 76 percent of the vote in her reelection, more than the leading liberal then on the California Supreme Court, Stanley Mosk. Mosk was a liberal voice on the court. He got 68 percent. Janice Brown got 76 percent. Now, I know if this was reversed and Mosk was the one who was nominated by a Democrat President, the Democrats would be arguing that he got 68 percent of the vote and that we should just confirm him. And we, as Republicans, probably would if we concluded that he was competent, had a good temperament, was intelligent enough to do the job, was honest and a person of integrity, even though we disagree with him on many issues.

My contention is that the fact that a person may be pro-life is irrelevant, or the fact that a person is pro-choice is irrelevant if that person is otherwise qualified for these Federal judgeships. If we get to the point where we stop people because of one litmus test issue, Katie bar the door, it is going to politicize the Federal judiciary in a way that never should happen.

Janice Rogers Brown is the justice who wrote a majority of the majority opinions last year in the California Supreme Court. She also joined in unanimous opinions, I think around 73 times. There is no question she is in the mainstream. That just has become a bad redefining of terms by our friends on the other side. Since they do not have any real arguments against these people, they will say, well, they are outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Well, that is just pure bunk and everybody knows it.

What about Carolyn Kuhl? Carolyn Kuhl has 100 of her fellow judges on the California Superior Court, Democrats and Republicans, vociferously supporting her as somebody who would make an excellent judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a tremendous imbalance. Senator Schumer is constantly talking about imbalance, that we should balance up the courts, liberals and conservatives being equal. Well, there are 17 Clinton and Carter nominees and judges on the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe there may be eight judges on that court nominated by Republican Presidents.

If that is the case, if they really want balance, why oppose even voting on Carolyn Kuhl, one of the leading scholars in America? What do they hold against her? When she was a 28-year-old, a junior lawyer in the Department of Justice, doing the bidding of the then-President, Ronald Reagan, she actually helped write some of the briefs which she would do in the normal course of events--anyone would do, even if you do not agree, because that is your job--on some issues that our friends on the other side do not appreciate. Again, it comes down to abortion.

I was talking to one of the leading civil rights ministers who during the 1960s was threatened every day. He was head of the ACLU in Mississippi, a liberal Democrat who has been in some of the Democrats' meetings, during which they've plotted their mistreatment of the President's nominees. He said to me: Senator Hatch, you are absolutely right--he is pro-choice, by the way, but he sees the injustice of this as he came out in support of the judge. He said: Senator Hatch, you are absolutely right, this is all about abortion.

We do not know where these nominees stand on abortion, at least I don't. I have had discussions with all three of them and never asked the question. Whether pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant if they are otherwise qualified to serve on the courts.

What is being done to these three women we are going to vote on today? We are not voting on their right to be a judge, we are voting on cloture, on the right to go forward and have a vote up and down on these judges. For the first time in history, the absolute first time in history, we now have filibusters against six incredibly qualified, well qualified candidates.

During the 8 years of the Clinton administration, time after time, the Democrats would say: We have a person who is qualified by the American Bar Association. That is the gold standard, the American gold standard. The imprimatur of the American Bar Association, that is all it takes. 377 Clinton nominees got through; one was rejected by a majority vote on the Senate floor. 377. Amazing how the statistics are distorting. This talk about 168--that was a hard fought battle on most of them. It was not at all simple to get them through. Democrats have politicized everything around here with regard to the judiciary. I would like to end that by having votes up and down on all judicial nominees.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am highly offended, and I think anybody who is fairminded would be highly offended by this one-sided, partisan attack on Judge Kuhl, and bringing up that particular case because everybody knows that case was settled by the woman's doctor, the one who was at fault. And, frankly, that was hitting below the belt.

Carolyn Kuhl, she is a pioneer for women: cum laude graduate of Princeton University; Duke University Law School: Order of the Coif; law clerk to then-Judge Anthony Kennedy of the Ninth Circuit.

She worked at the Department of Justice: Special assistant to the Attorney General; Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Deputy Solicitor General.

She was 28 years old when she was asked to work on the Bob Jones case. I think it is slanderous to say that Republicans support Bob Jones University's attitudes about race. Give me a break. Nobody on this side does, and neither did she. The case she worked on was a tax issue, and she had an obligation to work with her senior people in the Department. She was very junior at the time. And, frankly, they had a reasonable argument about a certain IRS tax exemption relevant to private universities.

She was a partner in the Los Angeles firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of the best law firms in the country. She is the first female supervising judge of the Civil Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

This is a woman of tremendous abilities. They pick one case out of the hundreds or thousands she has heard and tried, and then distort that case. It drives you nuts around here.

``Both Democrats and Republicans . . . step up to the plate to support [Judge] Kuhl.'' This is Vilma Martinez--not known for conservative politics, by the way--who is one of the top leaders in the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Foundation, if I recall it correctly. In the Daily Journal this is what Vilma Martinez had to say:

[Judge Kuhl] stepped up to the plate. She wrote letters,

made phone calls and exhorted her fellow Republicans to

confirm [Judge] Paez and other Clinton nominees.

Judge Paez was a very controversial nominee. I know. I had to work it through to even give him a chance. But he got a vote up and down. And, unfortunately, some of my colleagues who were against him were right. He has become a very activist judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, just stepping right in and becoming a member of the leftist majority on that court.

Vilma Martinez, this Hispanic-American leader, says:

[Judge Kuhl's efforts are] characteristic of her sense of

fairness and respect for an independent judiciary.

She goes on to say:

[M]any of the groups that support Judge Paez, ironically,

have turned their fire on Judge Kuhl, apparently to exact

payback against Senate Republicans.

If you listen to those arguments, it is easy to conclude that.

Then, in the bottom paragraph, Vilma Martinez says this--and Vilma Martinez is a Democrat, not a Republican--she says:

This turnabout is not fair play. It is the continuation of

a vicious cycle that punishes worthy judicial candidates in a

misguided effort to use the judiciary to further narrow

political ends.

That is the type of stuff we are dealing with around here: distortions, distortions of the facts, maligning absolutely qualified people. Look at this. Carolyn Kuhl has the support of pro-choice women. Anne Egerton, judge on the LA Superior Court:

I understand that some have raised concerns about Judge

Kuhl's commitment to gender equality and reproductive rights.

I do not share those concerns. . . . I have been a registered

Democrat for thirty years, and I have supported--financially

and otherwise--[Senator Feinstein], Senator Boxer, and other

Democratic legislators and candidates. I have no

reservations in recommending Judge Carolyn Kuhl . . . for

appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Take Gretchen Nelson, pro-choice Democrat, plaintiff's attorney. On February 14 she had this to say:

I am opposed to the appointment of any judicial nominee who

is incapable of ruling based upon a considered and impartial

analysis of all of the facts and legal issues presented in

any manner. Judge Kuhl is not such a nominee and she is well-

deserving of appointment to the Ninth Circuit.

Let's quit slandering these people. Let's quit distorting the facts. All because you think they might be pro-life.

My gosh, look at the women judges who support Judge Kuhl's confirmation. A bipartisan group of 23 women judges at the Los Angeles Superior Court, on February 22, said this:

Judge Kuhl approaches her job with respect for the law and

not a political agenda. Judge Kuhl has been a mentor to new

women judges. . . . She has helped promote the careers of

women, both Republican and Democrat. . . . As sitting Judges,

we more than anyone appreciate the importance of an

independent, fair-minded and principled judiciary. We believe

that Carolyn Kuhl represents the best values of such a

judiciary.

Let's get this out of this totally slanderous political debate and start talking about the real facts.

Democrats on this Floor have tried to confuse the issue, to pretend that what they are doing is no different than what happened to some of President Clinton's nominees. But they are dead wrong. They are comparing apples to oranges. They are different. We did not filibuster a single Clinton nominee who had majority support. Once on the floor, all of them received up or down votes. 377 confirmed for Clinton. Despite the Democrats, not because of them, we have confirmed 168 Bush nominees.

One Senator went so far as to call the four filibustered nominees, as of yesterday, lemons, if you can believe it, when all of them have well qualified ratings from the American Bar Association.

Look at the facts. President Bush has had 29 circuit court of appeals nominees confirmed, but another 12 of them, at least, are facing filibusters. I believe that number is really higher, about 17. It is an amazing, unprecedented series of filibusters of appellate nominees, what we are going through, and there are more to come.

Let me get the last chart up there. The real facts are that since we have had the filibuster rule, since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we have had 2,372 judges confirmed and zero filibustered--until now.

Now, it is one thing to filibuster, it is another thing to slander these people. I have seen so much of that over the last 2 or 3 years that I am just sick of it. I am just sick of it.

Let's give these people votes up and down. The reason they will not is they know there are enough good-thinking people in this Senate on both sides who would--for all of these six people who are being filibustered--confirm them on a bipartisan majority.

So a tyrannical minority--which is in so many ways slandering these people, these honest, decent, good people--is preventing votes up and down on judicial nominees for the first time in the history of this country.

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

I yield it to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Biden and Grassley, ``The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.'' This bill is a forward-looking measure which will strengthen the Office of National Drug Control Policy as we face the new challenges posed by illegal drugs.

I want to thank my colleagues Senators Biden and Grassley for working with me to draft this important legislation. Senator Biden has a long and impressive record in addressing the problem of illegal drugs. He is considered the father of ONDCP. He had the vision, the commitment, and the dedication to make it a reality. I thank him again for his work on this proposal that we are introducing today.

I also want to thank Senator Grassley for his work on this important legislation. Senator Grassley has been a tireless advocate in fighting illegal drugs. As the chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley has demonstrated leadership and commitment in addressing issues relating to domestic and international drug trafficking.

The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today reauthorizes ONDCP for 5 years and provides ONDCP with the necessary tools and resources to: Develop national drug control policy; coordinate and oversee the implementation of the national drug control policy; assess and certify the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget for those programs; evaluate the effectiveness of National Drug Control Program agencies' programs; and develop specific goals and performance measurements needed to assess the effectiveness of the national drug control policy and the programs of the national drug control program agencies.

The legislation includes a number of reforms which will enhance ONDCP's ability to serve as the coordinator of Federal, State, and local policies aimed at reducing the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs. The bill: 1. expands ONDCP's role and authority in overseeing the performance of federal agencies' drug control programs, and requires ONDCP to develop specific goals and measurements to assess the performance of Federal agencies; 2. requires ONDCP to develop a new performance measurement system which includes annual and 5-year objectives for assessing the National Drug Control Strategy; 3. expands and increases authorized funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program designed to reduce illegal Drug trafficking and drug production activities in designated areas; 4. creates a new emerging threat fund for ONDCP to allocated to individual HIDTAs to respond to emerging drug trafficking threats in specific HIDTAs; 5. improves the Counter-Drug Technology Transfer program to provide increased technologies for State and local law enforcement agencies, and reforms the program to ensure timely delivery of such technologies; and 6. reauthorizes and enacts reforms to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to ensure responsible use of Federal funds used to support the campaign.

I want to take a moment to address several specific issues. First, I am a strong supporter of the HIDTA program. The HIDTA program brings together Federal, State, and local law enforcement, promotes intelligence sharing among these law enforcement agencies, and ensures coordinated and effective law enforcement strategies. The HIDTA program has proven successful, and is even more important today because of the FBI's need to reallocate resources from drug enforcement to terrorism. Given this reality, it is critical that we support the HIDTA program as an important resource in the fight against illegal drug traffickers.

Second, I want to express my continued support for the National Youth Anti-Drug Medical Campaign. While I know the campaign has suffered from some management problems in the last few years, I am confident that the campaign is on the right track. I want to commend ONDCP Director John Walters and The Partnership for a Drug-Free America President Roy Bostock

for their commitment to working together, and for the steps they have taken to ensure that the campaign operates effectively.

The legislation includes specific reforms which will support the campaign and make sure that it operates in a cost-effective manner. Specifically, the bill: 1. Delineates the specific roles and responsibilities of ONDCP, the Partnership and a media buying contractor; 2. restricts the use of funds for creative development of advertisements, except for advertisements intended to reach a minority, ethnic or other special audience that cannot be otherwise obtained from the Partnership; 3. requires the Director to obtain no-cost matches of advertising broadcast times, print space or in-kind contributions which directly relate to substance abuse prevention and specially promote the purposes of the campaign; 4. disqualifies any corporation, partnership or individual from bidding on a media buying contract if such entity, within the last 10 years, in connection with the national media campaign has been convicted of any Federal criminal offense, subject to any Federal civil judgment or penalty in a civil proceeding involving the United States; or settled any Federal civil proceeding or potential proceeding; and 5. provides financial and performance accountability requirements for the campaign.

I also wanted to highlight title VII of the bill--Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment. These provisions, which Senators Biden, Grassley, Leahy and I authored in the 107th Congress as part of S. 304, provide much-needed education, prevention and treatment resources which are so critical to reducing the demand for illegal drugs. As I have said before, our national drug strategy must embrace a comprehensive policy that reduces the demand for, as well as the supply of, drugs. To reduce the demand for drugs, we must redouble our efforts at prevention and treatment. This Nation's battle with substance abuse can be successful only through a balanced approach--one that supports law enforcement but at the same time promotes education, prevention and treatment.

Title VII of the bill includes a proposal to establish residential drug treatment facilities for drug-addicted women who have young children. Such facilities are in short supply in this the country, and the problem has grown worse with an ever increasing number of women with children who are abusing drugs.

Treatment is even more imperative for our troubled juveniles, the vast majority of whom will go on to lead productive lives if we can just break the addiction cycle. This bill provides substantial resources to States for juvenile residential treatment facilities and to Federal, State, and local agencies and private service providers to coordinate the delivery of mental health and substance abuse services to children at risk.

Finally, the bill eliminates a restriction in the Controlled Substances Act and will permit medical practitioners to provide drug addiction treatment in group practices. This provision will expand treatment options for thousands of patients who have been denied access to critical addiction treatments.

The proposed legislation we are introducing today will ensure that Congress provides the required oversight--and support of--ONDCP as it continues its critical role of coordinating our National Drug Control Strategy to ensure that we reduce the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Biden and Grassley, ``The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.'' This bill is a forward-looking measure which will strengthen the Office of National Drug Control Policy as we face the new challenges posed by illegal drugs.

I want to thank my colleagues Senators Biden and Grassley for working with me to draft this important legislation. Senator Biden has a long and impressive record in addressing the problem of illegal drugs. He is considered the father of ONDCP. He had the vision, the commitment, and the dedication to make it a reality. I thank him again for his work on this proposal that we are introducing today.

I also want to thank Senator Grassley for his work on this important legislation. Senator Grassley has been a tireless advocate in fighting illegal drugs. As the chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley has demonstrated leadership and commitment in addressing issues relating to domestic and international drug trafficking.

The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today reauthorizes ONDCP for 5 years and provides ONDCP with the necessary tools and resources to: Develop national drug control policy; coordinate and oversee the implementation of the national drug control policy; assess and certify the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget for those programs; evaluate the effectiveness of National Drug Control Program agencies' programs; and develop specific goals and performance measurements needed to assess the effectiveness of the national drug control policy and the programs of the national drug control program agencies.

The legislation includes a number of reforms which will enhance ONDCP's ability to serve as the coordinator of Federal, State, and local policies aimed at reducing the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs. The bill: 1. expands ONDCP's role and authority in overseeing the performance of federal agencies' drug control programs, and requires ONDCP to develop specific goals and measurements to assess the performance of Federal agencies; 2. requires ONDCP to develop a new performance measurement system which includes annual and 5-year objectives for assessing the National Drug Control Strategy; 3. expands and increases authorized funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program designed to reduce illegal Drug trafficking and drug production activities in designated areas; 4. creates a new emerging threat fund for ONDCP to allocated to individual HIDTAs to respond to emerging drug trafficking threats in specific HIDTAs; 5. improves the Counter-Drug Technology Transfer program to provide increased technologies for State and local law enforcement agencies, and reforms the program to ensure timely delivery of such technologies; and 6. reauthorizes and enacts reforms to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to ensure responsible use of Federal funds used to support the campaign.

I want to take a moment to address several specific issues. First, I am a strong supporter of the HIDTA program. The HIDTA program brings together Federal, State, and local law enforcement, promotes intelligence sharing among these law enforcement agencies, and ensures coordinated and effective law enforcement strategies. The HIDTA program has proven successful, and is even more important today because of the FBI's need to reallocate resources from drug enforcement to terrorism. Given this reality, it is critical that we support the HIDTA program as an important resource in the fight against illegal drug traffickers.

Second, I want to express my continued support for the National Youth Anti-Drug Medical Campaign. While I know the campaign has suffered from some management problems in the last few years, I am confident that the campaign is on the right track. I want to commend ONDCP Director John Walters and The Partnership for a Drug-Free America President Roy Bostock

for their commitment to working together, and for the steps they have taken to ensure that the campaign operates effectively.

The legislation includes specific reforms which will support the campaign and make sure that it operates in a cost-effective manner. Specifically, the bill: 1. Delineates the specific roles and responsibilities of ONDCP, the Partnership and a media buying contractor; 2. restricts the use of funds for creative development of advertisements, except for advertisements intended to reach a minority, ethnic or other special audience that cannot be otherwise obtained from the Partnership; 3. requires the Director to obtain no-cost matches of advertising broadcast times, print space or in-kind contributions which directly relate to substance abuse prevention and specially promote the purposes of the campaign; 4. disqualifies any corporation, partnership or individual from bidding on a media buying contract if such entity, within the last 10 years, in connection with the national media campaign has been convicted of any Federal criminal offense, subject to any Federal civil judgment or penalty in a civil proceeding involving the United States; or settled any Federal civil proceeding or potential proceeding; and 5. provides financial and performance accountability requirements for the campaign.

I also wanted to highlight title VII of the bill--Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment. These provisions, which Senators Biden, Grassley, Leahy and I authored in the 107th Congress as part of S. 304, provide much-needed education, prevention and treatment resources which are so critical to reducing the demand for illegal drugs. As I have said before, our national drug strategy must embrace a comprehensive policy that reduces the demand for, as well as the supply of, drugs. To reduce the demand for drugs, we must redouble our efforts at prevention and treatment. This Nation's battle with substance abuse can be successful only through a balanced approach--one that supports law enforcement but at the same time promotes education, prevention and treatment.

Title VII of the bill includes a proposal to establish residential drug treatment facilities for drug-addicted women who have young children. Such facilities are in short supply in this the country, and the problem has grown worse with an ever increasing number of women with children who are abusing drugs.

Treatment is even more imperative for our troubled juveniles, the vast majority of whom will go on to lead productive lives if we can just break the addiction cycle. This bill provides substantial resources to States for juvenile residential treatment facilities and to Federal, State, and local agencies and private service providers to coordinate the delivery of mental health and substance abuse services to children at risk.

Finally, the bill eliminates a restriction in the Controlled Substances Act and will permit medical practitioners to provide drug addiction treatment in group practices. This provision will expand treatment options for thousands of patients who have been denied access to critical addiction treatments.

The proposed legislation we are introducing today will ensure that Congress provides the required oversight--and support of--ONDCP as it continues its critical role of coordinating our National Drug Control Strategy to ensure that we reduce the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Ursula Williams, an intern with Senator Santorum's office, during consideration of this debate on judicial nominations.

Mr. President, I stand in support of the Syria Accountability Act, H.R. 1828, which the House of Representatives passed, 398-4, last month. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate bill, S. 982, introduced by my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Boxer, which has over 80 cosponsors as of today. Today, I support the amendment to H.R. 1828 submitted by my able colleague and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in coordination with Senators Santorum and Boxer. I commend my colleagues for their good work.

It is well within Congress's prerogative to write and implement sanctions, but the practice of doing so, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee knows so well, can raise important points about the overall constitutional prerogative of the executive in its right to conduct foreign policy. The amendment prepared by Senator Lugar, in cooperation with the original sponsors of the bill, preserves the prerogatives of both branches of government, and, at the same time, I believe, unifies and solidifies our nation's policy on the question of terrorism, and, in particular, Syria's contribution to peace, stability and progress in the Middle East.

Quite frankly, Syria has largely failed to contribute significantly to peace and stability in the Middle East, a stability that U.S. blood and treasure is now invested to achieve. We have watched the administration give Syria ample opportunities, since September 11, 2001, to make its contribution. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the administration flattered the Damascus dictatorship by giving it this time to join with the civilized world in unequivocally renouncing terrorism completely, as well as dismantling all manifestations of material and political support for terrorist organizations.

Some suggest that Syria has played a game of sitting on the fence, when it came to the war on terrorism. However, Mr. President, Syria was never on the fence. Syria is on the other side of the fence, with the other state sponsors of terrorism we have labeled as such since 1979. And today I will agree with what Secretary Powell told President Assad earlier this year: By refusing to cooperate, he was ``on the wrong side of history.''

Since 1979, Syria has appeared every year on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It has been so identified for its role in terrorist acts, as well as the support it gave--and continues to give, to this very day--to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that, to this very day, organize and commit acts of aggression or terrorism.

Throughout the 1990s, Syria played coy with U.S. administrations attempting to engage it in the Middle East peace process. Who can forget the scene of the long-suffering Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, waiting hours outside of Hafez Assad's office on his umpteenth visit, at the very same time Iranian weapons were being transferred to Hezbollah at the Damascus airport? Who can forget President Clinton's futile attempt in Geneva, near the end of his term and near the end of Assad's brutal life, to re-engage the

dictator in peace talks? On the question of peace or normal relations with Israel, in every aspect but the desire to reclaim territory for itself, Syria has most definitely been a rejectionist state.

There are persistent reports that Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons, including sarin and possibly also VX, which it could combine with one of the largest missile stockpiles in the Middle East. Coalition forces are not in Iraq to rid that former dictatorship of its weapons of destruction while we look the other way on similar weapons held by another Ba'athist regime. The era of that ideology of Arab oppression, along with the threat of weapons of mass destruction to maintain that oppression, is over.

Syria has not assisted us in our historic mission in Iraq. Joining the Security Council in unanimous approval of Resolution 1441, the Syrians were quick to denounce the threat and use of force to achieve the goals of the resolution. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our officials--from the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Defense--have publicly criticized Syria for its lack of cooperation. Syria's border has remained open to fleeing Ba'athist officials, and to international terrorists anxious to die fighting against Coalition forces. Our officials believe that Syria holds up to $3 billion of Saddam's ill-gotten loot, funds that the Governing Council could use for reconstruction, funds that would lessen the obligations we have undertaken in this body this week.

Syria invaded Lebanon more than a quarter-century ago, and maintains approximately 15,000 troops there to this day. Throughout this period, Syria has backed the Shi'ite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, an organization that has been tied to terrorism around the world. Twenty years ago, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed almost 300 U.S. Marines as they slept in their barracks in Beirut. Hezbollah continues to attack across borders, shelling Israel as late as last week. Nothing Hezbollah does is without Syrian sanction. The Middle East will not see peace, and the United States should not consider itself secure as long as Hezbollah, with its Syrian backers, exists.

So it is time to go to the source and sanction Syria. This bill outlines a series of goals and commensurate diplomatic and economic sanctions to apply to the Syrian regime. It maintains flexibility of policy choice for the administration, but it is clear in stating the Congress's intent, in resolve and policy, to further isolate the decrepit dictatorship in Damascus.

I do not know if this bill will motivate Damascus to cross the fence and join the anti-terror coalition of civilized nations. I suspect that to believe so would be pollyannaish. But I do believe that the way we act today will declare to the Damascus dictatorship that there are costs to being on the wrong side of the fence in the war on terror.

September 11, 2001 began a new era in U.S. foreign policy, and the President's policies since that watershed event have been based on clarity of vision. Against the threat of terrorism, which lurks and breeds in the shadows, we have responded with clarity of purpose. Against the traditional approaches of diplomacy, which balance nuance against process, we have demanded progress. Against previous approaches that part-time antagonism toward a mutual enemy should be rewarded with full-time tolerance of non-compliance with our stated goals, we say today: No longer.

President Assad will receive this message clearly. Perhaps Syria will modify its behavior. If it does not, Syria can join the list of rogue states who failed because they challenged the order of the civilized world.

The American public has read reports in the press about Syria's cooperation with us in identifying, in the months after September 11, members of Al-Qaida. I have read no where, nor have I heard any analyst argue, that such cooperation was because Syria was dedicated to our defense, or to our global war on terrorism. Since then, the American public has heard many members of the current administration express disappointment with Syria's behavior, and they have seen many reports of Syria's lack of cooperation. And one thing is clear in a democracy, Mr. President: Our foreign policy must have the support of the public.

I will always respect the President's foreign policy prerogative, and I have defended the executive's prerogative under Republican and Democratic administrations. I have supported ``quiet diplomacy'' for small results. But a diplomacy that produces invisible results is not quiet, it is silent. Today, I believe the members of the President's administration agree with me.

For the reasons I have stated here, this bill will pass overwhelmingly, as it did in the House of Representatives. We may consider this the Senate's contribution today to the war on global terrorism.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their excellent remarks for and on behalf of Attorney General Pryor who is one of the best nominees I have seen in a long time, a person of great character.

Today we will again vote for cloture on the nomination of William Pryor for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Denying undisputedly well-qualified nominees the up or down vote they deserve does not fulfill our Senatorial duties--it abdicates them. This filibuster not only damages our accountability to the people who elect us, but it erodes the credibility of the Senate itself.

Today, let me take a few moments to explain why every single Member of this body should vote to invoke cloture, and end debate, on the Pryor nomination so that he is afforded the dignity of an up-or-down vote that is all we are asking for.

Not even those most vigorously opposed to Bill Pryor's nomination contend that his record is insufficient. He has been a bold, vocal, and successful advocate for his state as Attorney General, an elected office in Alabama. Prior to and during his campaigns seeking re- election to the attorney general position in 1998 and 2002, he made his positions on the contentious issues of the day crystal clear--and he won his most recent election with almost 60 percent of the vote. Rarely has the Judiciary Committee reviewed such a full and unmistakably clear record for an appellate nominee; rarely has a nominee at his hearing been so honest, intelligent and forthright in his answers to every Senator's questions, even though he surely knew that his legal and policy positions on many, if not most, issues, clashed head-on with the positions of the liberal Democrats who questioned him.

The problem that those opposed to giving Bill Pryor an up-or-down vote in the Senate have is that they cannot credibly make any substantive arguments against him. So they oppose him based on what he has stated he personally believes. They cannot cast aspersions on his legal ability--the undisputed quality of his legal work as Attorney General of Alabama is reflected in several major cases in which Supreme Court majorities have agreed with his arguments. They cannot say he is only a one-party horse because so many Democrats, and many prominent African-American Democrats, in Alabama support him even though they disagree with him politically. They cannot really find anything substantive that might reflect poorly on his qualifications to sit on the federal bench.

Therefore, their accusations against General Pryor have relied on an all-too familiar script: he is a so-called states' rights fanatic; he is anti-environment; anti-disability rights; anti-women; opposes minority voting rights; and wants to turn America into a Christian theocracy. These sound bites are easy to make, but General Pryor's record speaks with far more authority than the fulminations against him. So his opponents attack his personal beliefs, even though in every instance in which a conflict between those beliefs and the law has arisen in Bill Pryor's career, he has unfailingly put the law first.

The most recent example is his response to Chief Justice Roy Moore's refusal to comply with the Federal injunction ordering removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court

building. General Pryor said, ``Although I believe the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and that they can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the U.S. Supreme Court building, I will not violate nor assist any person in the violation of this injunction. . . . We have a government of laws, not of men. I will exercise any authority provided to me, under Alabama law, to bring the State into compliance with the injunction of the federal court. . . .''

In fact, the committee received a letter from Justice Douglas Johnstone, the only Democrat on the Alabama Supreme Court, praising General Pryor's actions during this high-profile dispute in Alabama. He writes, ``General Pryor immediately offered us all appropriate support of his office and fostered public support by announcing publicly that the injunction was due to be obeyed in the absence of a stay. . . . Before the Monument crises, General Pryor's political prospects, irrespective of any federal appointment, were brighter than most I have observed in my decades in politics. Now he is as full of political bullet holes as Fearless Fosdick. My personal acquaintance with him and observation of him over his years in office satisfy me that he fully expected the damage but did his duty, and is doing his duty and a splendid job of it regardless of the consequences. I am endorsing General Pryor because over the years he has proven his honesty and intelligence. I do not pretend to agree with him on all issues. I would rather have the honesty and intelligence than the agreement.''

On the issue of abortion, General Pryor's record provides another example of his commitment to following the law even when it conflicts with his deeply held personal beliefs. After the Alabama legislature passed a partial-birth abortion ban in 1997, General Pryor issued guidance to State law enforcement officials to ensure that the law was enforced consistent with the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Although there was considerable outcry against his decision from the pro-life community, the ACLU praised General Pryor's decision, emphasizing that his order had ``[s]everely [l]imited'' Alabama's ban. He issued similar guidance after the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down another State's ban on partial-birth abortion. Again, the dictates of the law trumped his personal beliefs. He stuck with the law even though he totally disagreed with it.

The President has nominated a good and honest man with a sterling legal career, a bipartisan reputation for enforcing the law impartially as attorney general, and an enviable record of success before the nation's highest Court. At General Pryor's inauguration as Attorney General, he opened with the statement: ``Equal under law today, equal under law tomorrow, equal under law forever.'' Despite the distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods we have heard about him, General Pryor is a diligent, honorable man whose loyalty as a public servant has been to the law and its impartial administration. He has told us under oath that he will continue to follow the law, just as he has demonstrated during his distinguished career in Alabama. Quoting again from Justice Johnstone's letter--Justice Johnstone is a Democrat--to our Committee: ``The crucial question in judging a judicial candidate or nominees is not what sides of legal issues he or she has advocated but whether he or she has enough reverence for the rule of law, enough humility, and enough self-control to follow the law whether he or she likes it or not. My observation tells me General Pryor does.''

A minority of the Senate is again attempting to prevent us from voting on Attorney General Pryor despite his outstanding record. Such an attempt is profoundly at odds with what the Constitution demands of us as Senators. The President and the American people have a right to an up or down vote on judicial nominees. Playing politics or political games with judicial nominees must stop and we must do our duty and vote on this excellent nominee, Bill Pryor.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues not to deny Bill Pryor the courtesy of an up or down vote on the Senate floor. He deserves better, the President deserves better, and the majority of the Senate that stands ready to confirm him deserves better. Most importantly, the American people deserve the opportunity to hold their Senators accountable for the votes they cast on the President's judicial nominees. We must invoke cloture on Bill Pryor's nomination.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time remains?

I yield time to the Senator from Alabama.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Madam President, I couldn't agree more with the distinguished Senator from Alabama. What is happening here is a very fine man, an excellent lawyer, an excellent attorney general in this country, one who has always stood for upholding the law even when he disagreed with it, which is the ultimate in judicial nominees, is being deprived of the dignity of an up-or-down vote, which has never been done before, other than in these four filibusters that the Democrats have waged in this body.

This is dangerous stuff. I admit during the Clinton years there were a few of our Republicans who wanted to filibuster some of their liberal judges, and we stopped it. Senator Lott and I made it very clear that was not going to happen because not only is that a dangerous situation, politically it is a terrible situation, and it is something that should not happen in this body.

One of the Democrats' favorite tactics, which they used again before last week's failed cloture vote on Judge Pickering's nomination, is to try to excuse their indefensible treatment of the President's nominee by citing the raw number of President Bush's nominees confirmed by the Senate. That number now stands at 168. They trumpet this number, and then note they have blocked only 4. We know it will be a lot more than that. We already know the future nominations they are going to block, but the Democrats believe this sounds reasonable to the American people who hear it.

The more the real story gets out, the less acceptable it is to the American people. First, there are more Federal appellate vacancies today, 18, during President Bush's third year in office than there were at the end of President Clinton's second year in office, 15. Over half of President Bush's appeals court nominees have not been confirmed. There are 41 total vacancies on the Federal district and appellate benches, 22 of which are classified as judicial emergencies by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A staggering 67 percent of the vacant appeals court slots are judicial emergencies.

Here is the point. No raw number of confirmations means anything in and of itself, while there are not one but three filibusters--exemplary nominees going on now. We just voted out Janice Rogers Brown from the committee on a straight party-line vote, and it is clear they are going to filibuster this fine African-American justice who wrote the most majority decisions issued by the California Supreme Court last year. Their argument is: She is outside the mainstream. That is always the argument they bring up because she does not conform to the liberal ideology they demand.

Just think, one nominee, Miguel Estrada, has withdrawn after more than 2 years of a filibuster against him.

The Democrats are virtually certain to filibuster Justice Janice Rogers Brown, another DC Circuit nominee; and emergency vacancies continue to exist on our Federal courts.

Are we supposed to be grateful that only a small handful of President Bush's nominees are being filibustered? Is there an acceptable filibuster percentage the Democratic leadership has in mind? The mere fact that we have to ask these questions makes it crystal

clear we have a broken process. Even one filibuster of a judicial nominee is one too many, and we are now up to four, and I might add there are others they have made very clear they are going to filibuster. These are appellate nominees. For the first time in history, these filibusters are occurring. I think it is shameful.

I yield the floor.

cloture motion

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Democrat Member of the Judiciary Committee, legislation to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act. I want to thank Senator Leahy for joining with me in introducing this bill and for his cooperation in working together on this important issue.

This reauthorization will extend the existing ban on the manufacture, sale, importation, shipping, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that could not be detected by a metal detector or x-ray machine. Everyone in this Chamber knows how deeply I care for the Second Amendment and the individual's right to own and bear arms. I want everyone to understand that this ban does not ban a single firearm in production today. It prevents any individual or company from creating an undetectable firearm.

I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Democrat Member of the Judiciary Committee, legislation to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act. I want to thank Senator Leahy for joining with me in introducing this bill and for his cooperation in working together on this important issue.

This reauthorization will extend the existing ban on the manufacture, sale, importation, shipping, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that could not be detected by a metal detector or x-ray machine. Everyone in this Chamber knows how deeply I care for the Second Amendment and the individual's right to own and bear arms. I want everyone to understand that this ban does not ban a single firearm in production today. It prevents any individual or company from creating an undetectable firearm.

I urge my colleagues to support the measure.