Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1531, the John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act. This bill authorizes the Treasury Department to mint and issue coins bearing the likeness of Chief Justice John Marshall for the purpose of supporting the Supreme Court Historical Society. Sales of the coin would, in addition to raising funds for the Society, also cover all of the costs of minting and issuing these coins, so that the American taxpayer would not bear any cost whatsoever if this legislation were enacted.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once called John Marshall ``the great Chief Justice.'' After 34 years on the bench, from 1801-1835, Marshall earned that title by establishing many of the constitutional doctrines we revere today. Writing over 500 opinions, he truly made the third branch of government co-equal with the legislative and executive branches.

Marshall's greatness lay in his ability to figure out how to put in practice the concept of checks and balances. In powerfully written decisions, the Marshall Court established several constitutional doctrines, forming the bedrock of contemporary jurisprudence including: establishing judicial review, prohibiting State taxation of the Federal Government, making the federal supreme court final arbiter of decisions issued by State supreme courts, and expounding the limits of the contracts and commerce clauses. Indeed, he solidified early Federalist ideas by defining the relationships between the Federal Government and the States; a position that was forgotten and is only very recently re- emerging in our jurisprudence.

Born in 1755, Marshall was a key player in the founding generation who established our constitutional government. He was an early and active member in the revolutionary cause, joining with the revolutionary army and fighting as one of George Washington's Officers in at least four major battles and enduring the winter at Valley Forge. Marshall later served as a member of Congress and as Secretary of State before his ascension to the Supreme Court.

There is a no more fitting likeness for a coin that would support the efforts of the Supreme Court Historical Society. The Society is a non- profit organization whose purpose is to preserve and disseminate the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. Founded by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Society's mission is to provide information and historical research on our Nations highest court. The Society accomplishes this mission by conducting programs, publishing books, supporting historical research and collecting antiques and artifacts related to the Court's history.

Recent research includes efforts to capture the history of the Court during the Franklin D. Roosevelt period, the Civil War, and the evolution of the Chief Justice's role on the court. Lectures and programs are open to the public as well as Society members. Additionally, the Society seeks to acquire the private papers, period furnishings, and art work relating to court history.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to memorialize the Great Chief Justice John Marshall and assist a worthwhile organization like the Supreme Court Historical Society.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help make the American dream a reality for many young people. ``The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act,'' or ``The DREAM Act,'' resolves immigration status problems that plague undocumented immigrants who came to our country as youths. It also removes barriers to education so that they are better equipped to succeed in our society.

Each year, about fifty thousand young undocumented immigrants graduate from high school in the United States. Most of them came to this country with their parents as small children and have been raised here just like their U.S. citizen classmates. They view themselves as Americans, and are loyal to our country. Some may not even realize that they are here in violation of our immigration laws. They grow up to become honest and hardworking adolescents and young adults, and strive for academic as well as professional excellence.

Many of these youngsters find themselves caught in a catch-22 situation. As illegal immigrants, they cannot work legally. Moreover, they are effectively barred from developing academically beyond high school because of the high cost of pursuing higher education. Private colleges and universities are very expensive, and under current federal law, state institutions cannot grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they have resided in that state. To make matters worse, as illegal immigrants, these young people are ineligible for federal tuition assistance. Moreover, these young people have no independent way of becoming legal residents of the United States.

In short, though these children have built their lives here, they have no possibility of achieving and living the American dream. What a tremendous loss to our society.

One young man who is in this predicament lives in my home State of Utah. His name is Danny Cairo. Danny came to the United States at the age of six with his mother who abandoned him eights years later. Danny had to drop out of school in order to support himself. Fortunately, he met Kevin King, who adopted Danny in 2001. With the help of Mr. King, Danny is presently attending the University of Utah.

This story, however, does not necessarily have a happy ending. Because of the date of the adoption, Danny is unable to derive immigration status from Mr. King. He, therefore, lives in legal limbo and faces the threat of deportation daily. In addition, he may never be able to legally work in the United States.

As Mr. King wrote to me, ``Danny is exactly what our country needs more of. He is a natural born leader with charisma and intelligence and a drive that will take him wherever he wants to go. But this will not be possible if Danny is unable to obtain permanent residency.''

Our laws should not discourage those with bright young minds from seeking higher education. We should instead assist and encourage the many ``Dannys'' who are in the United States and who have the dedication and drive to achieve their worthy goals. I am proud that the DREAM Act provides illegal alien children with options for higher education, as well as the opportunity to earn legal residence in the United States.

First, the DREAM Act repeals the provision of Federal law that prevents States from granting in-State tuition to undocumented aliens, leaving this issue at the discretion of the States. My own State of Utah passed a law that will allow in-State tuition for aliens who have been residents in Utah for at least three years. My States have either passed or are considering the passage of similar legislation.

But the fact of the matter is that cheaper tuition at State schools, no matter how beneficial for these young people, will not solve the larger problem: their illegal immigration status. While I do not advocate granting unchecked amnesty to illegal immigrants, I am, however, in favor of providing children--children who did not make the decision to enter the United States illegally--the opportunity to earn the privilege of remaining here legally. The DREAM Act will do just that. It provides young men and women who immigrated to the United States prior to the age of sixteen, who have lived in this country at least five years, and who are of good moral character a chance to earn their conditional resident status upon acceptance by an institution of higher learning or upon graduation from high school. The DREAM Act allows these special young people to pursue their worthy goals and aspirations.

The bill I am introducing today will extend DREAM Act benefits to a group of people who were excluded from a similar bill negotiated during the 107th Congress. Today's bill removes the age ceiling so that no one will be arbitrarily cut-off from benefits. Moreover, while the version from the last Congress requires high school graduation as a provision for obtaining legal status, the bill I am introducing today contains a provision that allows high school students who have been accepted into an institution of higher learning, but who have not yet graduated from high school, to obtain conditional resident status. This provision enables these high school students to get an earlier start on procuring the necessary funds for financing their education.

Of course, we have to be mindful that the opportunity provided by the DREAM Act is a privilege and not an entitlement. We must make sure that those who reap the benefits of the Act are, in fact, worthy of such benefits. For this reason, the bill I am introducing today tightens certain requirements and eliminates waivers for those

who have serious criminal records that would qualify them for deportation.

In addition, while I always want to encourage educational advancement, I recognize that not everyone's circumstances allow for full-time attendance at a four-year college. For this reason, the DREAM Act provides for certain alternatives like attending community college, trade school, serving in our armed forces, or performing community service.

The purpose of the DREAM Act is to create incentives for out-of- status youngsters to achieve as much as they can in life and to contribute to the greatness of the United States. I recognize that if the bill's requirements are so high that they simply operate as barriers to legalizing status, the bill defeats its own stated purpose. That is why I am committed to ensuring that the requirements imposed by this bill are reasonable and can be met by youngsters who are willing to work hard. The DREAM Act will enable youngsters who have ambition and motivation to obtain permanent legal status.

During the 107th Congress, I introduced a version of the DREAM Act, S. 1291. Since then, it has been replaced in favor of the Durbin/Hatch/ Kennedy/Brownback substitute. The substitute was put on the Senate calendar but did not receive a vote. The House Judiciary Committee debated identical legislation during the last Congress but it was defeated. The House Judiciary Committee has not yet moved similar legislation this Congress. I want to make sure that the DREAM Act we introduce in the 108th Congress will not die in the hopper as it did in the House last year.

By introducing this bill, I know I am subjecting myself to criticism from both sides of the aisle on my immigration policy. Some proponents of strict immigration enforcement argue that the DREAM Act will encourage illegal entry into the United States. However, the DREAM Act was carefully drafted to avoid this precise problem. The Act specifically limits eligibility to those who entered the United States five years or more prior to the bill's enactment. It applies to a limited number of people who already reside in the United States and who have demonstrated favorable equities in and significant ties to the United States. Anyone who entered the United States less than five years prior to the enactment of this bill or who plans to illegally enter the United States in the future will not be covered by the DREAM Act.

On the other hand, proponents for providing general amnesty contend that there shouldn't be any requirements after high school graduation. I agree that for some of these children, graduation from high school is a grand enough accomplishment in itself. My bill recognizes this achievement by providing these graduates with the reward of conditional resident status so that they may work toward permanent status without fear of deportation.

Nonetheless, some critics argue that most immigrant children cannot go to college, nor can they meet the standards set by the current version of the DREAM Act. They cite statistics showing that only a small percentage of illegal immigrant children ever attend college and they argue that this DREAM bill will benefit very few. What these critics overlook, however, is that without the DREAM Act, illegal immigrant children simply do not have the means nor the incentive to obtain a higher education. Since the DREAM Act will remove substantial obstacles to higher education, I am confident that many of the children who are currently illegal U.S. residents will seek higher education.

Some critics also contained that these immigrant children do not have the aptitude to attend community college or trade school and that even joining the military or performing a few hours a week of community service is out of reach for them. To this criticism I stress that this is not only wholly inaccurate, but it is also an elitist attitude to which I cannot subscribe. Immigrant children, whether legal or otherwise, are no less capable than other children. They just need the opportunity to reach their potential.

I also want to point out that everyone who was eligible for benefits under last year's bill will be eligible again this year. In fact, as I explained earlier, those who were left out of last year's bill are included in this year's bill. The only difference is that now, the applicant has to contribute more to American society before transitioning from conditional resident status to permanent resident status.

I believe the DREAM Act will live up to its name. It will allow these illegal immigrant children the opportunity to not only dream of the infinite possibilities that their futures may hold in the United States, but it will also afford them the opportunity to realize their dreams. With the passage of the DREAM Act, the United States stands to benefit enormously. Once these children become legal residents of this Nation, they will prove to be motivated, hard-working, and educated contributors to our society. I am pleased and proud once again to work with Senator Durbin on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1531, the John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act. This bill authorizes the Treasury Department to mint and issue coins bearing the likeness of Chief Justice John Marshall for the purpose of supporting the Supreme Court Historical Society. Sales of the coin would, in addition to raising funds for the Society, also cover all of the costs of minting and issuing these coins, so that the American taxpayer would not bear any cost whatsoever if this legislation were enacted.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once called John Marshall ``the great Chief Justice.'' After 34 years on the bench, from 1801-1835, Marshall earned that title by establishing many of the constitutional doctrines we revere today. Writing over 500 opinions, he truly made the third branch of government co-equal with the legislative and executive branches.

Marshall's greatness lay in his ability to figure out how to put in practice the concept of checks and balances. In powerfully written decisions, the Marshall Court established several constitutional doctrines, forming the bedrock of contemporary jurisprudence including: establishing judicial review, prohibiting State taxation of the Federal Government, making the federal supreme court final arbiter of decisions issued by State supreme courts, and expounding the limits of the contracts and commerce clauses. Indeed, he solidified early Federalist ideas by defining the relationships between the Federal Government and the States; a position that was forgotten and is only very recently re- emerging in our jurisprudence.

Born in 1755, Marshall was a key player in the founding generation who established our constitutional government. He was an early and active member in the revolutionary cause, joining with the revolutionary army and fighting as one of George Washington's Officers in at least four major battles and enduring the winter at Valley Forge. Marshall later served as a member of Congress and as Secretary of State before his ascension to the Supreme Court.

There is a no more fitting likeness for a coin that would support the efforts of the Supreme Court Historical Society. The Society is a non- profit organization whose purpose is to preserve and disseminate the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. Founded by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Society's mission is to provide information and historical research on our Nations highest court. The Society accomplishes this mission by conducting programs, publishing books, supporting historical research and collecting antiques and artifacts related to the Court's history.

Recent research includes efforts to capture the history of the Court during the Franklin D. Roosevelt period, the Civil War, and the evolution of the Chief Justice's role on the court. Lectures and programs are open to the public as well as Society members. Additionally, the Society seeks to acquire the private papers, period furnishings, and art work relating to court history.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to memorialize the Great Chief Justice John Marshall and assist a worthwhile organization like the Supreme Court Historical Society.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help make the American dream a reality for many young people. ``The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act,'' or ``The DREAM Act,'' resolves immigration status problems that plague undocumented immigrants who came to our country as youths. It also removes barriers to education so that they are better equipped to succeed in our society.

Each year, about fifty thousand young undocumented immigrants graduate from high school in the United States. Most of them came to this country with their parents as small children and have been raised here just like their U.S. citizen classmates. They view themselves as Americans, and are loyal to our country. Some may not even realize that they are here in violation of our immigration laws. They grow up to become honest and hardworking adolescents and young adults, and strive for academic as well as professional excellence.

Many of these youngsters find themselves caught in a catch-22 situation. As illegal immigrants, they cannot work legally. Moreover, they are effectively barred from developing academically beyond high school because of the high cost of pursuing higher education. Private colleges and universities are very expensive, and under current federal law, state institutions cannot grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they have resided in that state. To make matters worse, as illegal immigrants, these young people are ineligible for federal tuition assistance. Moreover, these young people have no independent way of becoming legal residents of the United States.

In short, though these children have built their lives here, they have no possibility of achieving and living the American dream. What a tremendous loss to our society.

One young man who is in this predicament lives in my home State of Utah. His name is Danny Cairo. Danny came to the United States at the age of six with his mother who abandoned him eights years later. Danny had to drop out of school in order to support himself. Fortunately, he met Kevin King, who adopted Danny in 2001. With the help of Mr. King, Danny is presently attending the University of Utah.

This story, however, does not necessarily have a happy ending. Because of the date of the adoption, Danny is unable to derive immigration status from Mr. King. He, therefore, lives in legal limbo and faces the threat of deportation daily. In addition, he may never be able to legally work in the United States.

As Mr. King wrote to me, ``Danny is exactly what our country needs more of. He is a natural born leader with charisma and intelligence and a drive that will take him wherever he wants to go. But this will not be possible if Danny is unable to obtain permanent residency.''

Our laws should not discourage those with bright young minds from seeking higher education. We should instead assist and encourage the many ``Dannys'' who are in the United States and who have the dedication and drive to achieve their worthy goals. I am proud that the DREAM Act provides illegal alien children with options for higher education, as well as the opportunity to earn legal residence in the United States.

First, the DREAM Act repeals the provision of Federal law that prevents States from granting in-State tuition to undocumented aliens, leaving this issue at the discretion of the States. My own State of Utah passed a law that will allow in-State tuition for aliens who have been residents in Utah for at least three years. My States have either passed or are considering the passage of similar legislation.

But the fact of the matter is that cheaper tuition at State schools, no matter how beneficial for these young people, will not solve the larger problem: their illegal immigration status. While I do not advocate granting unchecked amnesty to illegal immigrants, I am, however, in favor of providing children--children who did not make the decision to enter the United States illegally--the opportunity to earn the privilege of remaining here legally. The DREAM Act will do just that. It provides young men and women who immigrated to the United States prior to the age of sixteen, who have lived in this country at least five years, and who are of good moral character a chance to earn their conditional resident status upon acceptance by an institution of higher learning or upon graduation from high school. The DREAM Act allows these special young people to pursue their worthy goals and aspirations.

The bill I am introducing today will extend DREAM Act benefits to a group of people who were excluded from a similar bill negotiated during the 107th Congress. Today's bill removes the age ceiling so that no one will be arbitrarily cut-off from benefits. Moreover, while the version from the last Congress requires high school graduation as a provision for obtaining legal status, the bill I am introducing today contains a provision that allows high school students who have been accepted into an institution of higher learning, but who have not yet graduated from high school, to obtain conditional resident status. This provision enables these high school students to get an earlier start on procuring the necessary funds for financing their education.

Of course, we have to be mindful that the opportunity provided by the DREAM Act is a privilege and not an entitlement. We must make sure that those who reap the benefits of the Act are, in fact, worthy of such benefits. For this reason, the bill I am introducing today tightens certain requirements and eliminates waivers for those

who have serious criminal records that would qualify them for deportation.

In addition, while I always want to encourage educational advancement, I recognize that not everyone's circumstances allow for full-time attendance at a four-year college. For this reason, the DREAM Act provides for certain alternatives like attending community college, trade school, serving in our armed forces, or performing community service.

The purpose of the DREAM Act is to create incentives for out-of- status youngsters to achieve as much as they can in life and to contribute to the greatness of the United States. I recognize that if the bill's requirements are so high that they simply operate as barriers to legalizing status, the bill defeats its own stated purpose. That is why I am committed to ensuring that the requirements imposed by this bill are reasonable and can be met by youngsters who are willing to work hard. The DREAM Act will enable youngsters who have ambition and motivation to obtain permanent legal status.

During the 107th Congress, I introduced a version of the DREAM Act, S. 1291. Since then, it has been replaced in favor of the Durbin/Hatch/ Kennedy/Brownback substitute. The substitute was put on the Senate calendar but did not receive a vote. The House Judiciary Committee debated identical legislation during the last Congress but it was defeated. The House Judiciary Committee has not yet moved similar legislation this Congress. I want to make sure that the DREAM Act we introduce in the 108th Congress will not die in the hopper as it did in the House last year.

By introducing this bill, I know I am subjecting myself to criticism from both sides of the aisle on my immigration policy. Some proponents of strict immigration enforcement argue that the DREAM Act will encourage illegal entry into the United States. However, the DREAM Act was carefully drafted to avoid this precise problem. The Act specifically limits eligibility to those who entered the United States five years or more prior to the bill's enactment. It applies to a limited number of people who already reside in the United States and who have demonstrated favorable equities in and significant ties to the United States. Anyone who entered the United States less than five years prior to the enactment of this bill or who plans to illegally enter the United States in the future will not be covered by the DREAM Act.

On the other hand, proponents for providing general amnesty contend that there shouldn't be any requirements after high school graduation. I agree that for some of these children, graduation from high school is a grand enough accomplishment in itself. My bill recognizes this achievement by providing these graduates with the reward of conditional resident status so that they may work toward permanent status without fear of deportation.

Nonetheless, some critics argue that most immigrant children cannot go to college, nor can they meet the standards set by the current version of the DREAM Act. They cite statistics showing that only a small percentage of illegal immigrant children ever attend college and they argue that this DREAM bill will benefit very few. What these critics overlook, however, is that without the DREAM Act, illegal immigrant children simply do not have the means nor the incentive to obtain a higher education. Since the DREAM Act will remove substantial obstacles to higher education, I am confident that many of the children who are currently illegal U.S. residents will seek higher education.

Some critics also contained that these immigrant children do not have the aptitude to attend community college or trade school and that even joining the military or performing a few hours a week of community service is out of reach for them. To this criticism I stress that this is not only wholly inaccurate, but it is also an elitist attitude to which I cannot subscribe. Immigrant children, whether legal or otherwise, are no less capable than other children. They just need the opportunity to reach their potential.

I also want to point out that everyone who was eligible for benefits under last year's bill will be eligible again this year. In fact, as I explained earlier, those who were left out of last year's bill are included in this year's bill. The only difference is that now, the applicant has to contribute more to American society before transitioning from conditional resident status to permanent resident status.

I believe the DREAM Act will live up to its name. It will allow these illegal immigrant children the opportunity to not only dream of the infinite possibilities that their futures may hold in the United States, but it will also afford them the opportunity to realize their dreams. With the passage of the DREAM Act, the United States stands to benefit enormously. Once these children become legal residents of this Nation, they will prove to be motivated, hard-working, and educated contributors to our society. I am pleased and proud once again to work with Senator Durbin on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. Res. 210, which would proclaim the month of October as ``National Work and Family Month.''

In Congress, we talk a lot about the importance of productivity in the workplace. We've all heard it many times: When workers are more productive, their wages and their living standards increase. American workers are just about the most productive in the world, and that's the reason we have the highest living standard of any large country. But this abstract idea we call productivity doesn't really capture what makes modern life so much more comfortable than life in the old days. And for most Americans, the days have gotten a lot nicer over the decades, and that includes the time that Americans spend at work.

In my lifetime, the workplace has changed so much that it is unrecognizable. Work in America is a lot less backbreaking than it used to be, it involves a lot more thinking and typing on average and a lot less lifting and hauling and welding and soldering. It involves a balance, a balance between business and personal activities, and between giving and receiving. That's a great thing. In just about every way imaginable, most Americans work in places that are far more family- friendly than in the past.

Flexible work schedules are becoming much more common, too. In 1985, just 14 percent of workers were on flexible schedules, but now 28 percent of workers are. Flexible schedules make it easier to balance work and family. And the workweek is getting shorter, too. In 1890, the average workweek was 60 hours; by 1950 it was down to 40, and now it's down to 35 hours a week for factory workers.

The major reason for these changes is the constantly innovating free- market economy. As any employer can tell you, the competition for workers is usually just as cutthroat as the competition for customers. Very few employees in the U.S. today would put up with 1950s style working conditions, let alone 1890s style work conditions. In most cases, if employers treat their workers wrong for very long, those workers will find something else to do with their time. Every day in every State across this Nation, people quit jobs they hate so they can look for something better. Stacks of business magazines extol the virtues of the worker-friendly, family friendly workplace, and study after study points out that in many cases, a family-friendly workplace more than pays for itself.

But in too many cases, our Nation's laws haven't kept up with changes in the real-world workplace. We have laws from an industrial era that have lagged far behind changes in the economy. And more importantly, our laws have lagged behind changes in people's personal lives. Yes, we've made some progress over the years, but there's still a lot to be done, such as in the areas of early childhood education and elder care, two areas that I have worked on in the past, and where I know we need to do more work in the future.

Today I'd like to focus on one area where we are on the cusp of making a lot more progress, and that is the area of flex time for America's workers. Right now, millions of employees in both the public and private sectors enjoy flexible work schedules. But our industrial- era laws completely shut millions of hourly wage-earners out of the world of flex-time. Over the last few Congresses, a number of proposals have been offered, by President Clinton, by President Bush, and by many members of Congress, to give hourly workers in the private sector the same job flexibility that government workers already enjoy.

Right now, federal law decrees that any hourly wage-earner who works more than forty hours per week must be paid overtime at time-and-one- half. But these rules, which I admit sound quite sensible at first, mean that hourly workers in the private sector can't have the ``nine- nines'' workweek that so many federal and state government employees take advantage of.

Under the nine-nines workweek, a worker works for nine hours per day for eight days, then works for eight hours on the ninth day, and then the worker can take every other Friday or every other Monday off as a holiday. This adds up to eighty hours over two weeks, but it turns every other weekend into a three-day weekend.

Millions of hourly wage-earners would love to be able to have this kind

of work schedule, but our industrial-age rules make it impossible for companies to do that without paying overtime wages. It's illegal. If we can amend Federal law to change the standard work period from forty hours every week to eighty hours every two weeks, that would be a great help to America's hourly workers. And it would make it easier for millions of workers to take more weekend trips with the kids, to make doctor's appointments without taking time off of work, and to just live a life that is a little bit less hectic. And that's what family- friendly business policies are all about.

Right now, we're seeing a fair amount of controversy over another family-friendly work proposal that goes by the name of comp-time legislation. This is another idea that has been around here for too long, and it's time for it to become law.

Comp time would allow workers who work overtime a choice: either they could receive overtime pay in the form of time-and-one-half in cash, or they could receive their pay as time-and-a-half in the form of paid time off. Ten hours of overtime this week could mean fifteen hours off next week, all of it paid time off. This would be unbelievably valuable for workers who would appreciate some extra time with their families. And despite some of the false claims made about comp time, the law would let unionized workers negotiate comp-time agreements through their unions, so it would completely respect worker's rights to organize.

As I said earlier, the flex-time and comp-time proposals would provide private sector employees the same opportunities that Federal employees currently have. These proposals would help husbands and wives balance the demands of work and family. This is the kind of legislation that Congress should be enacting to bring our laws into the 21st century. I keep hearing from working parents who struggle to balance the worlds of work and family, and I'm convinced that changing our industrial-era wages and hours laws will give them the flexibility they so desire.

I would like to say a little bit more about what Congress can do in the critical area of elder care. I come from a state with a large proportion of elderly citizens, and I know that this is an issue that weighs heavily on the minds of a lot of working families. Our society often overlooks the importance of caring for elderly parents, but I know how hard it is for a husband or a wife to concentrate on work when they have to be concerned about a frail parent. I've sponsored legislation to help our medical system help our nation's frail elderly. One of the major benefits of this kind of reform is that adult children won't have to live in fear of whether or not their parents will be cared for. The Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act, which I introduced in the 107th Congress, would be a big help to elderly Americans who have complex, long-term care needs. And it would be a great relief to their adult children.

There is a joy in giving the gift of our skills at work, at giving ourselves to the task at hand so thoroughly that we accomplish a task and can say to ourselves, ``well done.'' Fortunately, most working Americans also have the reassurance that they can draw a healthy line, a healthy boundary, between their family and their job, caring for both their loved ones and their work. The rise of flex-time in salaried jobs is a great example of this. When people are able to find a job where they can draw this line, we are happier and more content individuals. I hope that Congress can remove some of the legal barriers that stand between the American people and their ability to draw that line where they see fit.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Kennedy and myself to bring attention to the need for a family-friendly work environment. I urge them to cosponsor this resolution. Our industrial-era labor laws and labor regulations are a barrier to a healthy work environment, and they need serious reform. As I said, I've been working on this along with my old friend Senator Kennedy, and I'm also grateful to have the help of Senator Dodd and Senator Alexander. The four of us may not always see eye to eye on the precise way to help the private sector to build a family-friendly workplace, but I know we agree on the goal: A better life for American families.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Miguel Estrada for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It is truly a sad record that the Senate is now being obstructed by multiple filibusters on judicial nominees and that we are required to conduct an unprecedented seventh cloture vote on this particular extremely qualified nominee.

Let me state that a clear majority of this body supports this nomination, as has been demonstrated in the past six cloture votes. So it is regrettable that a minority number of Senators have followed their script of extraordinary obstructionism to prevent the Senate from concluding the debate on this nomination and proceeding to a final vote.

It has now been 6 months since Mr. Estrada's nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee and placed on the Senate Executive Calendar. It has been nearly 8 months since he was renominated by President Bush. It has been more than 10 months since his hearing before the committee, and I has been more than 2 years since he was first nominated by President Bush on May 9, 2001.

In all of that time my Democratic colleagues have had unlimited opportunities to make their case. Some of them oppose him; others support him. But one thing has remained clear through this debate: There is no good reason to continue this route of obstruction by denying Mr. Estrada an up-or-down vote.

We are at a troubling point in Senate history. Over the past few months I have spoken frequently on the calculated effort to stall action on President Bush's judicial nominees. There

have been efforts to bottle up nominees in committee, to inject ideology into the confirmation process, to delay by demanding production of all unpublished opinions of nominees who are sitting Federal judges and making demands for answers to questions that are unanswerable. And, in the case of Mr. Estrada, opponents have demanded he produce confidential internal memoranda that are not within his control. When these tactics have failed, opponents have turned to their ultimate weapon--the filibuster.

Filibusters of judicial nominees allow a vocal minority to prevent the majority of Senators from voting on the confirmation of a Federal judge, a prospective member of our third, coequal branch of Government. It is tyranny of the minority, and it is unfair to the nominee, to the judiciary, and to the majority of the Members of this body who stand prepared to fulfill their constitutional responsibility by voting on Mr. Estrada's nomination.

I am not alone in my disdain for delaying or defeating judicial nominees through a cloture vote. I think that it is appropriate at this point to note that many of my Democratic colleagues argued strenuously on the floor of the Senate for an up-or-down vote for President Clinton's judicial nominees.

The distinguished minority leader himself once said, ``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. . . .''

The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee echoed these sentiments when he said, ``. . . I, too, do not want to see the Senate go down a path where a minority of the Senate is determining a judge's fate on votes of 41.''

Another one of my Democratic colleagues, Senator Kennedy, himself a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had this to say: ``Nominees deserve a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But don't just sit on them--that's obstruction of justice.''

The distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, likewise said in 1999, ``A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down.'' She continued, ``It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no.''

My other colleague from California, Senator Boxer, said in 1997, ``It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.''

My colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, also said in 1997, ``I . . . respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.''

The qualifications of Miguel Estrada are well known to the Senate. However I would like to briefly remind my colleagues of his outstanding record of accomplishment. Miguel Estrada represents an American success story. Born in Honduras, he immigrated to the United States as a teenager to join his mother. Overcoming a language barrier and speech impediment, he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1983 from Columbia College. At Harvard Law School he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1986.

Mr. Estrada's professional career has been marked by one success after another. After graduation he clerked for Second Circuit Judge Amalya Kearse--a Carter appointee--then Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He worked as an associate at the distinguished firm of Wachtell Lipton in New York. He then worked as a Federal prosecutor in Manhattan, rising to become deputy chief of the appellate division. In recognition of his appellate skills, he was hired by the Solicitor General's Office during the first Bush administration. He stayed with the SG's Office for most of the Clinton administration. When he left the SG's Office, he joined the D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he has continued to excel as a partner and has risen to the top of the ranks of oral advocates nationwide, having argued fifteen cases before the Supreme Court.

The legal bar's wide regard for Mr. Estrada is reflected in his evaluation by the American Bar Association. The ABA evaluates judicial nominees based on their professional qualifications, their integrity, their professional competence, and their judicial temperament. Based on its assessment of these factors, the ABA has bestowed upon Mr. Estrada its highest rating of unanimously well qualified.

His supporters include a host of well-respected Clinton administration lawyers, including Ron Klain, former Vice President Gore's chief of staff; Robert Litt, head of the Criminal Division in the Reno Justice Department; Randolph Moss, former Assistant Attorney General; and Seth Waxman, former Solicitor General. I have, on previous occasions, placed letters of support in the record. I would refer my colleagues to previous statements regarding Mr. Estrada's qualifications and endorsements.

Yet, despite the superb record, qualifications, temperament and experience of Mr. Estrada, he continues to be blocked in his nomination. In support of their obstruction, our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly raised red-herring issues with two demands that Mr. Estrada answer their questions, and that the administration release confidential memoranda he authored at the Solicitor General's Office.

With regard to the first demand, the record is clear that Mr. Estrada spent hours during a day-long hearing answering my Democratic colleagues' questions. He answered written questions submitted after the hearing. He gave answers to questions that were substantially similar to answers given by Clinton nominees who were confirmed. Yet my Democratic colleagues still complain that he has not answered their questions. Really, their complaint is that, in answering their questions, Mr. Estrada did not say anything that gives them a reason to vote against him. Simply put, they are not interested in his answers to their questions--they are interested in defeating his nomination.

This is why every effort to make Mr. Estrada available to answer additional questions has gone virtually unacknowledged. He has been made available to answer written questions and to meet with individual senators. There has even been an offer to make Mr. Estrada available to answer questions in a second hearing. But only one Democratic Senator has met with Mr. Estrada since these offers were extended, and only one has submitted written questions since the floor debate began, to which Mr. Estrada has responded. We have met our Democratic colleagues more than halfway on this, but they insist on continuing down this path of obstructionism.

Their second demand, for the Solicitor General memoranda, has been fully debated. The short response is that never before has a Presidential administration released confidential appeal, certiorari, and amicus recommendations on the scale that my Democratic colleagues seek for Mr. Estrada. This is a full-scale fishing expedition, pure and simple, and the Justice Department is right to oppose it.

Despite these supposed reasons for denying an up-or-down vote on Mr. Estrada's nomination, I think there are other factors. Last fall a Democratic staffer on the Judiciary Committee was quoted in The Nation magazine as saying, ``Estrada is 40, and if he makes it to the circuit, then he will be Bush's first Supreme Court nominee. He could be on the Supreme Court for 30 years and do a lot of damage. We have to stop him now.''

So it appears that the real reason for this filibuster is the threat of a Justice Estrada on the Supreme Court. An editorial appearing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said it best: ``The fear with Owen and Estrada is that one or both will be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court should a vacancy occur. Senate Democrats are determined to keep off the Circuit Court bench any perceived conservative who has the credentials to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.''

There is an additional factor that is not based on any substantive objection to his nomination. I believe that some Senate Democrats do not want the current President, a Republican President,

to appoint the first Hispanic as United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Let me read from an editorial published by the Dallas Morning News addressing this point. On February 17, 2003, the News wrote, ``Democrats haven't liked Mr. Estrada from the beginning. Part of that is due to his ideology which is decidedly not Democratic. But part of it also has to do with the fellow who nominated him. Democrats don't relish giving President Bush one more thing to brag about when he goes into Hispanic neighborhoods during his reelection campaign next year. They are even less interested in putting a conservative Republican in line to become the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court.''

Miguel Estrada will be an excellent Federal judge. Today, once again, we have a choice either to continue to block another highly qualified nominee for partisan reasons or to allow each Senator to decide the merits of the nomination for himself or herself. I choose to vote against obstructionist tactics and permit an up-or-down vote on the nominee. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I ask unanimous consent the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Could I ask how much time the distinguished Senator from California desires?

My personal belief is we ought to let her go ahead, and I would encourage my colleague to do that.

I ask unanimous consent that we----

Would the Senator add that I be given time?

I add to that, when the distinguished Senator from California is finished I would be granted the floor for my remarks.

I have no idea.

I do not have an exact time, but I would hope not too long.

I would estimate up to an hour.

Then I will ask for the floor when the distinguished Senator from Vermont ends his remarks.

Who is trying to accommodate the Senator from Vermont.

I have a suggestion. Why does not the distinguished Senator end his speech and we will go to the distinguished Senator from California before me, and then I will try to be less than an hour?

He spoke for half an hour.

Reserving my right to object, Mr. President, it is not unusual to have multiple matters heard by the Senate. It is certainly not unusual to have cloture votes on judges, especially under the current situation. I would be happy to quit debating General Pryor tonight, even though there has been probably close to an hour of the Senate's time utilized on this debate, and just go to the cloture vote tomorrow, quit playing around with the Energy bill that we know is being slow-walked, and try to finish the Energy bill before the end of this week.

There is no excuse for not having a cloture vote on Judge Pryor or Judge Kuhl on Friday.

People have a right to schedule the judge.

This is the first time we have ever----

I yield to the distinguished Senator from California, and I intend to take the floor as soon as she is through.

You cannot object.

I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from California be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, let me take the floor. I am going to yield the floor in just a second.

I expect the distinguished Senator from California to be recognized so she can take 15 minutes. Then I am going to warn the Senate, right now, the minute she is through, I want the floor back, and I have a right to have it as the leader on the majority side. Am I right, parliamentarily?

I didn't do that.

Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from California as well. I feel very deeply toward her. I think she is a wonderful person, and I think she is a fine Senator who works very hard on the Judiciary Committee. And I appreciate her kind remarks about me.

Mr. President, let me make something clear. I keep hearing that we are going to vote on judges. Well, I certainly wish that were the case. What we are talking about is a cloture vote tomorrow, and one on Friday. It is not unusual at all, in fact it is a matter of course, for the Senate to double track various items in the interests of the body to keep on top of matters.

The two trade bills are extremely important for this country, with two of our greatest allies and supporters, Chile and Singapore. It needs to be done. There is no reason to have hours of debate on it. There are some hard feelings about it, and so forth, but it can be done.

We could have debated this in the hour before the cloture vote, which is what the rule calls for. If we invoke cloture, there will be ample opportunity to devote time to the total debate on General Pryor.

But now let me just make another point or two. The distinguished Senator from California is very upset at him because he actually took up to the Supreme Court an issue on the Violence Against Women Act. She takes great umbrage at that. Unfortunately, he won. So to indicate that he may be outside the mainstream or somebody who should not be supported because he wins in front of the Supreme Court--and almost everything they criticize, as far as Supreme Court matters are concerned, he has won on, until this last term when he lost on a couple of issues. And in every case he followed what he believed the law was regardless of his own personal beliefs. By the way, I am one of the coauthors in the Congress of the Violence Against Women Act.

So to criticize him for something that the Supreme Court agrees with him on gives an indication who is outside the mainstream. It isn't General Pryor. And there is case after case after case where he wins that has been criticized by our colleagues over there as though somehow or other he has been off the charts when it comes to the law. He has been on the charts. I admit, he has lost some, too. But I don't know of anybody who has taken multiple cases to the Supreme Court who has won everything. I know a few who have had pretty good records--and he has one of the better records as an attorney general in this country.

My Democratic colleagues assert, in laundry list format, that General Pryor is basically against everything they are for. He is ``out of the mainstream.'' We hear that over and over again. Pryor is against civil rights, disability rights, minorities and women themselves, the environment--the whole thing, presumably, and of course--abortion rights.

I am paraphrasing just one Democratic Senator's statement during the markup on July 23, 2003, but it is a fair representation of the types of assertions against General Pryor that are designed not to debate his fitness for the Federal bench but, rather, to strangle debate before it begins. To paint this excellent nominee as so ``extreme'' as to be not worth discussing.

By the way, we did not bring this debate up tonight. I did not want to stand here tonight and answer these so-called allegations. My friends on the other side did. They are the ones who interrupted the Energy bill, which is being slow-walked. And we all understand that--as almost everything has been this year.

These are what you call obstructionist tactics. And that is what is going on here. For them to come out here on the Senate floor and act like, well, we are interrupting the energy debate--it is almost more than I can take.

This energy debate is very important. It should be over. And I would be happy to end it right now, have the cloture vote tomorrow. I will even give up the hour before cloture, if they want to, to keep working on the Energy bill. But, no, that is not what they are doing. This is all a slow-walk to try to make this Congress look as if it isn't a good one, even though, in spite of these slow-walks, we have done bill after bill after bill, some of them extremely important pieces of legislation.

Let me provide you with a succinct but very different, and much more realistic picture of General Pryor.

General Pryor has been criticized as insensitive to the rights of the disabled because he argued in the Garrett case that the Americans with Disabilities Act could not, under section 5 of the 14th amendment, validly abrogate States' 11th amendment immunity and authorize money damage suits against States in Federal court.

But the Supreme Court agreed with General Pryor. He is being criticized by others on the Senate floor for cases that he has won in the Supreme Court.

He has also been criticized as insensitive to age-based discrimination because he and a bipartisan group of 23 other State attorneys general--23 other bipartisan State attorneys general--argued in the Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents case that the provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that allowed money damage suits against States in Federal courts was invalid under the 11th amendment, something that they should have argued because it is an important issue.

But, again, the Supreme Court agreed with General Pryor. He is being criticized for winning cases in the Supreme Court as though he is the one who is out of the mainstream. I don't think it takes any brains to realize who is out of the mainstream. It is not General Pryor.

And we have heard criticism that he is insensitive to women's rights because he argued in the case of U.S. v. Morrison that neither the commerce clause nor the 14th amendment provided Congress with the authority to enact one civil remedies provision of the Violence Against Women Act. But the Supreme Court agreed with him again.

Further, General Pryor has been criticized as anti-environment because of his argument in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County that the Army Corps of Engineers did not have the authority, under the Federal Clean Water Act, to exercise Federal jurisdiction over entirely intrastate bodies of water--in this case, an abandoned gravel pit.

He was arguing for his State, which is what attorneys general are obligated to do. He even urged the Court not to reach the issue of whether the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate entirely intrastate bodies of water. The Court did not reach the Commerce Clause issue and again agreed with General Pryor's statutory interpretation argument.

So I guess those who oppose Pryor are saying when the Supreme Court agrees with you that an environmental statute should be interpreted in accordance with its actual language, rather than expanded through bureaucratic fiat, that makes you extreme

and anti-environment, especially when you win the case in front of the Supreme Court. Talk about turning the world upside down.

General Pryor has even been criticized as insensitive to civil rights concerns because of his argument in Alexander v. Sandoval that there is no private right of action under title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act to challenge Alabama's policy of issuing drivers' licenses only to English speakers--a policy that I understand is no longer in effect. Once again, the Supreme Court agreed with his argument, holding that Congress, not Federal courts, should create causes of action to enforce Federal laws. That proposition should not be controversial, nor should supporting it be held against General Pryor, who again won in the Supreme Court.

Finally, let me just give one more example. The Supreme Court, including Justice Souter, agreed with General Pryor's argument in the Scheidler v. NOW case that Federal antiracketeering laws could not properly be applied to pro-life protest groups who admittedly had not engaged in any activities covered by those laws with respect to the targets of their protests. So while General Pryor may have criticized Justice Souter, they do not always disagree when it comes down to interpreting the law.

Let me say this. A nominee is not an extremist--or should I put the word ``extremist'' in quotes because it seems to be a special word that is used so often by our colleagues--a nominee is not an extremist when the positions he has taken have been consistently supported by Supreme Court majorities. We know who the extremists are, and it isn't General Pryor.

We will hear more about these cases, and I'm not saying Bill Pryor has won all of these arguments at the Supreme Court. Not even the best lawyers can win them all, and he did lose a couple in this last session. But to say that Bill Pryor is ``out of the mainstream,'' when he has been such a successful advocate for his State in the Nation's highest Court, is plainly wrong.

Anybody who makes that argument should think twice before they make that type of argument.

We are in the middle of a slow walk here, trying to make the Senate look bad--not by Republicans but by the other side. Frankly, to complain about double-tracking important things like a circuit court of appeals judgeship, the third branch of Government in our society, I think is hitting a little bit below the belt.

It is certainly not unusual for cloture votes on judgeship nominees when the other side is filibustering for the first time in history Federal judicial nominees. I made the mistake of saying the Fortas nomination was the only filibuster up until now. I was wrong. I was corrected by none other than former Senator Robert Griffin who led the fight against Fortas. He said: We weren't filibustering, and they knew it. They knew we had the votes to beat them up and down and they are the ones who called for the cloture vote, which they barely won. They only had 45 votes, and there were 12 who weren't there, many of whom were going to vote against Fortas for justifiable reasons.

So these filibusters going on now are the only ones we've ever had in the Senate. My colleagues on the other side are fond of saying: There have been 140 Bush judges confirmed by us and only two have been filibustered. That is two too many. Constitutionally, that is two too many. One is one too many. I have to admit there were a few on our side during the Clinton years who wanted to filibuster some of those judges. I personally stopped them with the help of the leadership and others who thought it through that we should not be filibustering judges. It is the wrong thing to do. It should not be done, but it is being done here.

If the Senator will just wait for a few more minutes, I want to make a point on Rule 4. For the life of me, I can't understand how anybody reading the Judiciary Committee's Rule 4 would interpret it any differently than the way I did. I was surprised to see my comments during the Bill Lan Lee nomination used against me. What happened there was, I was Chairman. We had the votes to stop the nomination. The Democrats didn't want us to stop the nomination because it would have been embarrassing and might have made it more difficult for them to recess-appoint Lee, who I would have supported for any other job in Government but not that one. Because I knew he would get there and he would use the power of the civil rights office to bring litigation against communities, municipalities who would have to give in rather than spend millions of dollars in defense fees and accept full scale racial quotas. My fears were confirmed. Because they recess-appointed him and he did bring that kind of litigation.

But with the Lee nomination, the Democrats started a filibuster of their own nominee. There was no reason for them to make any arguments. I would have given them a vote up or down right there. They started the filibuster. I, in graciousness, agreed not to have a vote. I have to admit I myself was in error by making some of the statements I did because I didn't realize the importance of this, nor had I even looked at Rule 4. But let's look at this Rule.

It says: ``The chairman shall entertain. . . .'' That means this is a rule that forces the chairman to entertain a nondebatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote. It is a way of forcing the chairman to give a vote that you could not otherwise give if the chairman decided not to do it.

``The chairman shall entertain a nondebatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote if there is objection to bringing the matter to a vote without further debate''--a rollcall vote, in other words. If the chairman refuses, they can then demand a rollcall vote of the committee to be taken. It is nondebatable. It has to happen. And ``debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with 10 votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.''

Anybody with brains can read that and say: That is a rule that forces a recalcitrant chairman to have to call a vote. But any competent person reading that can also conclude, as have I, having consulted with the two Parliamentarians beforehand, that a chairman cannot be foreclosed from his right to call a vote. Because if that were the rule, that means the minority would always control whether there would ever be a vote on a judge. That can't possibly be the rule, though that is what Democrats now are trying to say it is, with regard to the Committee's vote on General Pryor.

We are all well aware by now that Democrats invoked the Judiciary Committee's rule 4 to try to block a committee vote on General Pryor's nomination. Their interpretation of this rule was and is simply incorrect, and let me explain why.

Rule 4, entitled ``Bringing a Matter to a Vote,'' was clearly intended to serve as a tool by which a determined majority of the committee could force a recalcitrant chairman to bring a matter to vote. In fact, the rule provides, ``The Chairman shall entertain a non- debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote.'' On July 23, there was no motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote. In fact, there was an objection to voting, which I overruled. Thus, on its face, rule 4 was inapplicable to the Pryor nomination.

If we followed the interpretation that Democratic members of the committee urged, it would mean that the committee minority would essentially control the committee's agenda. Essentially, the committee's chairman, on behalf of the majority, could not bring any nomination or piece of legislation to a vote without the affirmative vote of at least one member of the minority. So the chairman would have no right to call for a vote--the minority could restrict that right at their discretion.

No chairman would suffer such limitations on his power. The limitation that exists in rule 4 as properly interpreted is entirely reasonable: that all members of the committee's majority, plus one minority member, can force the committee to have a vote over the objection of the chairman--who, in that case, clearly would not be representing his committee's majority. Rule 4 does not, as Democrats, would currently, expediently, have it allow the minority to prevent a vote. Rule 4

does not authorize filibusters in the Judiciary Committee.

Despite claims to the contrary, there has been no inconsistency in the interpretation of this rule. During the Clinton administration, in an effort to prevent the defeat in committee of a controversial Justice Department nominee and spare both committee Democrats and the administration considerable embarrassment, I chose not to exercise the inherent power that I and all committee chairmen have to bring a matter to a vote. President Clinton ultimately made a recess appointment of the nominee. In retrospect, my graciousness to the other side, and my reliance on rule 4 to accomplish this was admittedly not the best course of action. I nevertheless believe that I had the power to bring that matter to a vote, and that I used the discretion of the chairman to decide not to do so.

In short, there was no violation of committee rules or process in bringing the Pryor nomination to a vote on July 23, and any argument to the contrary was merely a last-ditch effort to prevent the full Senate from considering it.

Unfortunately, that effort continues, in a manner equally offensive to the ultimate rules that govern the Senate, the U.S. Constitution.

The fact is, this was the fifth markup that General Pryor was on, having had his confirmation hearing on June 11. And there were continual Democratic efforts to try and thwart these markups every time. I went along with a number of those efforts just out of graciousness. But on July 23 everybody knew we were going to vote because at the prior markup they invoked the two-hour rule, the Democrats did, so that we couldn't possibly, during the time the Senate was in session, vote on Mr. Pryor.

I said: Well, then we will meet after the Senate goes out, which would get around the two-hour rule. That meant about 9 o'clock at night that night, the Thursday before we finally voted. Everybody knew I had the votes. Everybody knew I was going to go ahead. We gave them all day to resolve any problems they had in this so-called ``investigation'' which is as phony as any investigation I have ever seen. By the time we got ready, nobody told me about this, but by the time we got ready for the vote or for the Senate to go out of session and for us to meet--and we worked all day to make sure we would have a quorum--I was informed that there was a personal exigency that existed, a legitimate personal exigency, that was known about earlier in the day, and I agreed to not continue the markup.

I put it over then until the next Wednesday, a full week, and said: Get the staffs together, interview the four witnesses you want to, interview General Pryor in the process, but next Wednesday we are going to vote. There have been comments that our staff stalled that. That is not true. I believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts tried to make that point. That is not true.

As a matter of fact, the Democrats' staff refused to interview or ask questions of Mr. Pryor who could have easily answered them all, and would have, and in fact already had answered all of these questions at his hearing and in writing. It was a phony ``gotcha'' type of a situation which Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are putting nominees through.

Let me talk about the religious problem. I am getting a little tired of this. The outside groups have been outrageous with the smears they have brought upon Republican judicial nominees. If you made one mistake in your life or what they perceive to be a mistake, you are going to be smeared because of it. That perceived mistake is going to be enough for these groups to try to ruin your whole career. The tactics used against Judge Kuhl are a perfect illustration. Her whole career she has had the support of Democratic and Republican judges and everybody else in California who really counts, it seems to me, as far as judges are concerned. They found one thing they can beat into the ground, they think. I don't think even that is valid. I think we can rebut that case. And yet they are going to stop this brilliant woman who has a well-qualified rating, their gold standard, from the American Bar Association.

What is particularly offensive is what the outside groups have done against some of our nominees because of religious beliefs. By the way, throughout the extensive, lengthy, one-of-a-kind hearing on Judge Pryor, there were consistent questions about his deeply held beliefs. This has caused a lot of people to become very upset.

I am sorry. I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

At least in one instance over and over it was on the issue of abortion. Several Democrats asked questions about that.

First, I have seen the letter dated July 30, 2003, which I believe the Senator has put into the Record. The first time I have seen it is tonight.

Right. I am concerned about this. I know some of these outside groups have been doing this regularly. I personally do not believe the distinguished Senator from California is--and I hope none of the other Democrat Senators on the committee are--against Mr. Pryor because of his religious beliefs. But I have to admit that people all over the country have been calling me and talking to me and saying, how could it be anything else? People are drawing that conclusion, and I will be honest with you, I am concerned about it.

There is no question about that. We all have to agree that our Constitution states no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust in the United States. I don't believe any Senator would intentionally impose a religious test on the President's judicial nominees. I do not think any Senators are guilty of anti-religious bias. However, I am deeply concerned that some are indirectly putting at issue the religious beliefs of several judicial nominees.

I will give you one illustration. During the Pryor hearing, General Pryor's religion was an issue--and this is why I have raised it, which I have never done before. One Senator accused General Pryor during the hearing of ``asserting an agenda of your own, a religious belief of your own.'' In his opening statement, another Senator stated:

``In General Pryor's case, his beliefs are so well known,

so deeply held that it is very hard to believe that they are

not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying

`I will follow the law,' and that would be true of anybody

who had very deeply held views.''

The only deeply held views that I know outside of belief in

the law would be his own personal religious beliefs. I will

just say this on another point. On the subject of Roe v.

Wade, Senator Schumer said, ``I for one believe that a judge

can be pro-life, yet be fair, balanced, and uphold a woman's

right to choose. But for a justice to set aside his or her

personal views, the commitment to the rule of law must

clearly supersede his or her personal agenda. . . . But based

on the comments Attorney General Pryor has made on the

subject, I have some real concerns that he cannot because he

feels these views so deeply and so passionately.''

I don't know how you read it any other way.

Another Senator told General Pryor:

I think the very legitimate issue at question with your

nomination is whether you have an agenda, and that many of

the positions you have taken do not reflect just an advocacy,

but a very deeply held view and a philosophy, which you are

entitled to have, but you are also not entitled to get

everyone's vote.

As you know, General Pryor is openly pro-life.

Yes. I am so advised. I have studied the Catholic faith and I respect it deeply, as I do all religions.

I cannot speak to that. All I can say is that I will take the Senator's statement at face value, as I know he is a practicing member of the Catholic faith, and I respect him for that. I know he is very sincere, and I know he has even written about it. But I am concerned.

Three of the people we have been told will be filibustered are traditional pro-life, Catholic conservatives. Certainly, Pryor is one of them. Kuhl is another. Holmes is another. It is a matter of great concern. I have to say that these inside-the-Beltway outside groups will use anything; they will distort a person's record. It is abysmal what they are doing, and they are well heeled to the tune of millions of dollars, which they spend spreading this bile all over the Senate. Unfortunately, I believe there are some in this body who do not decry what they are doing.

I will be happy to yield for another question without losing my right to the floor.

I think there are all kinds of examples. Let me go through a few, if I can. Hopefully, this will be helpful in what the good Senator has asked for.

General Pryor's record speaks with far more authority and with much greater eloquence than the fulminations against him. His record of enforcing the Supreme Court dictates on abortion is unquestioned. He has enforced them all. Despite criticizing them all as a traditional pro-life, Catholic conservative, he has criticized abortion but he has upheld the law.

Although he has been attacked for his federalism arguments before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court sided with him in most of those cases. Arguing that Congress does not have the power that it has assumed through certain legislative acts is not activist or radical. It is principled, entirely consistent with our constitutional separation of powers, and it is General Pryor's duty as State attorney general.

In all the federalism cases he has argued, he advocated that only certain portions of Federal laws were unconstitutional. In all cases, remedies remained available for aggrieved parties or the Federal Government. I cited some of these cases earlier.

Let me give another illustration. His critics have also attempted to portray him as an official without the respect for the separation of church and State. Again, it is simply beyond dispute that his record proves his repeated ability to enforce the law regardless of his strong personal religious beliefs.

In an effort to defeat challenges to school prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court, both the government that appointed General Pryor and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore urged General Pryor to argue that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States.

General Pryor refused, even though his personal beliefs were different, and he argued the case on much narrower grounds despite his own deeply held Catholic faith and personal support for both of those issues.

General Pryor has always been attacked for his statements urging modification or repeal of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. However, despite General Pryor's well-documented concerns about section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, he has vigorously enforced all provisions of the act. He successfully defended before the Supreme Court several majority-minority voting districts approved under section 5 from a challenge by a group of white Alabama voters. He feels deeply about these issues.

He also issued an opinion that the use of stickers to replace one candidate's name for another on a ballot requires preclearance under section 5. Again, General Pryor enforced the law despite its conflicts with his beliefs.

Despite the distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods we have heard about him from the usual leftist inside-the-Beltway interest groups, General Pryor is a diligent, honorable, faithful man whose loyalties as a public servant have been to the law and its impartial administration.

He has told us under oath he will continue to follow the law, just as he has demonstrated in his distinguished career in Alabama. We should be proud to give his nomination an up-or-down vote.

Throughout his hearing, it was one question after another on abortion--one question after another--and he made it clear that as much as he thinks that the outcome of the case of Roe v. Wade is an abomination, because it has resulted in the death of millions of unborn children--and he was very straightforward about it, very honest about it, and was complimented by my colleagues for his honesty, yet they will not accept his honesty on this topic--he said he would enforce Roe v. Wade, which is the law.

After the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, he upheld that law by ordering state officials not to enforce the conflicting Alabama partial-birth abortion law. Earlier, he had enforced Alabama's partial-birth abortion law narrowly, to ensure consistency with Supreme Court's dictates in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Even though he disagrees violently with both of those cases from a personal religious standpoint, but he enforced and upheld those laws, in the face of criticism from many of his conservative friends in Alabama.

Let me read one other item. At his hearing, I asked him this question:

So even though you disagree with Roe v. Wade, you would act

in accordance with Roe v. Wade on the Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals?

This was his answer:

Mr. Pryor. Even though I strongly disagree with Roe v.

Wade, I have acted in accordance with it as attorney general

and would continue to do so as a Court of Appeals judge.

Chairman Hatch. Can we rely on that?

Mr. Pryor. You can take it to the bank, Mr. Chairman.

To be honest with you, that is the way he is, and he is being condemned for that.

I have to say that some of my colleagues on the other side have become tremendously annoyed and hurt by the issue of religion being brought up in this matter, but the attacks on personal beliefs came originally from these inside-the-Beltway groups. They are well heeled, with money coming out of their ears, hiring all kinds of far left liberal lawyers to make these smear attempts and, frankly, that is what is distorting this whole process.

I suggest to my friends on the other side, they are going to have to start some day standing up to these people, but they do not seem to be able to do it.

Frankly, during the Clinton years, I stood up to some of the right wing groups that were occasionally trying to distort somebody's record. We did not see anywhere near what we are seeing today but I stood up. I am not asking them to do something I did not do.

I will be glad to yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, as my colleague knows, I had to stand up to some in my own caucus. Not many. There were some, one or two, who wanted to filibuster President Clinton's nominees. As the Senator will recall, I stood up to that and said we are not going to filibuster judicial nominees. It is not right, and I believe it is constitutionally unsound.

Some of the outside groups were sincere but they wanted to--I believed them to be sincere but wrong--distort some of these matters, and I refused to allow them to do it. They demanded to testify in a variety of cases, and I told them no, we are not going to denigrate the judicial process with that type of stuff.

I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.

Well, the Senator is right.

He is a very serious practicing Catholic. He despises Roe v. Wade. He makes very strong and principled arguments against it. He did not mince any words when he was asked, Did you call it an abomination? And he said: Yes, I did, sir.

When they asked why, he said he called it an abomination because, words to the effect, he believes that it led to the deaths of millions of unborn children. Yet when it came down to enforcing the law on partial-birth abortion, that he despises, he enforced the law, and he directed his prosecutors in the State to do likewise.

I do not know whether we can find any better people than that. There are a lot of politicians who have been attorneys general who I do not think would have done that in the face of their personal beliefs, but he did because he is dedicated to the law. He knows if one does not uphold the law, even if they disagree with it, it would not be long until we would not have any laws. The Constitution would go itself, and he understands that. He is a brilliant man, graduated magna cum laude from Tulane, which is a fine law school, and was editor in chief of the Law Review, something that very few people have the privilege of doing, and that is because he was one of the best students in his class.

Frankly, he has more than shown an aptitude to the law and an ability to follow the law.

Without losing my right to the floor, I will be happy to yield.

That is exactly right. He took a lot of flack for it and he believed the way they did, but he also made it clear that that is the law and that he was going to follow it. He followed it as an elected political official.

Now, if he can follow the law impartially as an elected political official, imagine the honor he would bring to the bench, where it's his job to be impartial. He did not have to do it as an elected political official, although I would not have respected him had he not, but as a judge, I think we have more than ample evidence that this man would follow the law regardless of his personal beliefs. Yet he has been smeared by the outside groups on his personal beliefs. It is just that simple.

Without losing my right to the floor.

I do agree with that. The Senator knows Bill Pryor better than anybody. He worked for the distinguished Senator when he was attorney general. I am absolutely amazed at how many Democrats and people of diversity and others in Alabama are supportive of him. The people who knew him best are the people who support him. The people of Alabama know him best. Yet we are going to second-guess that, for political reasons?

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

Well, I believe it can be, and I believe there is some from the outside groups. I do not think there is any question. I would not want to attribute that to any of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, although I have to admit this issue of abortion is becoming a litmus test issue to Democrats, that is pro-abortion. I think that is wrong. I remember what the media did to Republicans during the Reagan administration, continually trying to say there was a litmus test. I know there was not because the person who vetted all the judges is a former staffer of mine who is now on the Michigan Supreme Court. I know it is not being done by this administration. But literally, Democrats are making abortion a litmus test issue.

The Democrats are fond of saying, yes, but we have passed all kinds of Bush judges, 140 of them so far. Well, they cannot stop them all. So they selectively pick people like General Pryor who clearly has very strongly held views but who clearly has abided by the law. They ignore that he abided by the law and attack him on his strongly held views. In large measure, it comes down to the issue of abortion because he differs with them on the policy issue of abortion.

Without losing my right to the floor.

I just saw it tonight, so I am familiar. I have not read it in detail, but I am familiar with it.

This is the first time I have seen this letter. To him, this is a very important issue. The views he expresses are drawn from what he's heard at the hearing and the markup. Reasonable people can draw these conclusions from the markup, from the debate.

It is coming down to where abortion is the be-all and end-all issue to my colleagues on the other side. Sure, they cannot vote against everyone. I don't know how many of these people are pro-life or pro- choice. I never ask anyone that.

The fact is, I can see why people are drawing this conclusion. I will give a

few other reasons they are drawing that conclusion before we are through here tonight.

This article reads in part:

I have never met Mr. Pryor, but his political life is a

matter of public record. He has served the State of Alabama

with distinction, enforcing its laws and court decisions

fairly and consistently. This is why President Bush nominated

him to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and why the

Senate Judiciary Committee approved him last Wednesday for

consideration by the full Senate.

But the committee debate on Pryor was ugly, and the vote to

advance his nomination split exactly along party lines. Why?

Because Mr. Pryor believes that Catholic teaching about the

sanctity of life is true; that the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v.

Wade decision was a poorly reasoned mistake; and that

abortion is wrong in all cases, even rape and incest. As a

result, Americans were treated to the bizarre spectacle of

non-Catholic Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions defending

Mr. Pryor's constitutionally protected religious rights to

Mr. Pryor's critics, including Senator Richard Durbin, an

``abortion-rights'' Catholic.

He concludes with:

Some things change, and some things don't. The bias against

``papism'' is alive and well in America. It just has a

different address. But at least some people in Alabama now

know where he local Catholic church is--and where she

stands--even if some people in Washington apparently don't.

I ask the Senator from Utah if he has seen that article.

I had not seen it before tonight, that I was aware of. I had been told the Catholic bishop had written this article. I can see why he has drawn this conclusion. I can see why anyone would.

I hear the moaning and groaning and scheming, but I happen to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I belong to the only church in the history of this country that had an extermination order out against it, where our people were brutally murdered and driven from State to State leaving trails of blood.

I don't like religious discrimination in any way. I can see why people are drawing these conclusions from this debate. I can see why people draw such conclusions when you start attacking a man because he has deeply held beliefs. Earlier, I read one statement from Pryor's hearing, questioning his religious beliefs. It was made; and anyone with brains would say, what are his deeply held beliefs? He is a traditional pro-life Catholic conservative. And I guess that is not a good thing to be if you're before this body seeking confirmation to the federal bench.

I think it is a good thing to be. I don't think it is bad to be a liberal pro-life Catholic. I think it is important to live your religion, regardless of what religious persuasion you are. I understand religious discrimination. The name of my church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, yet I am unacceptable in certain groups because they don't think we are Christians. I will match my Christianity up against anyone's. I read the Bible all the time. I try to read it from beginning to end every year. I pretty well do that. It is the greatest book in the world. And it is the greatest literature. But I understand discrimination. Some people will not handle the music I write because they don't think I am Christian. I don't mean to bring that up here except that it applies. I understand that. I understand why people feel this way. If my colleagues on the other side don't understand it, I say shame on them.

When abortion becomes the be-all and end-all in the judicial nomination process--which is what these outside groups, almost every one of them, are committed to on the Democratic side--it is a serious issue. There are serious decent people on both sides of that issue. But when it becomes the be-all and end-all litmus test whether a person can serve--that's wrong. And don't give me the argument we have approved all kinds of people who may be pro-life. Of course, Members cannot vote against everybody.

But we are filibustering, for the first time in history, good people, judicial nominations to the Federal courts of the United States of America, for the first time in history. I know a lot of it comes down to abortion. I did not let that happen when I was chairman during the Clinton years. I don't think it should happen right now, especially somebody such as Pryor who has a reputation for obeying and standing up for the law even though he disagrees with it.

As a politician he has that reputation. I imagine if he can do it as a politician, he can do it and we can take his word on it that he would abide by the law and sustain the law of the land as a judge. Yet the principal argument against him is that he won't enforce the law regarding abortion. There are

other arguments used, all of which are false, in my opinion. This abortion issue is becoming the be-all and end-all issue for Democrats in the Senate. There is always somebody who wants to enforce an abortion litmus test, but we stopped it on our side. It ought to be stopped on their side.

The practical application.

If my colleague will stay a few minutes longer, because I want to make one more point in this area and it needs to be made--a couple maybe.

I believe the Senator has put the letters and op-ed piece from the Catholic Leader into the Record.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record--because these are people who are good people writing these letters. And they are just starting. An avalanche is coming. This is from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, July 23:

Dear Senator Hatch: We write to you with regard to the

Judiciary Committee's consideration of the nomination of

William Pryor, the current Attorney General of the State of

Alabama, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit.

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the

nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization

representing nearly 1,000 congregations nationwide, is a non-

partisan, religious organization and--like most other

organizations in the American Jewish community--it has been

the UOJCA's longstanding policy neither to endorse nor oppose

judicial nominees in the confirmation process. However, to

our dismay, we have witnessed several of our community's

organizations deviate from this shared policy in recent weeks

and oppose the confirmation of Mr. Pryor.

Moreover, we are profoundly troubled by the manner in which

this opposition has been framed. We thus feel compelled,

unlike our fellow communal organizations, to remain faithful

to our non-endorsement policy but express our view on a

critical issue that has been raised in connection with this

nomination--Mr. Pryor's personal religious faith and his

capacity to serve as a federal judge in light of that

personal faith.

As a community of religious believers committed to full

engagement with modern American society, we are deeply

troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith

cannot serve in a high level government post that may raise

issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs. There is

little question in our minds that this view has been the

subtext for some of the criticism of Mr. Pryor. We urge you

and your colleagues to emphatically reject this aspersion and

send a clear message that such suggestions, whether explicit

or implied, are beyond the pale of our politics. In our view,

Mr. Pryor's record as Alabama's Attorney General demonstrates

his ability to faithfully enforce the law, even when it may

conflict with his personal beliefs.

The role of religion and of religious citizens in American

life was much discussed during the last presidential

campaign. To our nation's credit, it was discussed in a

serious and meaningful way, which revealed a national

consensus favoring a society where citizens of many faiths

are not only welcome in our society, but encouraged to bring

their faith into our nation's ``public square.'' We urge you

to ensure that the deliberations over William Pryor's

nomination do not undermine the great progress we have seen

on this issue so critical to America's civil society.

We pray your committee's deliberations will be fair and

serve the nation well.

There are a lot of people concerned about this around here. Let me make this point. I want to respond to the concerns of my dear friend, Senator Feinstein. She is one of my dearest friends in this body. I think the world of her.

She made comments about an ad that used the slogan, ``Catholics need not apply.'' I don't have a copy of it here on a poster.

She used that because she wants us to decry this ad.

Well, I am not happy with this ad.

But I can see why people have done this, because they believe that this--these debates are devolving to the point of attacking a person for his or her personal beliefs, in the case of Pryor, Kuhl, Holmes, others.

Let me respond to Senator Feinstein's concerns about the ad that used the slogan ``Catholics need not apply.'' In fact, it was the liberal groups, the liberal inside-the-beltway groups, that used the slogan ``Catholics need not apply'' to argue against Republicans for supporting the Charitable Choice legislation in 2001.

Let me put one of these ads up, along with the words of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Here is the paragraph down here:

Ashcroft's Charitable Choice provisions allow a government-

funded program to hang a sign that says ``Catholics need not

apply.''

I will not read the rest of it. We will put it into the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Let's go to People for the American Way. It is estimated that People for the American Way have between $12 and $30 million given to them, mainly by the Hollywood crowd and big business people, to do what they do in this town, which is to distort Republican nominees' records. This is People for the American Way. I will not read it all:

Charitable Choice, a bad choice for government and

religion.

Here is the paragraph.

An Evangelical church running a government-funded welfare

program could state that ``Catholics need not apply,'' in a

help wanted ad.

I do not recall any Democratic Senators expressing outrage about that. I did not see one comment about the fact that the liberals have used this language against the Charitable Choice legislation.

Whether you agree with that or whether you agree with General Pryor, or not----

I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.

I have no doubt that we have unset precedents in this body.

No question about that.

I have no doubt, to answer the Senator's question, if we continue down this pathway we are going to devolve to where people with strongly held religious beliefs are not going to be able to serve in this country. That is what it comes down to. I have no doubt that if we continue to violate the Constitution by allowing filibusters against-- under our advise and consent mandate in the Constitution, we are going to wind up with a mess on our hands that we will not be able to repair. So we have to get out of this. I call on our colleagues on the other side to get real here.

I do not think we will go that far. At least while I am chairman of the committee we are not going to do that. I did ask him what his religion was, after all of these questions that were asked in a very extensive hearing where religion was put squarely in issue by the other side. I did ask him that because I wanted to establish that this had gone too far.

I don't intend to ever ask that question again. I don't think my colleagues will. The distinguished Senator from Vermont said he will never ask that question, and he criticized me for doing so. But I think it was highly justified under the circumstances, and I think we made a pretty good case tonight that it was justified, although I am sure some of my colleagues will take umbrage.

But let them take umbrage. People all over this country are starting to say there is litmus test arising. Certainly there are outside groups that are trying to smear our nominees--especially Attorney General Pryor, Judge Kuhl, and Mr. Holmes.

There are people all over this country who are coming to the conclusion that Bill Pryor is being treated that way. Personally, if you are going to apply abortion as a litmus test, and that is his deeply held personal belief, even though he has exhibited more than an effort to obey the laws no matter what they are, I can see why people arrived at that conclusion.

I see why Mr. Donohue feels that way. This is getting to be an avalanche. The new code words for some are that, well, I don't personally believe in abortion but I believe a woman ought to have a right to choose.

Give me a break. That is a nice excuse. But that certainly is not acceptable, it seems to me, to many religions, including the Catholic faith, as has been said by these letters.

It certainly would. We have reached a point on the Judiciary Committee where a person who has always had an honorable reputation such as General Pryor is immediately told by my Democratic colleagues that he cannot follow the law because of his deeply held beliefs. Come on. He has more than shown that he follows the law even though sometimes it is totally in conflict with his religious beliefs because he is a great lawyer. He realizes that if you do not follow the law, pretty soon we will not have any laws. The quickest way to get rid of the Constitution is to not abide by it. Even though there are decisions by the Supreme Court that I abhor, and that I think are bad decisions to start with, the fact is that when it is the law, I believe we ought to abide by it.

He has more than amply shown that he would, even under severe criticism by his supporters--by his own Governor who appointed him, by the Supreme Court Chief Justice who begged him to make certain arguments, he abides by the law. Yet his assertions and his word as a man of integrity and honor all his life are given short shrift.

Democrats are playing this phony ``gotcha politics'' game, in which they ``investigate'' unauthenticated--and many believe, stolen documents--and we object but participate only to keep our side informed. After weeks of their ``investigation,'' they didn't find one thing inconsistent with Pryor's testimony. They called almost everyone named in these documents. I don't know if they got all of them on the phone. But they didn't find one thing wrong. Pryor made himself available twice, so they could ask any question they wanted to ask, but twice, they didn't ask a single question. Then they come here and said they haven't had the full investigation. Give me a break.

It is getting to be where it is hard for people of devout beliefs to not be criticized if those beliefs contradict abortion rights.

Look. We have people on our side who feel very deeply about that. Some of them--very few--wanted to filibuster. We stopped it because we knew it would be terrible for this body to go through filibustering nominees to the Federal judiciary.

But now Democrats are filibustering nominees. When a person of the integrity of Bill Pryor is constantly called into question because of deeply held beliefs, I can see why people from all over the country are starting to ask what his deeply held beliefs are. They are religious beliefs because he is a traditional pro-life Catholic--and God forbid conservative--and that is, frankly, behind this in the eyes of many people.

I don't want to attribute that to my colleagues on the committee but I believe they are letting this happen. I call on them to help stop it.

The reason I bring up these two posters tonight is because these liberal groups use these slogans that ``Catholics need not apply'' to argue against Republicans for supporting Charitable Choice legislation. When that slogan was used against Republicans, I did not hear any outcry from my friends on the other side. I did not hear any outcry. Specifically, Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against John Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General. Their press release stated that Ashcroft's Charitable Choice provisions allow a government-funded program to hang a sign that says ``Catholics Need Not Apply.''

That is ridiculous. But that is what they did. I did not hear any screaming about that. I did not hear any of this righteous indignation from our colleagues over here about that. We didn't dignify it; at least I didn't.

People for the American Way, which I think has a very checkered reputation in this town--I am getting so I don't believe anything they do--criticized the Bush administration for supporting Charitable Choice legislation. They said:

Charitable Choice opens the door to government approved

discrimination. . . . An evangelical church running a

government-funded welfare program could state that

``Catholics need not apply.''

I am sure some will say maybe they will do that. Maybe they will. I don't know. But they are saying a lot of the best welfare programs in this country, a lot of the best programs in this country--from the taking care of people standpoint--are done by religious organizations, including the Catholic Church.

Where was the outrage back in 2001 when the liberals were using the slogan ``Catholics Need Not Apply'' against the Bush administration and John Ashcroft?

My friends on the other side of the aisle were silent. I did not hear one of them complain about that.

I met with some 50 people yesterday from all over the country who believe we are devolving into an antireligious body because of what is going on here.

Again, it is all coming down to abortion.

All we have asked is for Senators not to filibuster judges. We think it is a dangerous, unconstitutional thing to do. Judicial nominees of any President deserve an up-and-down vote, especially once they are brought to the floor. There are all kinds of ways of stopping them before they get to the floor, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand those ways.

But I can tell you this, we can match the decency of our approach any day of the week to what went on during the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations, and now what is going on in this administration--any day of the week--statistically, number-wise, fairness, from a dignity standpoint.

All we want are up-and-down votes for these nominees, especially once they are brought to the floor. What is really bothering our friends on the other side is, we do have a right to bring people to the floor because we have this one-person majority. Can you imagine how much good work we could do if we had a few more in the majority? It would not be nearly this screaming and shouting and this bitterness that sometimes does arise, coming primarily from outside.

I think the public has a right to know exactly where their Senators stand on these issues. If you do not like Bill Pryor, vote against him. If you think that his religious views are going to color his decisions on the bench, vote against him. If I thought that, I would vote against him.

The public needs to know, how are you going to vote on these issues? Some of our colleagues are afraid to take on these outside groups. We did. I did. I have been condemned by some of them, even to this day, for having done

so. And I put through a lot of Clinton judges. The all-time champion was Ronald Reagan: 382 judges in his 8 years. He had 6 years of a Republican Senate to help him, only 2 years with Democrat opposition, and he got 382. It was remarkable. Guess how many Clinton got, with only 2 years of his own party in control of the Senate? In 6 years, where I was chairman, 377--5 less than Reagan. Had it not been for some of the holds on the other side--one Senator was not getting his, so he stopped another from getting his--I think Bill Clinton would have been the all-time confirmation champion, with 6 years of a Republican Senate. We treated him fairly. Now, you can always find something to complain about on both sides, but he was treated fairly under the circumstances. And I know it, and I know he knows it.

These people deserve an up-and-down vote, at least once they come to the floor. Justice delayed is justice denied. There are many of these cases, among the litany of people the Democrats have indicated they are going to filibuster--it is not just two. Pryor looks like he is going to be filibustered. Kuhl looks like she is going to be filibustered. Holmes looks like he is going to be filibustered. We have talked about Pickering being filibustered. You can go down through some others as well--Boyle from North Carolina, et cetera.

Our courts cannot work if we don't have judges to run them. What is really bothering some of our colleagues on the other side is that in relation to the American Bar Association, their gold standard during all my 6 years as chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton years has suddenly not been a gold standard but a tin standard to them, because people like Miguel Estrada, with the unanimously well- qualified highest rating of the American Bar Association, are stopped. For what reason? They do not even have a good reason.

The first Hispanic ever nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and not even a valid reason--at least I have not heard one yet, and I have heard everything they have said.

Priscilla Owen, you can't find a better woman. Priscilla Owen became a top-flight partner in one of the major law firms, broke through the glass ceiling for women, has been a mentor for women, is unanimously well qualified, and a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. She has all kinds of Democrat support from Democrat co-justices right on through the State--the people who know her the best. And she is being filibustered.

Bill Pryor is as good a man as I have seen come before the committee; yes, a person with very deeply held views. He might be filibustered.

Judicial nominees' qualifications should matter most. And a person's judicial qualifications ought to be the sole criteria by which we judge them. You cannot find better people than the ones I have been mentioning. I don't understand it. I don't understand why the other side is doing this. But they are doing it. And I think they are hurting this process tremendously.

All I want--and all any reasonable person should want--and all the public wants--is to have an up-and-down vote. Let these people be voted upon. If they are defeated, I can live with that. But if they are not defeated, they should be able to serve without having their reputation smeared, which is what these outside groups are doing. I don't think outside groups of the left or the right should be doing that. And they are distorting this process like I have never seen it distorted before.

Now, Senator Feinstein was not here when I showed that the left used this slogan ``Catholics Need not apply.'' I don't think it is a good idea, whether these ``Catholics need not apply'' signs or ads come from the left or from the right. And I would prefer them to be stopped.

I don't like my colleague from Vermont thinking that I think he has even an ounce of religious bigotry. I do not. He needs to know that. But he can't just slide off and not recognize that this is where we are being taken by some of the attitudes and some of the approaches that are going on in the Senate Judiciary Committee--at least that is what the people outside think, religious people.

I have to tell you something, some of the greatest judges in this country are Catholics--and from every other religion. And some of the greatest ones have deeply held beliefs. But they are honorable, decent, honest people, just like Bill Pryor.

Now, look, what really has offended me and got me going here today-- and I knew we were not going to go any further on energy tonight because the Democrats brought this up. We have an hour scheduled for the debate early in the morning tomorrow for a cloture vote. They don't want this cloture vote. Why not? It takes 15 minutes. And they are trying to say that we are tossing energy over the hill. They brought it up. And I am not going to let them get away with it anymore.

I care a lot for my colleagues on the other side. There is not one I do not like. That is not the usual BS around here. I do like my colleagues, and they know it. I don't feel good pointing out to them that what they are doing is dangerous for this process, and that people all over this land are starting to get some wrong ideas--maybe right ideas. I think these church leaders are not too far off. In fact, they may very well be right. They took the time to let us know how they feel.

But to come out here tonight and start this mess, and make these points, and then say that we are not willing to get the Energy bill done--come on. We have been doing a slow-walk around here for weeks now on the Energy bill. My colleagues on the other side know that Senator Domenici has had some health problems and that it has been very difficult for him, but he is a gutsy, strong Senator, one of the greatest ones who has ever sat here. And he is never going to let you know that he has been hurting. But they know.

We can do this bill by the end of this week, and we can still have our votes on cloture, which need to be done because the Senate is capable of doing multiple things. If we were not, we would not have lasted for over 200 years. And we can do those trade bills, too, if we just have a modicum of cooperation from the other side. But, no, there is a slow-walk here. And some on our side--in fact, it is a growing number--are starting to believe that slow-walk is to try to make the Senate look bad. You can't make it look bad because we have had a lot of legislation go through this year. And we are going to keep plugging away until we get more that this country needs. But it sure is a chore every step of the way.

I don't want to hear these phony arguments that we can't have 15 minutes for a cloture vote, or even an hour debate beforehand. We can start at any time in the morning.

Most people do not even get moving around here until 10 o'clock. We can do that without interfering with the energy debate. Senator Domenici was willing to be here all night long, if he had to, to take amendments and move this along. I think we Republicans were ready to be here for as long as it took to support him and others on the Democrat side who believe we need an Energy bill.

But to come out here and make these points against Bill Pryor that are not only false but demeaning to this body is wrong.

I am going to yield the floor. I know my colleague would like to speak. I am tired of hearing these arguments how holy some on the other side are. But I tell you this, there are people all over this land who are starting to think this system is not fair to people of belief, to people who have deeply held beliefs. I want you to know I am one of them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at the end of this week, Anthony G. Freeman will leave the post of Director of the

Washington Office of the International Labor Organization, or ILO, after almost a decade serving this specialized agency of the United Nations in its liaison with the executive and federal branches of the U.S. Government. These last 9 years spent in this important role follow his 33-year career as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer.

In that career, Mr. Freeman represented our country all over the world: in Valencia, Spain and Rome, Italy; in Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo and La Paz. From 1983 to 1992, he served as Coordinator for International Labor Affairs and the Agency for International Development. In that capacity, he was Special Assistant to three Secretaries of State.

Tony Freeman's professional focus has been advancing the role of freedom of labor around the world, promoting the dignity and safety of workers wherever they toiled. He was a labor specialist who served as labor officer in many of his posts around the world. This experience was developed over three decades, culminating in his last assignment at the State Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. No one understands better than Tony Freeman that true democracy cannot exist without human rights and neither exist without the freedom of the working man and woman.

Some may not be aware of the importance that American labor has played in U.S. foreign policy through the decades. Some may not appreciate the role that the American worker has played in building alliances with workers around the world, conveying and supporting traditions of freedom--freedom to work and to organize and to be free of oppression--that are an essential aspect of American society. American unions, working through the State Department and working independently, have done great work advancing freedom around the planet, and continue to do so today.

American unions were some of the greatest forces fighting communism during the cold war. The great Irving Brown, who I am pleased to say became my mentor and friend early in my career, when he introduced me to a fledgling Polish union named Solidarity, made his reputation immediately after World War II, when he worked tirelessly with Italian and French labor movements to prevent those nations from succumbing to Soviet influence.

Lane Kirkland, the president of the AFL-CIO from 1979-1995, was a staunch anti-communist who played an important role in defending Solidarity in its early years. I was happy to work with these great men. I come from the working class. I worked as a lather to support my young family while I went to school, and I am proud to this day that I was a union member. It was easy and natural for me to work with other anti-communists from the labor movement to help defeat Soviet tyranny. In later years, Lane Kirkland would say to me, ``Orrin, if only your domestic policy was as good as your foreign policy.'' ``Well, Lane,'' I would retort, ``I could pay you the same compliment!''

After 33 years working labor issues at the Department of State, Tony Freeman accepted the position of Director of the Washington Office of the International Labor Organization in late 1994. I first worked closely with Tony in 1995 and 1996, when a misguided congressional initiative threatened to defund U.S. participation in the ILO. It was a time when the ILO needed to make itself relevant to U.S. audiences, particularly Congress. Irving Brown's legacy with the ILO, when we all worked together to fight Soviet communism, was a great historical achievement, but that did not move policy-makers in Washington searching for new roles for international organizations in the post- Cold War era.

I joined with the late senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who, incidentally, did his doctoral dissertation on the ILO, to defend continued U.S. support for this organization. Supporters of the ILO came to our offices, including representatives from the Labor Department, unions and U.S. businesses. The beauty and strength of the ILO is that it is the only tripartite international organization of its type in the world, where workers and employers from all member nations join to address labor questions alongside their governments. We made our case that the ILO's relevance in an era of expanding trade and globalization, as well as spreading transnational challenges like child labor exploitation, was greater than ever.

And we prevailed, and the U.S. continues to play a role in that important body. All of the coordination to preserve that role was organized by Tony Freeman, and today I want to express my personal gratitude for that important work in 1996.

Tony's efforts did not peak then, and he spent the following years raising the ILO's visibility, and its new missions, before new audiences in the U.S. He developed closer ties between the ILO and human rights groups in the U.S. He drew their attention to the basic human right of working people around the world to have a voice in the workplace, and to the work of the ILO to free people trapped in slavery and bondage, including the forced laborers in Burma. He strengthened the common bond between the ILO and organizations and policy makers fighting to end abusive child labor and saw large increases in U.S. funding for the ILO's child labor programs. In addition, Tony Freeman worked tirelessly to gain U.S. ratification of ILO conventions, and, during his tenure at the ILO, he made a signal contribution to the efforts that led to U.S. ratification of Convention No. 176 on Safety and Health in Mines in 2001.

I understand that Tony will be teaching in Washington in the coming years, as well continuing to offer his lifetime of experience and counsel. I am relieved to hear this, because we still need Tony Freeman's experience. He has lived a great life of service to the working man and woman, across all borders, and he has served the American public well. Today, I wish to honor the work of Tony Freeman all these years. I thank him for his 33 years in the State Department. I thank him for the critical leadership he provided the International Labor Organization. I thank him for putting up with all my Irving Brown stories. I thank him for his friendship. Most of all, I wish to thank Tony Freeman for his service to his country.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I want to congratulate the members of the new Appropriations Subcommittee on successfully completing the first annual appropriations bill providing funding for the new Department of Homeland Security.

Just as the Department of Homeland Security has made momentous progress in protecting our citizens while simultaneously creating a new government agency, the members of the Homeland Security Subcommittee have moved expeditiously to recommend funding in a responsible manner. There is no bill more important to the citizens of Utah, and we recognize the committee's important efforts.

The bill's appropriation of $28.5 billion accomplishes many things. One of the most important is continued support of the Office for Domestic Preparedness. This office, which awards grants to State and local agencies to assist them in preparing our first responders, has had a 1,500 percent increase in funding since September 11, 2001. Today's recommendation of $3.6 billion will bring the total amount spent on first responder preparedness to $8.8 billion since that fateful day.

Our Nation's airports are infinitely more protected than they were just one year ago. The bill continues this important work by providing $4.5 billion for passenger and baggage screening and airport security. It also provides $4.9 billion for securing our borders. The bill funds the US VISIT system development with $380 million. This new system will allow our Nation to collect, maintain and share appropriate information in order to determine the eligibility of foreign citizens wishing to visit the United States.

I appreciate that the committee has decided not to earmark funding for specific Congressional requests and to leave these decisions to the appropriate agencies. The defense of our Nation and in particular the protection of our citizens will never be achieved by purely political decisions, but through diligent hard work and strategic planning.

However, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention a program that has already proven its effectiveness in protecting our citizens and was initiated by the Office for Domestic Preparedness. Last year, the Office for Domestic Preparedness asked Dugway Proving Ground to develop and teach a Ph.D driven chemical and biological emergency responder course. Dugway Proving Ground is our Nation's chemical and biological defense proving ground. The result of these classes has been an unparalleled success and the student responses were overwhelmingly positive. Participants in the class were unanimous in their praise and the Chief of the Chicago HAZMAT Unit categorized the program as ``one that all first responders should attend.'' A student commented further that ``This was the best use of time in my 25 year career.'' The courses focused on agent characteristics, sampling, protection, detection, decontamination and chem/bio production recognition, such as the difference between clandestine drug laboratories, industrial accidents or chemical/biological production capabilities. Students also learned to assess a situation in order to determine the proper course of action. Clearly, these first responder training courses at Dugway are a national resource and though the Committee did not recommend funding for individual programs, I hope that the Office for Domestic Preparedness will continue to sponsor this important program.

I congratulate the committee on its fine work and urge the Senate's approval of the bill.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to express in public my thanks and appreciation to the Judiciary Committee's Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Makan Delrahim. Makan's departure is a tremendous loss for the Senate and for me personally. But, we are fortunate that he will continue to serve our country in his new position in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.

Makan is, in my opinion, a fine example of a great American success story. Makan's family fled from Iran when he was eight years old, and he quickly learned English and immersed himself in American life.

After learning business fundamentals at his father's gas station, Makan unleashed his newfound American entrepreneurial spirit and pursued several successful business enterprises before receiving a bachelor of science in physiology from UCLA. Later, he earned a law degree from George Washington University and also a Master of Science in biotechnology from Johns Hopkins. On top of it all, he became a registered patent attorney.

Clearly, his wide range of abilities and interests explain in part why he has served the Judiciary Committee and the Congress so exceptionally well. He is a brilliant thinker with the rare ability to quickly grasp a wide variety of complex issues.

It was a stroke of good fortune for me when, back in 1995, Makan joined my Judiciary Committee health staff for a term as an intern. As an intern, Makan distinguished himself as an exceptional talent, and after spending a few years practicing law at the Patton, Boggs, I convinced him to come back to the Judiciary staff as counsel handling e-commerce, antitrust and emerging technologies policy. I was once again so impressed with his dedication and ability that in 2001, I asked Makan to serve as Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the Judiciary Committee.

As Chief Counsel, Makan has been my right hand, providing valuable counsel on all matters that come before the Committee. I am particularly proud of his leadership in the development and passage of Hart Scott Rodino reform, the TEACH Act, the PATRIOT Act and the PROTECT Act, to name just a few. He has proved himself to be a skillful negotiator with the ability to bring parties together on divisive issues. It is no wonder that Makan is widely respected on both sides of the aisle.

Makan has worked tirelessly and capably, and I am afraid that his office in the Dirksen Building has become his virtual home as he has worked late into the night and many weekends over these past years. If he had stayed in private law practice and worked these hours, he would probably be a billionaire by now.

As Staff Director, Makan has demonstrated the extraordinary ability to find the greatest strengths in each staff member and to foster those strengths. And I am especially proud of Makan for helping me recruit a brilliant and impeccably qualified staff, and in doing so, bringing an unprecedented level of diversity to the Committee.

We will miss Makan's charismatic style and his ready sense of humor. And, we will miss his extraordinary ability to multitask. He is the only person I know who is capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation while simultaneously checking his email and talking on his cell phone.

Since Makan won't be here to ignore my advice anymore, let me offer it once again: He should get married. And, on a serious note, Makan has not only been a trusted adviser, he has been a friend. He has made us proud and we will miss him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Tom Johnson, and

Brock Taylor of my staff for the duration of the debate on the Pryor nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Justice Earl Leroy Yeakel to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas.

Justice Yeakel has been a justice on the Texas Court of Appeals since 1998. For 29 years prior to his judicial service he was engaged in private practice, litigating both civil and criminal matters at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts.

While attending the University of Texas School of Law, he worked for the Austin law firm of Mitchell, Gilbert & McLean. Upon graduation in 1969, he remained at the firm as an associate counsel, participating in a broad range of litigation-related work. Five years later, Justice Yeakel started his own firm, where he remained until his departure in 1982. In the sixteen years that followed, he served as either an associate or partner in three prominent Austin law firms, litigating both civil and criminal matters at the trial and appellate level in state and federal courts.

Justice Yeakel has proven himself to be a distinguished legal scholar, author, practitioner and judge. He enjoys bi-partisan support and I am confident he will make an excellent federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating Justice Yeakel and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. President, I am also in support of the nomination of Kathleen Cardone to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas.

Since 1983, Judge Cardone has served as a state judge in El Paso County, TX, on numerous courts, including a municipal court, a family law court, and multiple state district courts. In addition to her judicial duties, she has worked as a trained mediator, as well as a teacher of an introductory law course at the El Paso Community College.

After graduating from St. Mary's School of Law in 1979, Judge Cardone worked for one year as a briefing attorney for Philip Schraub, a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Texas. Following this judicial clerkship, she entered private practice, handling an array of cases involving civil, criminal and family law matters.

Judge Cardone has proven herself to be a distinguished legal scholar, author, practitioner and judge. She enjoys bipartisan support and I am confident he will make an excellent federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating Judge Cardone and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to the remarks of my democratic colleague on the state of the judicial nominations process.

We have heard a lot of statistics batted around about judicial confirmations. Some of them are accurate, some of them are dubious, but one of the more misleading ones I have heard is the claim that the score on President Bush's judicial nominees is 140 to 2. This is hardly the score.

First, 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, 15. Almost one-third of President Bush's Federal court nominees have not been confirmed. There are 68 total vacancies on the Federal district and appellate benches, 32 of which are classified as judicial emergencies. We have worked to do, and we will continue to fill those vacancies. No raw number of confirmations means anything, in and of itself, while there are not one, but two filibusters of exemplary nominees going on now, potentially more to come, and emergency vacancies continued to exist. Are we supposed to be grateful that only a few of President Bush's nominees are being filibustered? Is there an acceptable filibuster percentage that the Democratic leadership has in mind? The mere fact that we have to ask these questions makes it crystal clear that we have a broken process. Even one filibuster of a judicial nominee is one too many.

As for the allegation that two nominees have been defeated, well, I for one would not be as quick as some of my Democratic colleagues to declare that the nominations of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen have been defeated. We will continue to fight for the confirmation of these nominees and continue to file for cloture on their nominations. They are exemplary nominees who deserve to be confirmed.

And as for the implication that it is somehow acceptable to filibuster two judicial nominees in light of the others that have been confirmed, I must ask my Democratic colleagues who are leading these filibusters: Would you ever argue that it is permissible to break two criminal laws just as long as all the rest are being followed? Of course not. Nobody would make that argument any more then they would argue that it is permissible to disregard two of the constitutional amendments that comprise our Bill of Rights simply because there are eight others. The confirmation of other Bush judicial nominees in no way excuses or justifies the shabby treatment inflicted on Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to change the way this country taxes business income, whether earned at home or abroad. The bill I am introducing, the ``Promote Growth and Jobs in the USA Act of 2003,'' or the ``Pro Grow USA Act,'' was made necessary because the World Trade Organization has ruled that a significant feature of our current tax system, the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion (or ETI), is an impermissible trade subsidy under WTO rules.

This final WTO ruling followed a similar decision of that body made a few years ago that a previous U.S. tax provision, the Foreign Sales Corporation (or FSC), was also an illegal trade subsidy under the WTO rules. After that first WTO decision, Congress replaced the FSC provision with the ETI provision, which generally replicated the benefits of the FSC to its recipients. Both provisions were designed to help U.S. exporters better compete in the global economy.

Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in the very unpleasant situation of having to repeal the ETI tax benefit. This repeal will cost the exporters of this nation more than $4 billion per year. Failure to repeal it by the end of 2003 could bring upon us trade sanctions by the European Union, which has already been authorized by the WTO to assess these sanctions in an amount exceeding $4 billion per year.

Even though I am not enthusiastic about introducing legislation to repeal that tax benefit, I believe we should make a virtue out of necessity. This is what I am trying to accomplish with this bill. We know we cannot, in a WTO-compliant way, give those lost tax benefits back to the companies that are losing them by the repeal. What we can do, however, is pass tax reform measures to strengthen all American businesses.

I see this as an opportunity to once again make America the world's greatest location to start a business, and the world's greatest location to grow a business.

Today, savings and investment dollars flow around the world at the speed of light, and businesses look all over the world when deciding where to put their global headquarters, their research departments, and their manufacturing operations. We need to take these facts into account when we reform our tax rules, which we now are forced to do. Our goal should be to make the U.S. economy a magnet for greater innovation and greater capital formation.

I believe, that this is the right time to look at how our companies do business overseas, both how they export products abroad and how they expand their operations abroad. And, I believe we should also take this opportunity to examine whether our tax policy can be improved to better help U.S. firms that operate only domestically grow and thrive.

In my view, the ETI repeal has to address the legitimate concerns of both domestic producers and U.S.-based multinationals. Both kinds of companies hire Americans, both kinds of companies make interest payments and dividend payments to Americans, and both kinds of companies pay American taxes.

In response to this situation, Members of Congress have introduced several proposals to repeal and replace the ETI benefit. One leading proposal would create a new, lower tax rate for American manufacturers. While I am certainly not opposed to lowering tax rates on U.S. manufacturers, I am convinced that such a solution, by itself, is not adequate. This is because it ignores the very real problems our tax code presents to U.S. businesses that expand overseas.

As with several of my colleagues on the Finance Committee, I have long been interested in improving our tax rules that govern international transactions. They are woefully out of date and harm the ability of U.S. firms to compete on a global basis. Moreover, the rules are mind numbingly complex.

Legislation I introduced with Senator Baucus in 1999 would have gone a long way toward updating and simplifying these laws so they work much better. Some of those provisions were included in a large tax bill that both the Senate and House passed that year that was unfortunately vetoed by President Clinton for reasons unrelated to the international provisions.

Since then, however, there has been a great deal of interest in reforming the international rules, but the opportunities to bring such measures to the floors of the House and Senate have been quite limited, until now. As I mentioned, I believe that the repeal of the ETI represents a rare opportunity to address these much-needed changes.

Another major solution to the ETI repeal and replacement problem is the one taken by Chairman Bill Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee in the bill he introduced last Friday. I want to emphasize that while my bill and Chairman Thomas's bill are very different in many respects, they are very much alike in the approach they take to the problem. Both Chairman Thomas and I believe it is vital to address the issues presented by both domestic businesses and by multinational firms.

There are three principles underlying my legislation. The first is that as we repeal ETI, we should strive to replace it with provisions that would increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies at home as well as abroad, and that would increase the productivity growth of our economy. I want to increase the ability of all American firms to compete, both those just at home and those that also operate abroad

There is a false notion we hear from time to time that if we make it easier for U.S. companies to operate effectively on a worldwide basis, we are making them more likely to move U.S. jobs abroad. I believe just the opposite is true--that making U.S. firms more competitive worldwide increases the quality and quantity of American jobs.

When companies expand overseas, they likely hire more people at the U.S. headquarters. The R&D jobs, the marketing jobs, management and support jobs--we can have those jobs here, supporting a U.S. company's worldwide operations. I think we should make it easier to grow those kind of good-paying headquarters jobs right here at home.

The second principle is that we ought to simplify the tax code to the extent possible. My bill would do this both in the international arena and in the depreciation rules.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I disagree with the notion that replacing the ETI provision has to be a zero

sum game. The Senate budget resolution calls for nearly $500 billion more in tax cuts outside of budget reconciliation. I believe we should be willing to spend some of this tax cut money to ensure that all American businesses are better able to grow and compete.

Notwithstanding our new deficit projections, I still believe that President Bush and those who support him are on the right track in trying to pass tax cuts to increase economic growth and productivity, combined with spending discipline. One thing is for certain--we will never get out of a deficit mode with the slower growth that comes from tax hikes and more government spending.

I understand the political realities facing the Senate in this, the 108th Congress. I understand that a bill featuring $200 billion or more in additional tax cuts is not likely to attract the kind of bipartisan support it needs in order to be marked up in the Finance Committee and to make it to the floor of the Senate.

Therefore, my goal in introducing this legislation is threefold. First, I hope to help convince my colleagues of the importance of meeting our WTO obligations this year, by repealing the ETI provision. As our economy struggles to shake off the last recession, the last thing we need is to impose large and onerous trade sanctions upon it.

Second, I want to expand the options on the table for the Finance Committee to consider when we start putting the bill together this autumn. Even in a revenue neutral environment, the ideas put forward by my bill should provide many additional choices for the Committee to consider.

Finally, I hope that by introducing this legislation, we will end up with a final bill that will be more beneficial to U.S. domestic and U.S.-based multinational companies and their workers. In my view, we simply cannot afford to focus on just workers for domestic companies or just on employees of global companies. We need both for our long-term prosperity.

The bill I am introducing today has four major components. First, of course, it repeals the ETI provision and provides three years of generous transition relief. When a representative of the U.S. Trade Representative's office testified before the Finance Committee a few weeks ago, I asked him what the appropriate phase-out of the ETI benefit might be, so as not to trigger the trade sanctions by the E.U. In reply to my question, he stated that he believed the Europeans would view one or two years as a normal and expected phase out period.

On the other hand, the USTR official indicated that he believed that a longer period of, four or five years I believe he said, would definitely cause some real concern on the part of the Europeans. Therefore, I included a three-year phaseout of the ETI benefit in my bill. Specifically, the benefits of the ETI exclusion would be phased out at the rate of 25 percent in 2004, 50 percent in 2005, 75 percent in 2006, and no benefits in 2007 and thereafter.

Second, the bill contains a substantial international tax reform title. Our international tax system is based on two key principles, neither of which work very well in practice under our current outdated laws. The first principle is that U.S. companies that pay income tax to other countries should not be double taxed on that income. The second principle is that companies engaged in active overseas businesses should not pay tax on that income until it is returned to the U.S. parent corporation. Our current rules violate these principles again and again, and I think it's time to return to these principles.

For example, our foreign base company tax rules, which make it expensive for companies to create an overseas regional marketing and distribution network for U.S. products, are an anachronism. They hurt U.S. exports, and need to be fixed. But we are told that repealing these rules would cost the Treasury too much revenue, and that they may open up opportunities for transfer pricing abuses.

Recognizing this revenue concern, I am proposing to allow a repeal of the foreign base company rules as long as the base company is in a country with which we have a comprehensive tax treaty, or when the U.S. parent has an advanced pricing agreement in place with the IRS. These backstops should reduce these concerns about base company repeal.

Further, I want to open a debate on the merits of a territorial tax system. I want to open that debate by proposing an expansion of the temporary dividend repatriation proposal that some of my colleagues have embraced, and that I myself voted for in the Finance Committee and on the floor. While I believe that such a temporary provision has merit from an economic stimulus standpoint, I have real tax policy concerns about it.

Therefore, in my bill I propose a permanent, reduced corporate tax rate of 5.25 percent to companies that repatriate foreign earnings to the U.S., as long as they spend that money on higher levels of business equipment and research expenditures. Overseas profits can pay for new machines, new research, and better jobs right here at home, and multinational businesses will be given a strong incentive in my bill to invest in such economically positive activities. I hope that my colleagues will give serious consideration to this proposal.

In the 107th Congress, Senator Breaux and I introduced S. 1475, a bill to provide an appropriate and permanent tax structure for investments in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the United States. That bill would have allowed subsidiaries of U.S. companies incorporated in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions to repatriate active business income earned in these jurisdictions at the equivalent of a 5.25 percent tax rate.

As I just mentioned, the bill I am introducing today would provide generally comparable treatment for U.S. subsidiaries incorporated in all foreign jurisdictions, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions, to the extent the companies invested those repatriated earnings on higher levels of business equipment and research.

As a result of expanding the scope of last year's bill, I recognize that U.S. companies might not be encouraged to invest in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions as compared to any foreign country. Since 1921, the United States has accorded preferential tax treatment to the business operations of U.S. companies in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions. This tax treatment offsets U.S. regulatory mandates--such as minimum wage and environmental and safety regulations--and has supported Puerto Rico's industrial development program, which has resulted in an increase in Puerto Rico's per capita income from 16 percent of the U.S. average in 1948 when the industrial incentives program began, to 32 percent today.

I remain concerned about the economic development of Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions and therefore will continue to support separate legislation that supports employment and economic opportunity for American citizens living in the Commonwealth and the possessions.

The third section of my bill extends and expands the research credit on a permanent basis. This provision is identical to the bill that Senator Baucus and I introduced earlier this year. And as many of my colleagues know, a permanent research credit enjoys significant bipartisan support here in the Senate, both on and off the Finance Committee.

Finally, the bill offers real depreciation reform. The bill offers three years of complete expensing of business equipment and leasehold improvements. It builds on the bonus depreciation incentives we included in both the 2002 stimulus tax cut bill and the growth tax cut bill we passed earlier this year.

Essentially, all the same kinds of assets that qualified for the bonus depreciation benefits in those two bills would now qualify for 100 percent immediate expensing under this bill. Moreover, the bill would extend the Section 179 expensing provision for small businesses by one full year. Economists tell us that what this recovery lacks is capital spending by business. By building on the incentives we passed in the earlier tax bills, we can get capital spending moving again. This will lead to higher productivity and higher wages.

I would like to comment on more aspects of the depreciation section of my bill. I have been told by some of my business constituents in Utah that the bonus depreciation provisions are not

helpful to them. This is because those companies are currently suffering losses and have no current taxable income. Moreover, some of these businesses have been having difficulties for so long that they have no recent year when tax was paid to which they may carry back a net operating loss.

One tax attribute that many of these companies do have, however, is prepayment credits under the Alternative Minimum Tax. As many of my colleagues know, the AMT has the perverse effect of hurting companies when business conditions are poor, thus exacerbating an already difficult financial situation. So, unprofitable companies often find themselves continuing to pay the alternative minimum tax.

In order to assist companies like the ones I described, my bill includes a provision that would allow a taxpayer to elect to forego the expensing of newly acquired business property and instead to effectively monetize their corporate alternative minimum tax credits to that extent. This simple proposal bestows no new tax benefits on these companies, but rather delivers the full expensing provision at the time it is most needed by the company and in the economy generally.

Moreover, this provision helps to equalize the tax treatment between fully taxable companies that can take full advantage of tax incentives and their less fortunate competitors that cannot at the present fully utilize those benefits. Having Congress assist those companies who are enjoying good times at the expense of those who are struggling is not in the best interest of this nation.

I hope this bill will make a positive contribution to the debate in both the Senate and the House. And, I hope the final ETI repeal and replacement bill that the President signs will be more beneficial to more domestic and multinational companies because of the ideas we are proposing.

Finally, I hope that throughout this debate, as accusations and proposals fly back and forth regarding how best to help the U.S. economy, we keep our eyes on the real goal--keeping America's workers the most productive in the world, whether they work in an office park or in a factory. And as the 1990s proved beyond doubt, high productivity and lower unemployment rates can easily go hand in hand. As we saw in the 1990s, higher productivity is the key to higher wages and better jobs.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to change the way this country taxes business income, whether earned at home or abroad. The bill I am introducing, the ``Promote Growth and Jobs in the USA Act of 2003,'' or the ``Pro Grow USA Act,'' was made necessary because the World Trade Organization has ruled that a significant feature of our current tax system, the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion (or ETI), is an impermissible trade subsidy under WTO rules.

This final WTO ruling followed a similar decision of that body made a few years ago that a previous U.S. tax provision, the Foreign Sales Corporation (or FSC), was also an illegal trade subsidy under the WTO rules. After that first WTO decision, Congress replaced the FSC provision with the ETI provision, which generally replicated the benefits of the FSC to its recipients. Both provisions were designed to help U.S. exporters better compete in the global economy.

Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in the very unpleasant situation of having to repeal the ETI tax benefit. This repeal will cost the exporters of this nation more than $4 billion per year. Failure to repeal it by the end of 2003 could bring upon us trade sanctions by the European Union, which has already been authorized by the WTO to assess these sanctions in an amount exceeding $4 billion per year.

Even though I am not enthusiastic about introducing legislation to repeal that tax benefit, I believe we should make a virtue out of necessity. This is what I am trying to accomplish with this bill. We know we cannot, in a WTO-compliant way, give those lost tax benefits back to the companies that are losing them by the repeal. What we can do, however, is pass tax reform measures to strengthen all American businesses.

I see this as an opportunity to once again make America the world's greatest location to start a business, and the world's greatest location to grow a business.

Today, savings and investment dollars flow around the world at the speed of light, and businesses look all over the world when deciding where to put their global headquarters, their research departments, and their manufacturing operations. We need to take these facts into account when we reform our tax rules, which we now are forced to do. Our goal should be to make the U.S. economy a magnet for greater innovation and greater capital formation.

I believe, that this is the right time to look at how our companies do business overseas, both how they export products abroad and how they expand their operations abroad. And, I believe we should also take this opportunity to examine whether our tax policy can be improved to better help U.S. firms that operate only domestically grow and thrive.

In my view, the ETI repeal has to address the legitimate concerns of both domestic producers and U.S.-based multinationals. Both kinds of companies hire Americans, both kinds of companies make interest payments and dividend payments to Americans, and both kinds of companies pay American taxes.

In response to this situation, Members of Congress have introduced several proposals to repeal and replace the ETI benefit. One leading proposal would create a new, lower tax rate for American manufacturers. While I am certainly not opposed to lowering tax rates on U.S. manufacturers, I am convinced that such a solution, by itself, is not adequate. This is because it ignores the very real problems our tax code presents to U.S. businesses that expand overseas.

As with several of my colleagues on the Finance Committee, I have long been interested in improving our tax rules that govern international transactions. They are woefully out of date and harm the ability of U.S. firms to compete on a global basis. Moreover, the rules are mind numbingly complex.

Legislation I introduced with Senator Baucus in 1999 would have gone a long way toward updating and simplifying these laws so they work much better. Some of those provisions were included in a large tax bill that both the Senate and House passed that year that was unfortunately vetoed by President Clinton for reasons unrelated to the international provisions.

Since then, however, there has been a great deal of interest in reforming the international rules, but the opportunities to bring such measures to the floors of the House and Senate have been quite limited, until now. As I mentioned, I believe that the repeal of the ETI represents a rare opportunity to address these much-needed changes.

Another major solution to the ETI repeal and replacement problem is the one taken by Chairman Bill Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee in the bill he introduced last Friday. I want to emphasize that while my bill and Chairman Thomas's bill are very different in many respects, they are very much alike in the approach they take to the problem. Both Chairman Thomas and I believe it is vital to address the issues presented by both domestic businesses and by multinational firms.

There are three principles underlying my legislation. The first is that as we repeal ETI, we should strive to replace it with provisions that would increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies at home as well as abroad, and that would increase the productivity growth of our economy. I want to increase the ability of all American firms to compete, both those just at home and those that also operate abroad

There is a false notion we hear from time to time that if we make it easier for U.S. companies to operate effectively on a worldwide basis, we are making them more likely to move U.S. jobs abroad. I believe just the opposite is true--that making U.S. firms more competitive worldwide increases the quality and quantity of American jobs.

When companies expand overseas, they likely hire more people at the U.S. headquarters. The R&D jobs, the marketing jobs, management and support jobs--we can have those jobs here, supporting a U.S. company's worldwide operations. I think we should make it easier to grow those kind of good-paying headquarters jobs right here at home.

The second principle is that we ought to simplify the tax code to the extent possible. My bill would do this both in the international arena and in the depreciation rules.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I disagree with the notion that replacing the ETI provision has to be a zero

sum game. The Senate budget resolution calls for nearly $500 billion more in tax cuts outside of budget reconciliation. I believe we should be willing to spend some of this tax cut money to ensure that all American businesses are better able to grow and compete.

Notwithstanding our new deficit projections, I still believe that President Bush and those who support him are on the right track in trying to pass tax cuts to increase economic growth and productivity, combined with spending discipline. One thing is for certain--we will never get out of a deficit mode with the slower growth that comes from tax hikes and more government spending.

I understand the political realities facing the Senate in this, the 108th Congress. I understand that a bill featuring $200 billion or more in additional tax cuts is not likely to attract the kind of bipartisan support it needs in order to be marked up in the Finance Committee and to make it to the floor of the Senate.

Therefore, my goal in introducing this legislation is threefold. First, I hope to help convince my colleagues of the importance of meeting our WTO obligations this year, by repealing the ETI provision. As our economy struggles to shake off the last recession, the last thing we need is to impose large and onerous trade sanctions upon it.

Second, I want to expand the options on the table for the Finance Committee to consider when we start putting the bill together this autumn. Even in a revenue neutral environment, the ideas put forward by my bill should provide many additional choices for the Committee to consider.

Finally, I hope that by introducing this legislation, we will end up with a final bill that will be more beneficial to U.S. domestic and U.S.-based multinational companies and their workers. In my view, we simply cannot afford to focus on just workers for domestic companies or just on employees of global companies. We need both for our long-term prosperity.

The bill I am introducing today has four major components. First, of course, it repeals the ETI provision and provides three years of generous transition relief. When a representative of the U.S. Trade Representative's office testified before the Finance Committee a few weeks ago, I asked him what the appropriate phase-out of the ETI benefit might be, so as not to trigger the trade sanctions by the E.U. In reply to my question, he stated that he believed the Europeans would view one or two years as a normal and expected phase out period.

On the other hand, the USTR official indicated that he believed that a longer period of, four or five years I believe he said, would definitely cause some real concern on the part of the Europeans. Therefore, I included a three-year phaseout of the ETI benefit in my bill. Specifically, the benefits of the ETI exclusion would be phased out at the rate of 25 percent in 2004, 50 percent in 2005, 75 percent in 2006, and no benefits in 2007 and thereafter.

Second, the bill contains a substantial international tax reform title. Our international tax system is based on two key principles, neither of which work very well in practice under our current outdated laws. The first principle is that U.S. companies that pay income tax to other countries should not be double taxed on that income. The second principle is that companies engaged in active overseas businesses should not pay tax on that income until it is returned to the U.S. parent corporation. Our current rules violate these principles again and again, and I think it's time to return to these principles.

For example, our foreign base company tax rules, which make it expensive for companies to create an overseas regional marketing and distribution network for U.S. products, are an anachronism. They hurt U.S. exports, and need to be fixed. But we are told that repealing these rules would cost the Treasury too much revenue, and that they may open up opportunities for transfer pricing abuses.

Recognizing this revenue concern, I am proposing to allow a repeal of the foreign base company rules as long as the base company is in a country with which we have a comprehensive tax treaty, or when the U.S. parent has an advanced pricing agreement in place with the IRS. These backstops should reduce these concerns about base company repeal.

Further, I want to open a debate on the merits of a territorial tax system. I want to open that debate by proposing an expansion of the temporary dividend repatriation proposal that some of my colleagues have embraced, and that I myself voted for in the Finance Committee and on the floor. While I believe that such a temporary provision has merit from an economic stimulus standpoint, I have real tax policy concerns about it.

Therefore, in my bill I propose a permanent, reduced corporate tax rate of 5.25 percent to companies that repatriate foreign earnings to the U.S., as long as they spend that money on higher levels of business equipment and research expenditures. Overseas profits can pay for new machines, new research, and better jobs right here at home, and multinational businesses will be given a strong incentive in my bill to invest in such economically positive activities. I hope that my colleagues will give serious consideration to this proposal.

In the 107th Congress, Senator Breaux and I introduced S. 1475, a bill to provide an appropriate and permanent tax structure for investments in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the United States. That bill would have allowed subsidiaries of U.S. companies incorporated in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions to repatriate active business income earned in these jurisdictions at the equivalent of a 5.25 percent tax rate.

As I just mentioned, the bill I am introducing today would provide generally comparable treatment for U.S. subsidiaries incorporated in all foreign jurisdictions, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions, to the extent the companies invested those repatriated earnings on higher levels of business equipment and research.

As a result of expanding the scope of last year's bill, I recognize that U.S. companies might not be encouraged to invest in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions as compared to any foreign country. Since 1921, the United States has accorded preferential tax treatment to the business operations of U.S. companies in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions. This tax treatment offsets U.S. regulatory mandates--such as minimum wage and environmental and safety regulations--and has supported Puerto Rico's industrial development program, which has resulted in an increase in Puerto Rico's per capita income from 16 percent of the U.S. average in 1948 when the industrial incentives program began, to 32 percent today.

I remain concerned about the economic development of Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions and therefore will continue to support separate legislation that supports employment and economic opportunity for American citizens living in the Commonwealth and the possessions.

The third section of my bill extends and expands the research credit on a permanent basis. This provision is identical to the bill that Senator Baucus and I introduced earlier this year. And as many of my colleagues know, a permanent research credit enjoys significant bipartisan support here in the Senate, both on and off the Finance Committee.

Finally, the bill offers real depreciation reform. The bill offers three years of complete expensing of business equipment and leasehold improvements. It builds on the bonus depreciation incentives we included in both the 2002 stimulus tax cut bill and the growth tax cut bill we passed earlier this year.

Essentially, all the same kinds of assets that qualified for the bonus depreciation benefits in those two bills would now qualify for 100 percent immediate expensing under this bill. Moreover, the bill would extend the Section 179 expensing provision for small businesses by one full year. Economists tell us that what this recovery lacks is capital spending by business. By building on the incentives we passed in the earlier tax bills, we can get capital spending moving again. This will lead to higher productivity and higher wages.

I would like to comment on more aspects of the depreciation section of my bill. I have been told by some of my business constituents in Utah that the bonus depreciation provisions are not

helpful to them. This is because those companies are currently suffering losses and have no current taxable income. Moreover, some of these businesses have been having difficulties for so long that they have no recent year when tax was paid to which they may carry back a net operating loss.

One tax attribute that many of these companies do have, however, is prepayment credits under the Alternative Minimum Tax. As many of my colleagues know, the AMT has the perverse effect of hurting companies when business conditions are poor, thus exacerbating an already difficult financial situation. So, unprofitable companies often find themselves continuing to pay the alternative minimum tax.

In order to assist companies like the ones I described, my bill includes a provision that would allow a taxpayer to elect to forego the expensing of newly acquired business property and instead to effectively monetize their corporate alternative minimum tax credits to that extent. This simple proposal bestows no new tax benefits on these companies, but rather delivers the full expensing provision at the time it is most needed by the company and in the economy generally.

Moreover, this provision helps to equalize the tax treatment between fully taxable companies that can take full advantage of tax incentives and their less fortunate competitors that cannot at the present fully utilize those benefits. Having Congress assist those companies who are enjoying good times at the expense of those who are struggling is not in the best interest of this nation.

I hope this bill will make a positive contribution to the debate in both the Senate and the House. And, I hope the final ETI repeal and replacement bill that the President signs will be more beneficial to more domestic and multinational companies because of the ideas we are proposing.

Finally, I hope that throughout this debate, as accusations and proposals fly back and forth regarding how best to help the U.S. economy, we keep our eyes on the real goal--keeping America's workers the most productive in the world, whether they work in an office park or in a factory. And as the 1990s proved beyond doubt, high productivity and lower unemployment rates can easily go hand in hand. As we saw in the 1990s, higher productivity is the key to higher wages and better jobs.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of my bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Pryor was No. 1 in his class at Tulane University Law School. He is a magna cum laude of Tulane University School of Law where he was editor and chief of the Tulane Law Review, something that very few lawyers have the privilege of saying. He then clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom for the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a civil rights legend who helped implement desegregation in the South.

While working at two of Alabama's top private law firms, he was the adjunct professor of law at Samford University Cumberland School of Law. In 1995, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, current Senator from Alabama, hired him as Deputy Attorney General, and in 1997 he was appointed to serve out Senator Sessions' term.

In 1998, Alabamians elected General Pryor to this position. He was reelected in 2002 with the remarkable 59 percent of the vote.

Let me share some of the letters that prominent Democrats have written about General Pryor. Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, which is the State's African-American caucus, writes that General Pryor ``will uphold the law without fear or favor. I believe all races and colors will get a fair shake when their cases come before him . . . I am a member of the Democratic National Committee and, of course, General Pryor is a Republican, but these are only party labels. I am persuaded that in General Pryor's eyes, Justice has only one label--Justice!''

Judge Sue Bell Cobb, who sits on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, stated:

I write, not only as the only statewide Democrat to be

elected in 2000, not only as a member of the Court which

reviews the greatest portion of General Pryor's work, but

also as a child advocate who has labored shoulder to shoulder

with General Pryor in the political arena on behalf of

Alabama's children. It is for these reasons and more that I

am indeed honored to recommend General Pryor for nomination

to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

And Congressman Artur Davis encouraged President Bush to nominate General Pryor, declaring his belief that ``Alabama will be proud of his service.''

I will submit copies of these letters for the Record, along with copies of the other many letters from Democrats and Republicans, men and women, and members of Africa-American, Jewish, and Christian communities who support Bill Pryor's nomination.

It is fundamental that a State attorney general has the obligation to represent and defend the laws and interests of this State. General Pryor has fulfilled this responsibility admirably by repeatedly defending the public first and the laws and policies enacted by the Alabama legislature. But one of the reasons for the broad spectrum of support for General Pryor is his demonstrated ability to set aside his personal views and follow the law. As you will undoubtedly hear during the

course of the debate on his nomination, General Pryor is no shrinking violet. He has been open and honest about his personal beliefs, which is what voters expect from the persons whom they elect to represent them. Yet General Pryor has shown again and again that when the law conflicts with his personal and political beliefs, he follows the law.

For example, in 1997, the Alabama legislature enacted a ban on partial birth abortion that could have been interpreted to prohibit abortions before viability. General Pryor is avowedly pro-life, and has strongly criticized Roe v. Wade, so one might very well have expected General Pryor to vigorously enforce the statute. Instead, he instructed law enforcement officials to enforce the law only insofar as it was consistent with the Supreme Court's precedents of Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart--despite pressure from many Republicans to enforce broader language in the act.

Here's another example: I am sure that we will hear General Pryor's call for modification or repeal of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires Department of Justice preclearance. By the way, General Pryor is not alone in his opinion of section 5; the Democratic Attorney General of Georgia, Thurbert Baker, has called section 5 an ``extraordinary transgression of the normal prerogatives of the states.'' Despite his opinion that section 5 is flawed, General Pryor successfully defended before the Supreme Court several majority- minority voting districts approved under section 5 from a challenge by a group of white Alabama voters. He also issued an opinion that the use of stickers to replace one candidate's name with another on a ballot required preclearance under section 5. In other words, he upheld a law that he thinks is legally flawed and politically flawed. In other words, this man will abide by the law in spite of his personal beliefs.

Yet another example involves General Pryor's interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In an effort to defeat challenges to school prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court, both the Governor and the Chief Justice urged General Pryor to argue that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. General Pryor refused, despite his own deeply held Catholic faith and personal support for both of these issues.

And here's my final example: General Pryor supported the right of teachers to serve as state legislators, despite intense pressure from his own party, because he believed that the Alabama Constitution allowed them to do so. This man follows the law, regardless of his personal beliefs. That is all you can ask of a judicial official and of somebody who is nominated to a Circuit Court of Appeals in this country.

These examples, and I can give others, aptly illustrate why General Pryor's nomination enjoys broad bipartisan support from persons like former Democratic Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley. He observed of General Pryor:

In every difficult decision he has made, his actions were

supported by his interpretation of the law, without race,

gender, age, political power, wealth, community standing, or

any other competing interest affecting judgment.

That is pretty high praise coming from a Leading Democrat, one of his predecessors.

Mr. Baxley continued,

I often disagree, politically, with Bill Pryor. This does

not prevent me from making this recommendation because we

need fair minded, intelligent, industrious men and women,

possessed of impreccable integrity on the Eleventh Circuit.

Bill Pryor has these qualities in abundance. . . . There is

no better choice for this vacancy.

During the course of this debate, we will hear many things about Bill Pryor. We will hear many one-sided half-truths perpetuated by the usual liberal interest groups who will stop at nothing to defeat President Bush's judicial nominees. I want to make sure that this debate is about fairness, and about telling the full story of Bill Pryor's record.

We will hear that General Pryor is devout pro life Catholic who has criticized Roe v. Wade, but the rest of the story is that many prominent prochoice Democrats, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Archibold Cox and former Stanford Dean John Hart Ely have also criticized roe without anyone questioning their recognition of it as binding Supreme Court precedent.

We will hear claims that General Pryor is against the disabled and elderly, but the real story is that General Pryor has done his duty as Attorney General to defend his State's budget from costly lawsuits. Other state attorneys general, including respected Democrats like Bob Butterworth of Florida and now Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, have taken the same positions as General Pryor in dfending their States. While the Supreme Court agreed with the attorneys general in these cases that the Eleventh Amendment protects States from monetary damages in Federal court, these rulings did not affect--and General Pryor did not seek to weaken--other important methods of redressing discrimination, like actions for monetary damages under state law, injunctive relief, or back pay.

We will hear claims that General Pryor's criticisms of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act indicate a lack of commitment to civil rights. That is pure and simple, unmitigated bunk. But the real story is that General Pryor has a solid record of commitment to civil rights, which includes defending majority-minority voting districts, leading the battle to abolish the Alabama Constitution's prohibition on interracial marriage, and working with the Clinton Administration's Justice Department to prosecute the former Ku Klux Klansmen who perpetrated the bombing of Birmingham's 16th Street Baptist Church, which resulted in the deaths of four little girls in 1963.

We will no doubt hear other claims during the course of this debate distorting General Pryor's record or presenting only partial truths. I urge my colleagues to judge this nominee on his record, not on the distortions we too often hear about President Bush's nominees. He will make a fine addition to the Eleventh Circuit.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I have referred be printed in the Record.