Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to urge the ratification of Treaty Document 108-14, allowing for the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.

I wish to commend the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, as well as the ranking minority member, Senator Biden, for the work their committee has done to prepare for this historic vote. Since the first accession to the original membership of NATO, when Greece and Turkey were admitted, the Senate has preserved its role of advice and consent on amending this treaty. Senators Lugar and Biden, who have made the advancement of the Atlantic alliance a central concern in their respected careers as two of the Senate's most thoughtful members on foreign policy, have maintained the Senate's critical function, and have, through hearings and statements through the years, provided many opportunities to study the policies and the evolution of the U.S. national interest within the Atlantic alliance.

This is the second time we have voted to ratify the North Atlantic treaty since the end of the cold war. President Clinton supported the first group of new entrants in 1998, and at that time I joined 79 of my colleagues in support of membership for Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. When I took to this floor to urge ratification, I said: ``I hope this is not the last enlargement, although I am confident that future enlargements, if they occur, will occur with the same detailed, painstaking consideration as we have conducted over the past 4 years.'' Senators Lugar and Biden have given this accession treaty that consideration, and their committee has unanimously recommended passage. In so doing, the committee has concluded its work to achieve a major platform in President Bush's foreign policy: the admittance to this alliance of the latest group of nations willing and capable to advance the mission of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

We will all note that the debate today will be shorter than it was in 1998. And I predict that the vote for passage will be at least as strong, although it is worthwhile noting that every vote this Senate has had since 1955 on all of the new entrants to NATO has been with strong majorities. The reason the debate will be shorter today reflects the consensus that has formed on the subject we address today:

The enlargement of NATO, Mr. President, is good foreign policy for the United States.

Of course it is also good for the candidate countries. Working through our detailed membership action plans, these nations have transformed their militaries, improving interoperability and--this is equally important--developing complementarities of missions. They have had to accept goals for defense expenditures, exceeding, in some cases, the percentage of GNPs dedicated to defense by some of NATO's older members.

And the desire to join NATO has forced the applicant nations to promote and meet other conditions of open and democratic societies. These nations have had to resolve all border issues, establish political norms for the protection of minorities, open their historical archives and accept the responsibilities of their captive or totalitarian pasts, including the Holocaust era and the communist era, combat corruption and set standards of transparency, and educate their publics on the nature of the commitment to NATO. Throughout these years of preparation, we have seen, in varying strong and distinct measures, a host of nations enthusiastically embracing our values and earnestly accepting the responsibilities explicit in membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The core of that responsibility lies in article V of the North Atlantic treaty. That article states: ``The Parties (that is, the member states) agree that an armed attack against one or more of them shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.''

This is the commitment at the core of the NATO alliance. It is that commitment that served to deter a Soviet attack against Europe and North America for nearly 50 years. That was a deterrence that was backed up by an explicit understanding that, if deterrence failed, NATO's goal would be to predominate in victory. The deterrence worked, the peace was kept, and that is why NATO is rightly considered the most effective military alliance in modern history.

The end of the cold war brought on a reevaluation of the role of NATO, with a few suggesting that NATO was no longer necessary without a Soviet threat. That misguided view--that mistook the end of the Soviet threat for an era of unprecedented peace and security--never took hold. More sober minds recognized that security and stability were not to be assumed as the status quo, and that conflict would take new forms, be it ethnic war from the dissolution of Yugoslavia to transnational threats emanating from other parts of the world and threatening the security of Europe and North America.

As has already been mentioned in the debate, NATO has only invoked article V once in its history, and it was not during the cold war when, as I mentioned, the deterrence of the alliance always held. Article V was invoked after September 11, 2001, when the members of the alliance determined that the attacks by al-Qaida on the United States were to be considered an attack against the entire alliance. In the days after September 11, 2001, NATO aircraft flew patrols over U.S. airspace as the U.S. military prepared to deploy to Afghanistan in the first phase of our global war on terrorism.

Under U.S. leadership, NATO has accepted that it will face new missions in the 21st century, and that many of those activities defending the members of the alliance will be out-of-area missions. A quick review of the contributions of the nations seeking membership in this latest treaty accession demonstrates, in my view, that they understand the new missions and are already contributing.

Bulgaria was a member of the President Bush's ``coalition of the willing,'' and granted use of its airspace as well as an airbase for our Iraq operations, and has offered infantry forces for peacekeeping. While Iraq was not a NATO operation, our ability to rely on Bulgaria, as well as other existing NATO members for equipment and support, made our victory in Iraq more easily attainable.

Estonia has been contributing to NATO operations in the Balkans, providing forces to SFOR and KFOR. It was also a member of the ``coalition of the willing,'' and has also offered soldiers for post- conflict peacekeeping in Iraq. Similarly, Latvia has also contributed to SFOR and KFOR in the Balkans, supported U.S. policy in Iraq, and has sent medics to support our operations in Afghanistan. Lithuania has contributed to U.S. operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and was a vocal member of the ``coalition of the willing'' in Iraq.

Romania has made significant contributions to U.S. operations, providing troops and transport aircraft to our mission in Afghanistan, and granting use of their territory during our operations in Iraq. One thousand American troops are currently stationed in Romania.

These are just highlights of ways that these countries have directly contributed to the challenges we face

today, and they do not include the specialties these various countries are developing to confront the challenges of tomorrow.

I raise these highlights because I believe that ratifying this treaty is good foreign policy, Mr. President, in that it strengthens America's position in the world, and enhances our ability to achieve our goals when the defense of our national security requires us to go beyond our borders.

This second wave of nations joining NATO since the end of the cold war brings political stability and expands security to most of Central and Eastern Europe, a geographic zone that brought us calamitous strife and bloodshed in the 20th century. We are referring to a region that Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has felicitously termed the ``New Europe.'' I have nothing against the Old Europe, and note that history shows a common bond with many of the nations of that ``Old'' Europe, a bond reaffirmed by our coalition partner, Great Britain, and currently and I hope temporarily denied by other members, such as France, Germany and Belgium.

Today we vote for New Europe. In recognizing their contributions, we should not deny their enthusiastic embrace of America's role in the world. They were, after all, the captive nations of the Soviet era, and we were, after all, the leading light in the fight against communism. In their enthusiastic embrace of our values and our missions, I think of the line of Cicero, that ``Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.'' These nations have shown already that they are willing to defend freedom, and their membership in the Atlantic alliance will advance that defense.

I will repeat again what I said in 1998, and say that I hope this is not the last enlargement. Croatia and Ukraine have indicated that they wish to join some day, and I would welcome them. The mission of NATO is to defend, not exclude.

Today I urge my colleagues to join me in ratifying this latest round of accession to NATO, and in so doing, to add force and depth to an organization that has long served the security of this Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the introduction of S. 119, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003. I applaud Senators DeWine and Lindsey Graham for their longstanding and essential leadership on this issue in the Senate and the House. The importance of this issue is made tragically clear by the recent murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner.

In my home State of Utah, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to the unborn child, the criminal faces the possibility of being prosecuted for having taken or injured that unborn life. Twenty-five additional States have similar laws on the books. Eleven of those States recognize the unborn child as a victim throughout the entire period of prenatal development. This is only proper and, it seems to me, only just.

But under existing Federal criminal statutes, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to that unborn child, the criminal faces no consequences in our Federal criminal justice system for taking or injuring that innocent, unborn life. This is wrong and it is not justified.

This bill fixes the gap in Federal law by making it a separate Federal offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain already-defined Federal crimes committed against the unborn child's mother. This bill does not usurp jurisdiction over States that do not currently have laws that protect unborn victims of violence. It only applies to Federal crimes.

I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this bill. The only reason for opposition that I can suppose is that some in the pro-choice movement believe that our bill draws attention to the effort to dehumanize, desensitize, and depersonalize the unborn child. Given the political and legal arguments of abortion supporters, it may be difficult for them to concede an unborn child is human and therefore a victim of a crime.

Nevertheless, it is not our intention in this bill to turn the debate into a battle on abortion. In no way does this bill interfere with the ability of a woman to have an abortion under current law. The bill specifically does not apply to a woman who engages in any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Therefore, it would not apply to any abortion to which a woman consents. In my view, we should all be able to support this modest effort to protect mothers and their unborn children.

Some will try to claim that this bill weakens domestic violence laws by diverting attention to the unborn. That is simply not true. I am a strong supporter of domestic violence laws in this Nation. I believe domestic violence is an evil plague that needs to be stopped.

For nearly 15 years, I have worked hard on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women. And when I stand here today before the entire United States Senate and offer my support for a bill, I certainly make sure that bill does not diminish in any way our capacity and will to curb domestic violence and protect women. This bill, in fact, strengthens domestic violence laws by making it a separate criminal offense under our Federal legal system to cause death or injury to an unborn child as a result of violence.

For several months now, the Nation has watched in the media the unfortunate and tragic story of Laci Peterson. She was an expectant mother from California who mysteriously vanished shortly before Christmas. In mid-April, her decomposing body and the body of her unborn child washed ashore at a San Francisco-area beach.

The Nation has witnessed a community in mourning over the disappearance and death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Laci Peterson was the truly tragic victim of violence that not only took her life but also the innocent life of her unborn son. This is a truly devastating story, especially for those who knew and loved Laci Peterson and eagerly awaited the birth of her son Conner. I want to do what I can to see that justice is served if there is ever a case similar to this that comes before our Federal judicial system, and that is why I support this measure.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted on April 22 and 23 indicated that of the 900 registered voters polled, 49 percent considered themselves pro-choice while only 41 percent said they are pro-life. But what is even more interesting is this same poll showed 84 percent believed Scott Peterson should be charged with two counts of homicide for murdering his wife and unborn son. California law permits criminals to be charged with murder for killing an unborn child when it has developed past the embryonic stage.

Now remember, the majority of those polled in this survey said they were pro-choice. But the tragic murder of an innocent, unborn child is shocking and twisted enough that, regardless of any stance on abortion, the vast majority of Americans strongly believe an unborn life taken in murder should result in murder charges brought against the perpetrator. It is only fair and just to ask for our Federal judicial system to incorporate such a strong desire of the American people.

Some will try to confuse the issue here. Let me be clear, the debate on this bill is not about abortion--far from it. It does not affect current law regarding abortion. This bill does not in any way interfere with or weaken domestic violence laws or laws intended to prevent violence against women. This is a simple remedy to a terrible crime. I hope that Congress will seriously consider this bill and promptly pass it.

Mr. President, I rise to address the serious matter of the erosion of pay for the Federal judiciary. There is consensus among all who have seriously looked at this issue that the independence and quality of the judiciary is at risk because of the inadequacy of the current salaries of Federal judges.

The American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association issued a report on this issue in February 2001. That report documented the factors impacting erosion of judicial pay and the detrimental effects on the judiciary. Because of the withholding of cost-of-living adjustments, the impact of inflation, and the insufficient attempts to stabilize judicial pay, Federal judges are increasingly choosing to resign or retire. Furthermore, the report noted, the prospect of a declining salary in real terms also discourages potential candidates from seeking appointments to the bench.

In his 2002 Year-End Report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist identified the need to increase judicial pay as the most pressing issue facing the judiciary. He highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the private sector.''

In the Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, issued January 2003, the Chairman of the Commission, Paul Volker, made this observation: ``Judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of Federal compensation policies. Federal judicial salaries have lost 24 percent of their purchasing power since 1969, which is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional provision that judicial salaries may not be reduced by Congress. . . . The lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' Accordingly, the Commission made the recommendation that Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to other professional opportunities.

Responding to this report and recommendation, the Judicial Conference, at its recent meeting, unanimously adopted a Resolution which contains in part the following:

``Whereas, the President at the request of the Chief

Justice has agreed to support legislation that would increase

judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an

average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices;

Now therefore, the Committee on the Judicial Branch

recommends that the Judicial Conference endorse and

vigorously seek legislation that would increase judicial

salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of

$24,948, across all levels of judicial offices.''

Today, Senator Leahy and I, joined by Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chambliss are introducing a bill that will restore the lost cost-of-living adjustments which were denied to the judiciary and will help reduce the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries which still remains.

This legislation enacts a 16.5 percent increase in the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court and other Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, an average salary increase of about $25,000. It does so without altering the respective provisions of title 28, United States Code, which defines their salary rates. The pay adjustment would be effective with the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2004, and would be applied before any annual salary adjustment authorized under the Employment Cost Index approval mechanism provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461.

The judicial officers enumerated in this bill to receive the 16.5 percent pay increase are the Chief Justice of the United States, associate justices of the Supreme Court, United States circuit judges, United States district judges, and judges of the United States Court of International Trade. In addition, this legislation would have the effect of increasing salaries of the judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges and full-time United States magistrate judges whose salaries are related to the rate of pay of United States district judges.

This legislation will do much to improve retention on the bench and will aid in the recruitment of outstanding judicial candidates. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Chambliss and me in this bipartisan measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference Resolution, as well as the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the introduction of S. 119, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003. I applaud Senators DeWine and Lindsey Graham for their longstanding and essential leadership on this issue in the Senate and the House. The importance of this issue is made tragically clear by the recent murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner.

In my home State of Utah, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to the unborn child, the criminal faces the possibility of being prosecuted for having taken or injured that unborn life. Twenty-five additional States have similar laws on the books. Eleven of those States recognize the unborn child as a victim throughout the entire period of prenatal development. This is only proper and, it seems to me, only just.

But under existing Federal criminal statutes, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to that unborn child, the criminal faces no consequences in our Federal criminal justice system for taking or injuring that innocent, unborn life. This is wrong and it is not justified.

This bill fixes the gap in Federal law by making it a separate Federal offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain already-defined Federal crimes committed against the unborn child's mother. This bill does not usurp jurisdiction over States that do not currently have laws that protect unborn victims of violence. It only applies to Federal crimes.

I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this bill. The only reason for opposition that I can suppose is that some in the pro-choice movement believe that our bill draws attention to the effort to dehumanize, desensitize, and depersonalize the unborn child. Given the political and legal arguments of abortion supporters, it may be difficult for them to concede an unborn child is human and therefore a victim of a crime.

Nevertheless, it is not our intention in this bill to turn the debate into a battle on abortion. In no way does this bill interfere with the ability of a woman to have an abortion under current law. The bill specifically does not apply to a woman who engages in any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Therefore, it would not apply to any abortion to which a woman consents. In my view, we should all be able to support this modest effort to protect mothers and their unborn children.

Some will try to claim that this bill weakens domestic violence laws by diverting attention to the unborn. That is simply not true. I am a strong supporter of domestic violence laws in this Nation. I believe domestic violence is an evil plague that needs to be stopped.

For nearly 15 years, I have worked hard on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women. And when I stand here today before the entire United States Senate and offer my support for a bill, I certainly make sure that bill does not diminish in any way our capacity and will to curb domestic violence and protect women. This bill, in fact, strengthens domestic violence laws by making it a separate criminal offense under our Federal legal system to cause death or injury to an unborn child as a result of violence.

For several months now, the Nation has watched in the media the unfortunate and tragic story of Laci Peterson. She was an expectant mother from California who mysteriously vanished shortly before Christmas. In mid-April, her decomposing body and the body of her unborn child washed ashore at a San Francisco-area beach.

The Nation has witnessed a community in mourning over the disappearance and death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Laci Peterson was the truly tragic victim of violence that not only took her life but also the innocent life of her unborn son. This is a truly devastating story, especially for those who knew and loved Laci Peterson and eagerly awaited the birth of her son Conner. I want to do what I can to see that justice is served if there is ever a case similar to this that comes before our Federal judicial system, and that is why I support this measure.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted on April 22 and 23 indicated that of the 900 registered voters polled, 49 percent considered themselves pro-choice while only 41 percent said they are pro-life. But what is even more interesting is this same poll showed 84 percent believed Scott Peterson should be charged with two counts of homicide for murdering his wife and unborn son. California law permits criminals to be charged with murder for killing an unborn child when it has developed past the embryonic stage.

Now remember, the majority of those polled in this survey said they were pro-choice. But the tragic murder of an innocent, unborn child is shocking and twisted enough that, regardless of any stance on abortion, the vast majority of Americans strongly believe an unborn life taken in murder should result in murder charges brought against the perpetrator. It is only fair and just to ask for our Federal judicial system to incorporate such a strong desire of the American people.

Some will try to confuse the issue here. Let me be clear, the debate on this bill is not about abortion--far from it. It does not affect current law regarding abortion. This bill does not in any way interfere with or weaken domestic violence laws or laws intended to prevent violence against women. This is a simple remedy to a terrible crime. I hope that Congress will seriously consider this bill and promptly pass it.

Mr. President, I rise to address the serious matter of the erosion of pay for the Federal judiciary. There is consensus among all who have seriously looked at this issue that the independence and quality of the judiciary is at risk because of the inadequacy of the current salaries of Federal judges.

The American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association issued a report on this issue in February 2001. That report documented the factors impacting erosion of judicial pay and the detrimental effects on the judiciary. Because of the withholding of cost-of-living adjustments, the impact of inflation, and the insufficient attempts to stabilize judicial pay, Federal judges are increasingly choosing to resign or retire. Furthermore, the report noted, the prospect of a declining salary in real terms also discourages potential candidates from seeking appointments to the bench.

In his 2002 Year-End Report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist identified the need to increase judicial pay as the most pressing issue facing the judiciary. He highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the private sector.''

In the Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, issued January 2003, the Chairman of the Commission, Paul Volker, made this observation: ``Judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of Federal compensation policies. Federal judicial salaries have lost 24 percent of their purchasing power since 1969, which is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional provision that judicial salaries may not be reduced by Congress. . . . The lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' Accordingly, the Commission made the recommendation that Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to other professional opportunities.

Responding to this report and recommendation, the Judicial Conference, at its recent meeting, unanimously adopted a Resolution which contains in part the following:

``Whereas, the President at the request of the Chief

Justice has agreed to support legislation that would increase

judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an

average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices;

Now therefore, the Committee on the Judicial Branch

recommends that the Judicial Conference endorse and

vigorously seek legislation that would increase judicial

salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of

$24,948, across all levels of judicial offices.''

Today, Senator Leahy and I, joined by Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chambliss are introducing a bill that will restore the lost cost-of-living adjustments which were denied to the judiciary and will help reduce the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries which still remains.

This legislation enacts a 16.5 percent increase in the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court and other Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, an average salary increase of about $25,000. It does so without altering the respective provisions of title 28, United States Code, which defines their salary rates. The pay adjustment would be effective with the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2004, and would be applied before any annual salary adjustment authorized under the Employment Cost Index approval mechanism provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461.

The judicial officers enumerated in this bill to receive the 16.5 percent pay increase are the Chief Justice of the United States, associate justices of the Supreme Court, United States circuit judges, United States district judges, and judges of the United States Court of International Trade. In addition, this legislation would have the effect of increasing salaries of the judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges and full-time United States magistrate judges whose salaries are related to the rate of pay of United States district judges.

This legislation will do much to improve retention on the bench and will aid in the recruitment of outstanding judicial candidates. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Chambliss and me in this bipartisan measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference Resolution, as well as the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Cecilia Altonaga to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Altonaga has enjoyed a stellar legal career on both sides of the bench.

Upon graduating from Yale Law School, Judge Altonaga clerked for the Honorable Edward B. Davis of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida--the very court she will join upon her confirmation.

Judge Altonage then spent 10 years as an assistance county attorney for the Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office. During her tenure, she specialized in construction litigation, reviewing and drafting construction contracts, and advising the Couty Commission in the awarding of government contracts, including bid disputes handled in administrative quasi-judicial hearings. She also handled tort suits, defending the County ordinances and actions taken by County Commissioners in State and Federal courts.

From 1996 to 1999, Judge Altonaga served as a County Court Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. While on the County Court, Judge Altonaga served in the Domestic Violence, Civil, and Criminal Divisions. Since 1999, she has served as a Judge for the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, where she has been assigned to the Court's Juvenile, Criminal, and Appellate Divisions.

Notably, Judge Altonaga will be the first Cuban-American woman to serve as a Federal judge. I have every confidence that she will serve with distinction, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Florida in supporting her nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the confirmation of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today's vote is important because we have an opportunity to confirm an excellent judge who exercises proper judicial restraint on the bench. Justice Cook is an honorable jurist. She has a distinguished record in private practice, she is a legal pioneer, and she is active in her community. Let me take a few moments to share how Justice Cook came to this point. The story deserves to be told.

A native of Pittsburgh, PA, my hometown as well, I might add--Deborah Cook had anything but a stable childhood. Not only did her family move quite often, but her family suffered economically. Her mother, Katherine Rudolph, struggled to support her children after Justice Cook's father abandoned the family. When Deborah was 16, her mother passed away.

Although she did not have much time with her, Justice Cook credits her mother with instilling in her a sense of justice and a sense of the importance of following the rules. Justice Cook carried these ideals to Akron, Ohio, where she and her siblings moved to join their uncle's large family. All together, the new family numbered 14.

In the next few years, Justice Cook received her bachelor of arts and juris doctor degrees from the University of Akron. While in law school, she clerked part time at Roderick, Myers & Linton, Akron's oldest law firm, and accepted an offer from the same firm in 1978, becoming the first woman attorney ever hired there. Five years later, Justice Cook again made history at the firm when she was named its first woman partner. Let me tell you, Justice Cook knows first hand the difficulties and challenges that professional women face in breaking the glass ceiling.

While in private practice Justice Cook maintained a busy civil litigation caseload, appearing in bankruptcy, state, and federal appellate and trial courts to litigate such matters as claims disputes, workers' compensation claims, insurance claims, employment discrimination cases, torts, and wrongful death lawsuits.

Justice Cook has the experience we look for in a Federal judge. In 1990, she left private practice and ran for a seat on the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals, which is based in Akron. The Ohio courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction over the Ohio common pleas, municipal, and county courts, hearing and deciding cases in three-judge panels. Four years later, Justice Cook ran for the Ohio Supreme Court, a seven-member court, where she currently serves.

Over the past 7 years, Justice Cook has earned a reputation for being a stickler for the law, a judge committed to law and order. She defines her own judicial role ``as [one] limited by the letter of the law.'' She is a student of history and a committed constitutionalist. These are attributes desperately needed in the Federal courts. Simply put, as Justice Cook has said of herself, while she ``might hold a personal view, or perhaps even hold a bias, that has to be put aside.'' She ``work[s] within the parameters given a judge by democratically enacted statutes,'' avoiding the temptation to legislate from the bench. Justice Cook understands what makes an effective judge and she carries out that understanding.

The Ohio newspapers have recognized these qualities in Justice Cook. The Columbus Dispatch says Justice Cook ``uniquely combines keen intellect, careful legal scholarship and consistency in her opinions. She is committed to rendering decisions validated by the [law], not popularity polls and special interests.'' The Cleveland Plain Dealer says Cook is ``extremely well qualified'' and a ``thoughtful, mature jurist perhaps the brightest on the state's highest court.'' The Akron Beacon Journal says Cook ``has been a voice of restraint in opposition to a court majority determined to chart an aggressive course, acting as problem-solvers (as ward pols) more than jurists.''

I ask unanimous consent that copies of each of these editorials be printed in the Record.

Justice Cook also knows how to serve her community. She is a founder and trustee of CollegeScholars, a mentored college scholarship program in Akron, and she personally mentors students for several hours each week. She and her husband fund the program's activities in an effort to help inner-city children reach college. Their generosity is really remarkable in that they will personally pay the college tuition of students who complete the program.

But service to her community is not limited to the CollegeScholars program. Justice Cook is a United Way volunteer; she has given her time to Safe Landing Shelter, a home for troubled youth; she has served as a Commissioner for the Dispute Resolution Commission, helping address truancy problems for disadvantaged children; and she devoted several years to the Akron Area Volunteer Center as a Center trustee and president. Justice Cook has received the Delta Gamma National Shield Award for Leadership and Volunteerism, and the Akron Women's Network Woman of the Year award.

One of the many reasons that this vote on Justice Cook's nomination is important is because it represents a step in the right direction in terms of addressing the problems in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit is severely understaffed and needs judges to enable its work to go forward, and the addition of Justice Cook, along with President Bush's other Sixth Circuit nominee from Ohio, Jeffrey Sutton, will make this happen. At this moment, the 16-seat Sixth Circuit is operating with only 10 judges. All six of the vacancies on the Sixth Circuit are considered judicial emergencies.

The Sixth Circuit has been forced to rely on district court judges to keep pace with its caseload. This practice, in turn, affects the efficiency of the district courts. I understand that the Sixth Circuit currently hears some arguments via telephone to conserve resources. Each three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit not only must hear more cases each year, but it also must spend less time on each case in order to maintain some control over the docket. Some cases may not be heard despite their merit. In the meantime, the administration of justice suffers.

According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Sixth Circuit ranks last out of the 12 circuit courts in the time it takes to complete its cases. On average, the Sixth Circuit in 2002 took 16 months to reach a final disposition on a case. With the national average for appellate courts at only 10.7 months, this means the Sixth Circuit takes about 50 percent longer than the average to process a case.

Since 1996, the Sixth Circuit has seen a 46 percent increase in the number of decisions per active judge. The national average has increased only 14 percent in that same time frame. Last year each Sixth Circuit judge handled more than 600 cases.

Mr. President, Justice Cook has demonstrated her capacity to excel on the Federal court bench. She possesses the qualifications, the capacity, and the temperament a judge needs to serve on the Sixth Circuit. She deserves confirmation.

That is fine.

Nomination of Priscilla Owen

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from California on their time. She wanted to make a statement and put something in the Record, but it should come on their time.

Rather than take time to respond, I will write a letter to the distinguished Senator and point out where she is in error on the Owen matter. As a matter of fact, I think it has been outrageous the way some of the arguments have been made on the other side against this really excellent justice from the State of Texas, who has a unanimous well qualified, the highest rating, from the American Bar Association. I think we have had pure, unadulterated, raw politics involved with regard to Justice Owen.

This debate we are now having is about the raw politics that are being used against Miguel Estrada, the first Hispanic ever nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Today is Cinco de Mayo, the Fifth of May, commemorating the victory of

the Mexican army over the French army at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. This battle came to represent a symbol of Mexican unity and patriotism. The victory demonstrated to the world that Mexico and all of Latin America were willing to defend themselves against any foreign intervention. Cinco de Mayo is now viewed as a festive day to celebrate freedom and liberty.

The fifth of May, 2003, in the Senate, unfortunately is also the 3- month anniversary of the beginning of the debate on Miguel Estrada. I would hope that we would be celebrating the liberation of his nomination and the freedom to vote on final passage on this Cinco de Mayo. But instead, the nomination of Miguel Estrada has been captured by a minority of Senators who refuse to allow a final vote on his nomination. They insist on their unprecedented filibuster, following their game plan of obstruction. In fact, they have compounded their obstructionist tactics by engaging in a second filibuster, this time on Priscilla Owen, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She also has a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, the badge of honor, the gold standard, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, have said that rating is.

I must admit, the Democrat game plan of delay and obstructionism is not surprising, but it is getting somewhat contradictory. In the case of Mr. Estrada, Democrats say they cannot vote for the nominee because they do not know enough about him. They allege he did not answer their questions and therefore they must have Department of Justice confidential memoranda he wrote while he was a line attorney in the Solicitor General's office; memoranda that have never been given in any way, shape or form to anybody in the Senate in a confirmation battle before, or anybody else for that matter. Even the White House has not seen these matters because they are so highly privileged, not Judge Gonzales, not anybody else in the White House.

There are no such claims about Justice Owen. Democrat opponents admit they know enough about her, that she did answer the questions, and that she has a record they can review. There are no phony excuses. They simply oppose her on philosophical grounds, namely, her interpretation of the Texas parental notification statute that applies to minor girls seeking an abortion.

This double standard demonstrates that some Senate Democrats are willing to use whatever obstructionist tactics it takes, based on any convenient rationale, to defeat the President's nominees.

While the rationales may be different, the motivation in both cases is the same. I think that a recent 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.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record following my remarks.

As far as Mr. Estrada goes, 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 re-election campaign next year. They

are even less interested putting a conservative Republican in

line to become the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme

Court.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the Record following my remarks.

I don't know if Mr. Estrada is a conservative Republican, but I do know he is qualified for the position to which he is nominated, and it is well past time to vote on his nomination. This Friday will mark the two-years anniversary of his nomination on May 9, 2001. The Majority leader has made every attempt to obtain time agreements or use other procedures to bring this matter to a resolution. Each of these attempts has been rebuffed by a minority of this body. Some Senate Democrats have used every delay and obstructionist tactic available. Yet they still cannot identify one substantive issue that would justify or excuse their refusal to permit a final vote.

Mr. President, on this day, 141 years ago, the Mexican Army defeated forces which represented tyranny and defended the liberty of their nation. I urge my colleagues, on this day of celebration, to defeat the tyranny of the minority by voting to bring the debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to a close.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 4, 2003]

Democrats Use Wrong Route to Win South

(By Jim Wooten)

U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) brought his presidential

aspirations to the South last week, promising in Alabama that

he will make the national party competitive here once again.

Make competitive, he neglected to mention, a party that has

positioned itself in opposition to the war in Iraq and

anything other than token tax cuts, and as Democrats reminded

the nation once again about the elevation of conservatives to

the federal bench. While the White House may appeal to some

as inside work with no heavy lifting, getting there through

the South toting this party's agenda will be a task requiring

Herculean labor.

Just this week, for example, Kerry's Democratic

colleagues--Georgia's Zell Miller excepted--began to

filibuster the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice

Priscilla Owen to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals.

Kerry and other Democrats are already filibustering the

nomination of Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia

Circuit Court of Appeals--the first time simultaneous

filibusters against judicial nominees have occurred in the

U.S. Senate.

Both Owen and Estrada are superbly qualified in every

respect. Yet on Owen, those who complain that a ``glass

ceiling'' exists for women of achievement are busily

constructing one to keep her in her place. And those who

complain that the federal bench lacks ``diversity'' find

Estrada to be too much diversity for their taste. He is

considered to be a conservative, and the interest groups that

drive the Democratic Party nationally fear Owen is, too, at

least on their abortion litmus test.

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 credential to

serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kerry, then, and the legions of presidential soundalikes

who campaign with him, have to come to a region where

conservatism is the mainstream to explain how reducing

federal taxes is bad and cheating exemplary women and

minorities of the fair hearing they have earned before the

U.S. Senate because they might be conservative is good.

``I can help you wage a fight down here and rebuild this

party for the long run,'' Kerry said in Birmingham.

Republicans have carried Alabama in all but three

presidential elections in the past 50 years. Jimmy Carter in

1976 was the last Democrat to carry the state. George W. Bush

carried every Southern state in 2000, including Tennessee,

his Democratic opponent's home state. Al Gore Jr. thought so

little of his Southern prospects that he actively campaigned

in just three states--Tennessee, Florida and West Virginia.

Some Democrats, said Kerry, were ``surprised'' that he

visited Alabama.

No surprise that he visited. The real surprise is the party

baggage he hauled.

Opposition to tax cuts is comprehensible. Politicians

loathe interruption in the flow of spendable revenues.

Opposition to the war is, too. Too confrontational. Angers

adversaries. Provokes understandable aggression, for which we

bear unexpurgated sin.

While some positions are understandable, not so their

party-line opposition to Owen and Estrada. Owen, the new

filibusteree, drew the American Bar Association's highest

rating. She is a cum laude graduate of the Baylor University

Law School who scored the top grade in Texas on the bar exam.

She practiced 17 years before becoming a judge and has been

widely praised for her integrity and ability. Liberal groups

say, unconvincingly except when they are talking to each

other and Senate Democrats, that she is anti-abortion and

pro-business.

Being a neighborly people, Southerners of course welcome

Kerry to visit the region and

to indulge himself in its hospitality. But the senator should

not indulge himself into believing that a party that opposes

tax cuts and filibusters nominees such as Owen and Estrada

has the slightest chance of carrying this region.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont made a point that the White House has seen these privileged documents in the Solicitor General's Office. If they have any evidence of that, I would like to see it because I know they haven't looked at those records. Those are the most highly privileged records in the Justice Department. I am not sure that a Solicitor General wouldn't resign before giving up those records.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Likewise.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the Owen nomination. Under the order, at 10:15 the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will begin consideration of the nomination of Edward Prado to be circuit judge. It is hoped we will reach a short time agreement with a vote on that nomination to occur by early afternoon.

In addition to the Owen and Prado nominations, the Senate may also consider the Cook nomination. As the majority leader stated last night, we have attempted to work out a unanimous consent agreement to process these judicial nominations. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach an understanding last night. There continues to be hope that as these nominations are considered we would be able to reach reasonable time limitations for their consideration.

In addition, the leader is still working toward agreements for considering and completing a number of other legislative matters, including the FISA legislation, the State Department authorization bill, the Bioshield legislation, or additional judicial nominations during today's session. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day.

I understand there is a bill and a joint resolution at the desk which are due for a second reading.

I ask unanimous consent it be in order to read the titles of the measures en bloc.

I ask that the Senate proceed en bloc to the measures, and I object to further proceeding en bloc.

I will be delighted.

I think the 5 minutes will be taken from the minority side.

I am happy to yield so the Senator can make her statement.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware that there is an ample record that even Judge Gonzales admits he was not criticizing her as an activist, he was criticizing the court. She didn't write the opinion. That has been more than established. Yet we keep hearing Senators on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere saying Judge Gonzales directly criticized her. He didn't. I think the record is pretty clear on that.

Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished colleague. I have to say that if there has been any attempt to rewrite the facts, it is by those who have spoken as my friend from California has.

First of all, they seem to think on that side that they advance women when they only advance women who agree with their particular position. They don't even realize that Priscilla Owen agrees with many of their positions as she does with other well-thought-out positions. They think the advancement of women depends only on if you have women who are going to be pro-abortion.

I might add that I don't know where Priscilla Owen is with regard to abortion because she has not told me. She has not told the committee that, but she has said what has to be the hallmark of what judgeship nominees should say--that she will uphold Roe v. Wade as a court judge, which is all you can ask of anybody. Regardless of what her personal views are, she is going to uphold it. Yet we hear this argument that they are advancing women because they are keeping a woman who is unanimously well qualified by their gold standard--the American Bar Association, which is not a conservative organization by any stretch of the imagination--they are keeping her from serving this country. They continue to misquote Judge Gonzales as though he was directly attacking Priscilla Owen when he himself admits he was not--and other judges from that Supreme Court of the State of Texas say he was not.

Senator Cornyn, who served with her and was sitting beside her, said those criticisms weren't directed directly at her. That is distortion. It is unworthy of this body. But it is going on all the time.

On the tort case--I know the distinguished Senator from Texas is here, and I will yield to her as soon as she is ready--they bring up again the distortion that she held a case up until this young boy died. Let me make some important observations about the majority opinion Justice Owen wrote in Ford Motor Company v. Miles because I think there has been some serious confusion about the case and it is very apparent that the distinguished Senator from California is confused. This is the case involving a car accident victim named Willie Searcy who, tragically, passed away years after his accident but before the litigation was resolved. I have addressed this issue over and over. But it looks as if I must go through it again.

The accusation was once made that the victim passed away before the Texas Supreme Court ruled on his appeal. Justice Owen more than set the record straight last July. The victim passed away 3 years after the opinion was issued. Yet we hear this again on the floor.

When are the Democrats going to quit distorting President Bush's nominee's record?

I have to admit that I used to think this was--well, just interesting. But it has gone on and on. And after you show them the facts, they still distort it. I would have thought that issue moot because the opinion was issued 3 years before he died. But some interest groups continue to make this allegation in spite of the facts. I suspect that the New York Times just copies the letters in the editorials of People for the American Way. It is unbelievable.

The allegation was made that Justice Owen's opinion was improper based on the issue of venue; in other words, the question of whether plaintiff's lawyers filed the case in the county that didn't have jurisdiction over the dispute.

Some allege that this issue had not been raised by the parties in the lower courts. Again, Justice Owen set the record straight in no uncertain terms. The venue issue was properly considered in the Texas Supreme Court. The entire court agreed that it was appropriate for the court to resolve the venue issue.

Again, they are wrong, and they are distorting this case.

I don't think there is any reason for that type of distortion. We have explained it over and over. Justice Owen was more than clear. Yet they are smearing this judge who has the highest rating of the American Bar Association--unanimously well qualified. That doesn't happen very often.

It must also be emphasized that under Texas law the court was required to address the issue of venue. The court found that the case was filed in the wrong venue. It was required to reverse the verdict. It had no other option. The Texas statute governing this issue read:

On appeal from the trial on the merits, if venue was

improper, it shall in no event be harmless error and shall be

reversible error.

In other words, the court must reverse if improper venue is found.

In all honesty, to ensure there is no confusion about the problem with venue, let me say there was no question but that Dallas County was the proper place to bring the suit because the plaintiffs lived there, bought their truck there, and that is where the accident took place. Inexplicably, the lawyers filed in another county, Russ County--having absolutely no connection whatsoever to the plaintiffs or the accident. It looked like forum shopping--something that should not be permitted by the courts, under any circumstances, no matter how badly a person might have been injured.

If we read between the lines, we can see that the lawyers were forum shopping--looking for a favorable jury--something that should not be allowed by any court in this land, especially when it is clear cut that the venue was in Dallas County.

It must also be noted that the court's decision did not prevent the case from being filed in Dallas County or refiled.

I am a little tired of the smearing of these nominees. I am not saying intentional smearing, although it is reaching that point when you have to say over and over, when the justice explained herself and made it so abundantly clear, and we have made it over and over ourselves, and the record is so doggone clear. Why would we have, time after time, people coming out here saying they are advancing the cause of women by smearing this woman justice and keeping her from serving her country on the circuit court of appeals?

One last thing: The Senator also complained because she has objected to another nominee when we have the blue slip back from the other Senator from the State. There has never been a rule, since Senator Kennedy was the chairman of the committee and was the one who established the rule that I followed, that says a single Senator can stop a circuit court of appeals nominee of the President of the United States.

Senator Kennedy's ruling, even with regard to district courts, was that the opinions of the Senators with regard to blue slips will have great weight, but they will not be dispositive, especially where there is no reason for the withholding of a blue slip. And in this case, there is basically no reasoning, and in this other case of Carolyn Kuhl.

So I want to set the record straight there. No President would agree to, and this Senate should not agree to, one solitary Senator, for political reasons, refusing to return a blue slip on a circuit court of appeals court nominee where that circuit court of appeals nominee, once on the court, will be representing the whole country, but, of course, all the States in that particular circuit.

I notice the distinguished Senator from Texas is in the Chamber, so I will yield----

Up to 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas. I will continue my remarks afterwards.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Let me continue then.

This body is in danger of blowing up. I just read a letter Senator Schumer sent to the President yesterday suggesting that we should take this authority from the President to nominate the judges and set up judicial nominating commissions in every State. There is no President in his right mind who would consider doing that. There is no reason a President should. To make a long story short, the Senate is broken. The process is broken. Senator Schumer admits it. He writes:

Dear Mr. President: Six months ago you described the

judicial nomination confirmation process as ``broken'' and

declared we have a ``duty to repair it.'' I could not agree

with you more.

The other side of this body understands this process is broken because they are filibustering now two of the President's nominees for the first time in history.

Both of these nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, have unanimously well qualified ratings from the American Bar Association, which during the Clinton years the Democrats were saying was the gold standard. Once they have a qualified rating, which is a passable rating, they should be confirmed. These two not only have qualified, they have well qualified, and unanimously. Only a select few have achieved that rating. It is outrageous that we hear again and again, without a single pause, that a nominee rated unanimously well qualified for Federal judicial service is ``out of the mainstream.''

Those who have served with her on the Texas Supreme Court know that charge is false. Former Texas Supreme Court Justices John Hill, Jack Hightower, Raul Gonzalez, all Democrats, call Justice Owen unbiased and restrained in her decisionmaking, and they praise her impeccable integrity, character, and scholarship.

Senator Cornyn, whom we all respect, who served with Justice Owen on the Texas Supreme Court, has made it clear that the charge is false. Alberto Gonzales, who also served with Justice Owen, said the charge is false. Senator Cornyn and Judge Gonzales believe Justice Owen is a terrific judge. The two individuals who are repeatedly drafted as prosecution witnesses to discredit Justice Owen as an activist judge, Judge Alberto Gonzales and Senator Cornyn, are actually two of her biggest supporters. All you can conclude is that they are smearing this very fine, unanimously well qualified woman in their comments and also through this filibuster. Nothing can change the fact that the two they use to criticize her are her biggest supporters. I fit in that category, too, as one of her biggest supporters.

No matter how hard they try, they cannot distort that. The unqualified endorsement of 15 past presidents of the Texas State Bar, Democrats and Republicans alike, also shows that the charge is false. Justice Owen is a well qualified, mainstream jurist. And to say that the bar association is wrong, all these Democrats down in Texas are wrong, shows the paucity of the argument.

Some criticize a few rulings made by Justice Owen in some parental notification cases which involve a minor girl seeking an abortion. This is really the basis of it because my colleagues on the other side are getting so enamored with abortion that that becomes the single litmus test on every judge. And they are so afraid that this woman judge might be pro-life, even though I don't know what she is and she didn't say what she believes, but she did say she would follow Roe v. Wade as settled law. I don't know what more you can have. And because she is unanimously well qualified for honor, integrity, impeccability, and so forth, we can take her word for it.

Texas happens to have a statute requiring that a minor notify one parent before she has an abortion. The statute allows the minor girl's parents to be involved in this very important decision. Our colleagues on the other side apparently don't think that is a good idea. It upholds the right of parents in the upbringing and care of their children, and the American people support the principle.

According to a January 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 73 percent of Americans favor requiring minor girls to obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion. The Texas statute doesn't even go that far; it requires only notice. This broad support is also found in the individual States. Currently, 32 States across the country enforce laws requiring parental involvement in a minor girl's decision to obtain an abortion. Fully 18 States enforce parental consent laws, including Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota--where both parents must consent--Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. These are States represented in the Senate by both Republican and Democratic Senators, pro-life and pro-choice Senators. These are States inhabited by people of a variety of beliefs and positions.

Simply being pro-life or pro-choice does not make a person out of the mainstream. That is the only argument they have. How can you call

somebody who has a unanimously well qualified rating from the American Bar Association out of the mainstream? That is the height of absurdity, and it shows the ridiculousness of the argument being used against her.

Another 14 States have less stringent parental involvement laws requiring parental notification before a minor has an abortion, including the States of Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas, and West Virginia. New Hampshire, which is known as a pro-choice State because of widespread support for abortion rights among State citizens, is close to passing a parental notification law. Notably, the bill's main sponsor in New Hampshire openly supports abortion rights.

Even in States with no laws requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, popular support for such legislation runs high. In the State of Vermont, more than 70 percent of State citizens support requiring a minor to notify her parents before having an abortion. You would think anybody with a brain would want to do that. These are kids. The parents ought to be involved.

But by comparison, parental consent and notification laws are consistently opposed by the same abortion rights interest groups. These organizations are the ones that do not reflect the thinking of mainstream America on parental rights. Mainstream America supports the fundamental rights of parents in the rearing of their children, including the right to be involved in their minor daughter's reproductive choices.

The abortion rights interest groups, as they do over and over, predict doom and gloom if Justice Owen is allowed to take a seat on the Federal bench. They trot out the excited rhetoric about the nominee's hostility and extreme insensitivity to abortion rights. Occasionally they even top themselves. According to one group, Justice Owen must be opposed because ``at this time of global turmoil, we don't need extremists in the courts willing to make a Dred Scott decision in the area of women's fundamental rights.''

Give me a break. I would be ashamed to make those arguments, yet that is what they are doing. They are smearing this woman with these kinds of arguments that fly in the face of the vast majority of people who believe parents do have some role with regard to their children, especially in something as important as whether or not their daughter should have an abortion.

By now we know these outside groups' track record leaves much to be desired when it comes to predicting how judicial nominees will vote. These groups have cried wolf far too many times to be taken seriously any longer. We know they missed on Justice David Souter, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Lewis Powell, when they predicted at their hearings they would ignore the Constitution and put an end to freedom in America. No matter how much some would prefer to argue the point, these cases were not about the right to an abortion.

The opposition to Justice Owen may show that the abortion litmus test is alive and well, but there was never any question about the girls' right to an abortion in these cases.

Indeed, Justice Owen argued in one such case that, based on Supreme Court precedent, a statute requiring a girl to notify both parents would also be questionable under the Constitution. She even went that far toward their position. Justice Owen recognizes a woman's right to obtain an abortion. She said so explicitly. Yet, they treat her like she is going to throw out Roe V. Wade all by herself and ignore precedent.

Justice Owen has been well within the mainstream of her court in the 14 decided notification cases, joining the majority judgment in 11 of those cases. And out of the close to 800 bypass cases since the Texas statute was passed, a mere 12 girls out of 800 have appealed all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. These are usually the toughest cases. The Democrats take the position that they ought to all be decided against the parents and in favor of the girl or of abortion rights. My gosh. By this time, two courts--the trial and the appeals courts--have already considered the bypass petition and turned it down. In other words, the right of a court to give a girl a bypass to avoid having to tell her parents. In these cases, they turned them down. Given the deference appellate courts must pay to the findings of the trial court, the decision is likely to affirm the lower court rulings denying a bypass. That should be no great surprise.

Certainly, Justice Owen and her colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court disagreed in some cases--that is no surprise either; that happens on State supreme courts--but in all cases there was a genuine effort to apply applicable precedent. These parental consent cases show Justice Owen takes Supreme Court precedent seriously. She looks to precedent for guidance, she cites it, and she makes a good faith effort to apply it to the case at hand. She is a judge who defers to the legislature's considered judgment in their policy choices and earnestly seeks to ascertain legislative intent in her ruling. None of her opinions, to quote the Washington Post, ``seem[s] to us [to be] beyond the range of reasonable judicial disagreement.''

What is beyond the range of reasonable disagreement is the charge that Justice Owen is not qualified to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A native of Texas, Justice Owen attended Baylor University and Baylor University School of Law. She graduated cum laude from both institutions. She finished third in her law school class.

Justice Owen earned the highest score on the Texas bar exam and thereafter worked for the next 17 years as a commercial litigator specializing in oil and gas matters.

Justice Owen is known for her services for the poor and for her work on gender and family law issues. Justice Owen has taken a genuine interest in improving access to justice for the poor. She successfully fought with others for more funding for legal aid services for the indigent.

Justice Owen is committed to creating opportunities for women in the legal profession. She has been a member of the Texas Supreme Court Gender Neutral Task Force, and she served as one of the editors of the Gender Neutral Handbook. Incredibly, this is the same woman the usual interest groups mischaracterize as ``anti-woman.''

Justice Owen's confirmation may not be cheered by the well-funded and partisan Texas trial-attorney interest groups, but she is backed by Texas lawyers such as E. Thomas Bishop, president of the Texas Association of Defense Counsel, and William B. Emmons, a Texas trial attorney and a Democrat who says that Justice Owen ``will serve [the Fifth Circuit] and the United States exceptionally well.''

Justice Owen has served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994, winning reelection to another 6-year term in the year 2000 with 84 percent support.

This kind of support--running across the board and across party lines--leaves no doubt that Justice Owen is a fair-minded, mainstream jurist.

Mr. President, Justice Priscilla Owen will be a terrific Federal judge. As I said earlier, we have a choice this morning. Will we block another highly qualified nominee for partisan reasons or will we allow each Senator to decide the merits of the nomination for himself or herself. I know my choice: we should allow a vote. I hope my colleagues will do the right thing and make the same choice.

I will conclude by saying, look, when I hear on the other side that they are standing up for women's rights, while they are rejecting one of the leading woman jurists in the Nation who has said she will uphold their wonderful standard of Roe v. Wade, I have to say that is pure bunk. It is time to quit smearing these judges.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the nomination of Edward C. Prado, who has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He has an outstanding record of distinguished public service and will be a great addition to the Fifth Circuit, especially since the seat to which he has been nominated has been designated a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Judge Prado currently serves as a United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, having been unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1984. His 18 years on the bench, plus prior service as a Texas state court district judge has given him the experience and background to make an outstanding Fifth Circuit Judge.

In addition to his judicial experience, Judge Prado has had a distinguished legal career. After graduating from the University of Texas School of Law in 1972, he began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in the Bexar County, TX, District Attorney's Office. In 1976 he accepted a position with the Federal Public Defender's Office for the

Western District of Texas where he served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender representing indigent criminal defendants in the federal courts.

During 1980, he served as a Texas state district judge, filling the unexpired term of the incumbent. In this position, he presided over several hundred cases, including felony criminal trials. In 1981, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and appointed as United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, where he managed one of the largest United States Attorney's Offices in the Nation. In 1984, President Reagan nominated and the Senate confirmed Judge Prado as a United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas. In this capacity he has handled thousands of cases and hundreds of trials.

Judge Prado is a man of exceptional character, impeccable ethics, and is well qualified to serve as a Circuit Judge. He has received many honors and awards for his work in the law, including the St. Thomas Moore Award from St. Mary's University School of Law in 2000, the LULAC State Award for Excellence in 1981, the Achievement Award from the U.S. Attorney General in 1980, and recognition as an Outstanding Federal Public Defender in 1978.

Judge Prado is a native of San Antonio, Texas and has served his community, state and nation in a variety of ways. Not only has he served in his professional capacity, but also he believes in community service and has been involved in community service organizations such as St. Mark's Catholic Church, Witte Museum Community Advisory Committee, the Philosophical Society of Texas, the Rotary Club of San Antonio, and Leadership San Antonio. Additionally, Judge Prado served in the U.S. Army Reserve as an Infantry Officer from 1972-1987.

In addition to his public and community service, Judge Prado has been actively involved in efforts to improve the legal and judicial process. He has been a leader in numerous bar associations and law-related organizations. For example, he has been a member of the Texas and San Antonio Bar Associations since 1972, including service as President, and later Director and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, of the San Antonio Bar Foundation. Judge Prado serves on the Texas State Bar Crime Victims Committee, and was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve as the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Act Review Committee from 1991-1993.

As a District Judge, he has made efforts to reach out to youth groups to help them learn about the law and the judicial process. He gives motivational speeches and conducts events in his courtroom as an introduction to the law.

Judge Prado comes highly recommended by those with whom he serves and by those who appear in his courtroom. Let me read a few statements made by Texas attorneys, as reported in the Texas Lawyer, February 10, 2003. Laurence R. Macon said of Judge Prado, ``I've known him for 30 years, and he doesn't have any outrageous positions. He won't be there trying to make law.'' Seagal Wheatley stated, ``If the Judiciary Committee looks at his qualifications, he should be a shoo-in. I'm not aware of any recent opinion that will cause him problems.'' A third attorney, Van Hilley, said, ``Judge Prado has a varied background and an open mind about things. The reason his docket ran so smooth is he wasn't viewed as pro-government or pro-defense.''

The legal bar's wide regard for Judge Prado 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. The ABA has bestowed upon Judge Prado its highest rating of Unanimously Well Qualified.

Furthermore, Judge Prado has been endorsed by his hometown newspaper, The San Antonio Express-News, which declared, ``The Senate should confirm Prado's nomination without undue controversy or delay. . . . His credentials are unquestioned.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete San Antonio Express-News editorial be printed in the Record, following my remarks.

Mr. President, the record is clear that Judge Prado is a man of ability and character. This Senate, on two previous occasions, has found Judge Prado worthy of confirmation for positions of high responsibility in the government, and I am confident it will do so again today. I strongly support his confirmation and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Exhibit No. 1

U.S. District Judge Edward C. Prado has compiled an

admirable record in his almost two decades on the federal

trial bench.

Last week, President Bush nominated the San Antonio judge

for a well-deserved promotion to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court

of Appeals.

The Senate should confirm Prado's nomination without undue

controversy or delay.

Prado, a graduate of Edgewood High School, was appointed to

his federal district court post by President Reagan in 1984

and has performed consistently as a non-ideological moderate.

His credentials are unquestioned. Prado first became a

judge in 1980 when Gov. Bill Clements named him to a state

district court bench.

In addition, U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John

Cornyn of Texas swiftly recommended a solid replacement for

Prado if he is elevated.

The lawmakers forwarded the name of former Texas Supreme

Court Justice Xavier Rodriguez of San Antonio to the White

House to fill Prado's seat.

Gov. Rick Perry appointed Rodriguez to the state's high

court, but he was defeated in last year's GOP primary.

A bright lawyer with solid legal qualifications, Rodriguez

was apolitical before being appointed to the Texas Supreme

Court, and that is one of many factors that make him a strong

candidate for a federal bench.

We urge Bush to accept the recommendation of the Texas

senators and nominate Rodriguez when Prado's post is

officially vacated.

I am happy to yield.

I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and I yield my remaining 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes equally divided in addition to the 1 minute I have remaining.

Mr. President, I am pleased that my Democratic colleagues are willing to join us in confirming Judge Prado to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I regret that there has been any discussion that somehow the Republican leadership has held up this nominee. That is not true. What is particularly troubling is the suggestion that there is some Republican delay in the consideration of Judge Prado's nomination related to the Estrada nomination.

I would point out that Democrats who support the nomination of Judge Prado to the Fifth Circuit are leading the opposition to Mr. Estrada, nominated to the D.C. Circuit. Those Democrats have characterized the D.C. Circuit as ``the second most important court in the land.'' Senator Kennedy stated recently that the D.C. Circuit makes decisions with national impact on the lives of all of the American people. Senator Schumer echoed these sentiments just yesterday. It does seem to me that there is a different standard being applied to Miguel Estrada-- a nominee to the second highest court in the land--than to Judge Prado--a nominee to one of twelve other Circuit Courts--although they are important.

In any event, neither the confirmation of Judge Prado nor the confirmation of any judge justifies or excuses the continued obstruction on Miguel Estrada. I repeat that the arguments put forth by opponents of Mr. Estrada just do not hold up under scrutiny. Their repeated accusations that he failed to answer the questions has been refuted again and again. The demand for confidential memoranda he authored as a line attorney for the Department of Justice is both extraordinary and ill-advised, as I and others, including all the living former Solicitors General, have repeatedly demonstrated.

So my Democratic colleagues have had unlimited opportunities to make their case on Mr. Estrada. Some of them oppose him; others support him. But one thing has remained clear through this debate: There is no good reason to deny Mr. Estrada an up or down vote on his nomination.

The time has come to end the debate on Mr. Estrada's nomination and give him and up or down vote, as the Senate will now do on Judge Prado. It is the fair thing to do.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for Judge Prado's nomination at this time.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have no objection if the Senator from Iowa wants to speak at this time.

It is our understanding if we didn't take the floor, Senator Schumer would. He is not here, but I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time. Senator Schumer is now here and he can go ahead.

I have no objection if the Senator from Iowa would like to follow the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I understand the time is divided equally. Whatever is left, they would use.

As long as it is on their time, it is fine with me.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa is concerned that they have used up their time. I would have yielded him some time from my time if necessary. So there is no desire to mistreat him or to treat him unfairly.

But let's just get the facts here. The nomination of Jeffrey Sutton has been sitting here for 2 solid years and now we hear complaints that we have to have a vote at 12:10 or 12? Come on.

Plus, I get a little tired of hearing from the other side that they seem to be the only people who care about persons with disabilities. I can tell you

that bill would not have passed had it not been for people on this side, and I was one of the leaders. I managed the floor for the Americans with Disabilities Act. I was in all the meetings. I helped to negotiate the compromise with the White House. I helped to resolve the problem. And I feel every bit as deeply about persons with disabilities, and so do all of my Republican colleagues, as do my wonderful friends on the other side, who seem to think they are the only ones who care about persons with disabilities, or civil rights.

The fact is that had it not been for the Republican Party, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wouldn't have passed. I get a little tired of this holier-than-thou attitude--that they are the only ones who understand and they are the only ones who feel deeply about it.

I managed the floor the day we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act--and I went with the distinguished Senator from Iowa outside to meet with the folks who were suffering from disabilities, and we both broke down and cried because we were so happy to have passed that bill. I remember the day that I carried my brother-in-law through the Los Angeles temple in my arms with a great effort because he contracted both types of polio. He contracted polio and became a paraplegic who went on to finish his undergraduate, and went on to receive his master's in electrical engineering. He worked up to the day he died, although he came home every night and got into an iron lung.

So I hope our colleagues on the other side quit suggesting that we don't seem to understand on this side the problems people have with disabilities. We do understand.

Jeffrey Sutton worked for his father who ran a school for kids with cerebral palsy. To have him maligned here today and yesterday the way he has been, after 2 years of sitting here waiting to get a chance to have a vote up or down, goes a little bit beyond the pale.

I support this nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to be a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals precisely because he is a person of capacity, decency, and honor who cares for those with disabilities. He is one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. He has nearly the highest rating from the American Bar Association. They don't give that rating out easily. To have him presented here today as outside of the mainstream--that means outside of the way certain Senators on the other side believe--well, I have to say that isn't the description of the mainstream. Mr. Sutton is one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. He has argued over 45 appeals in this country--appeals for a diversity of citizens in Federal and State courts across the country, including an impressive number--12 cases--before the U.S. Supreme Court. And I hear that he is outside the mainstream because he wins his cases before the Supreme Court? In a couple of cases, he lost. They disagree with that, too.

I happen to believe the Supreme Court decides what mainstream is, in many cases. They are not always right; I admit that. I was disappointed in some of their decisions. But the fact is he has been more in the mainstream than some of his critics. He understands what mainstream is. In 2001, he had the best appellate advocate record of any advocate before the Supreme Court, arguing four cases and winning all four of them. The fact that my colleagues on the other side do not like the results in those cases--a number of which were decided unanimously by the Supreme Court--shows they are outside the mainstream.

On January 2, 2003, the American Lawyer named him one of the best 45 lawyers in the country under the age of 45. That doesn't sound like somebody who is out of the mainstream.

He is an outstanding nominee. I urge all of my colleagues to support him.

I am happy to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I also compliment my esteemed colleague from Ohio for his excellent remarks. Nobody knows this man better than the distinguished Senator from Ohio. And, frankly, I know him quite well myself. We ought to pay attention to the people who know him and not make up stories about him, which I think is what is happening.

I have seen more and more of a vindictive approach against President Bush's judgeship nominees than I have ever seen in my 27 years in the Senate. To malign these people who have the highest rating from the American Bar Association, as though they are not in the judicial mainstream, I think is hitting below the belt. And everybody suspects the reason why this hitting below the belt is occurring is because, No. 1, they think he might be pro-life. I do not know what he is as far as that particular issue. The fact is, no single issue should stop somebody who is otherwise qualified from serving in the Federal Government and serving his fellow human beings in this country.

But No. 2 is, they are afraid this fellow has Supreme Court potential, as many of President Bush's nominees have who have such high ratings. So there is a deliberate attempt to damage him on his way up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals so he will never be nominated for the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to be a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because he is worthy of it. Mr. Sutton, like I say, is one of the top appellate lawyers in the country today. There is no question about it. I have mentioned how many cases he has argued, appellate cases, and at least 12 before the Supreme Court, winning most of them. I spoke yesterday at length about Mr. Sutton's extremely accomplished legal record and the numerous letters of support I have received on his behalf.

Let me just take a few minutes today to discuss some additional points my colleagues on the other side have raised.

Specifically, I would like to respond to the points raised on the topic of federalism. It is as though they do not believe in federalism, they only believe the Federal Government should have total control over everything. It is one reason I left the Democratic Party long ago, because I realized there is a principle of federalism that is hallowed in this country, constitutionally hallowed.

Mr. Sutton has argued three very important cases that have resulted in hotly debated U.S. Supreme Court opinions concerning the scope of Congress's power under section 5 of the 14th amendment to regulate State governments. Some of his critics--and a number of them, almost all of them--have suggested his involvement in these cases should somehow disqualify him from the bench.

I think everyone here knows I have worked hard to enact some of the very laws Mr. Sutton argued against on behalf of his clients as an advocate, which is his responsibility as an attorney. Together with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and others, I worked very long hours on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was struck down in the City of Boerne case. I was one of the principal sponsors of and managed the floor for the Americans with Disabilities Act, a small portion of which was limited by University of Alabama v. Garrett, a case argued by Jeffrey Sutton. I also worked closely with the distinguished Senator from Delaware on another law that the Supreme Court, in the Morrison case, found, in part, to be beyond Federal authority--the Violence Against Women Act.

It is important to understand that, notwithstanding the suggestions of some of my Democratic colleagues yesterday, the arguments Mr. Sutton advanced on behalf of his clients in Garrett and Morrison did not advocate an outright repeal of the ADA or the Violence Against Women Act, nor did those arguments suggest the purposes of those laws were not worthwhile. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decisions in those cases did limit certain aspects of those pieces of legislation, and I will admit it was disappointing to see that happen after I put so much time and energy into their enactment.

Under these circumstances, it would be relatively easy for me to take cheap shots and criticize Mr. Sutton for the role he played as an advocate in those cases. But I am certainly not going to do so, for the simple reason that ascribing to Mr. Sutton the positions of his clients is wrong, it is unfair, it is not right, it is beneath the dignity of those who are attorneys who understand that advocates are advocates, and they should carry the best argument for their clients they can.

This principle is so fundamental that it hardly merits mention, and yet you hear these arguments like he should not have done that. If we should not do things as attorneys, maybe there will not be any advocates to advocate for various positions.

Moreover, as a substantive matter, none of Mr. Sutton's arguments can fairly be characterized as outside the mainstream--not one.

In the City of Boerne v. Flores, a 6-to-3 decision he won, dealing with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, none--none--of the Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the position Mr. Sutton advocated in that case--none. All nine agreed with him. So he is outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence? Guess who is outside the mainstream. It isn't Mr. Sutton. It is this desire that everybody think in lockstep, and do in lockstep, what some on the other side think ought to be done. No Justice disagreed with him.

Now, as much as my colleagues do not like the Supreme Court, I have to tell you, they are a coequal branch of Government, and they do help us to know what the law really is. And none of them disagreed with Mr. Sutton.

The same was true in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents--not one Justice on the Supreme Court disagreed with the interpretation of the 14th amendment Mr. Sutton advanced in that case--not one. Who is outside the mainstream? It certainly isn't Mr. Sutton.

Now, I will concede the Garrett case was a bit narrower, but it was still a 5-to-4 decision. Five of the Justices voted with Mr. Sutton's argument in that case. Nevertheless, almost by definition, I think legal arguments which garner that kind of support in the Supreme Court simply cannot be pegged as outside of the mainstream of American legal thinking as to be somehow unworthy of an advocate--or a judicial nominee.

I agree. My colleagues don't agree with him or didn't agree with his arguments. I didn't in some ways. But that disagreement should not stop us from voting for a person who, as an advocate, had an obligation to make those arguments and who won on his arguments.

I would also like to discuss Mr. Sutton's comments in the media mentioned during the course of this debate. Much ado has been made about his comment reported in the Legal Times that:

It doesn't get me invited to cocktail parties, but I love

these issues. I believe in this Federalism stuff.

Tell me what is wrong with that. Federalism is a hallowed principle of constitutional law. I believe in it, too. I believe deep down some of my colleagues on the other side believe in it, although I have to admit, I think a

number of them don't. They are wrong not to. They are outside of the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

Well, federalism is not a bad word or an unpopular concept. It is a well-established part of our system of government. As the Supreme Court noted in its 1995 decision in U.S. v. Lopez:

Just as the separation and independence of coordinate

branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the

accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy

balance of power between the States and the Federal

Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from

either front.

The court also noted that:

This constitutionally mandated division of authority ``was

adopted by the framers to ensure protection of our

fundamental liberties.''

Who is outside of the mainstream of American jurisprudence? Certainly not Mr. Sutton. Some of these arguments made against him are outside. I admit that.

That is what federalism means. Like Jeffrey Sutton, I believe in it, too. I think anybody who understands constitutional law must believe in it. We could differ as to how it should be applied in all cases, but those are political arguments. Frankly, an advocate has an obligation to represent his client and do the best he can for them, which Sutton did, and he won.

Just as I believe in the separation of powers of the three branches of the Federal Government, believing in federalism does not mean you always believe States should prevail in any given dispute. Mr. Sutton doesn't believe that; neither do I. As I have stated before, I am disappointed any time the Supreme Court holds unconstitutional any legislation for which I fought and bled, that I vigorously worked to enact. However, I do believe in the Federal system that our Founders created and the courts have protected over the years. I cannot derive from Mr. Sutton's quote that he meant anything more than he believed in federalism as a structural component of our American system of government, something I think is certainly true.

I want to make a few points about Mr. Sutton's record which has been attacked, I believe, unfairly. We are getting used to that in the Senate. Some suggest that the few cases in which Mr. Sutton has represented States, in what some consider unpopular causes, demonstrates a bias towards States rights. However, Mr. Sutton has represented a wide range of clients in his legal practice. In those cases where he represented States, he was either acting in his official capacity or was hired by the State and paid a full fee. However, he has represented a significant number of clients with very diverse interests on a pro bono basis. These clients include death row defendants, prisoner rights plaintiffs, the National Coalition for Students with Disabilities, the NAACP, the Center for Handgun Violence--to name a few. I notice some of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee on the Democrat side have sent out a letter criticizing him, saying he has never done anything for civil rights. What are those cases?

In addition, I recently received a very supportive letter from Mr. Riyaz Kanji, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice David Souter and Judge Betty Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit, neither of whom would be considered conservatives by any judicial measure. He said that he contacted Mr. Sutton in advance to ask for assistance on an amicus brief for the National Congress of American Indians and an Indian law case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Kanji wrote:

Mr. Sutton took the time to call me back from vacation the

very next morning to express a strong interest in working on

the case. In our ensuing conversations, it became apparent to

me that Mr. Sutton did not simply want to work on the matter

for the small amount of compensation it would bring him (he

readily agreed to charge far below his usual rates for the

brief), but that he instead had a genuine interest in

understanding why Native American tribes have fared as poorly

as they have in front of the Supreme Court in recent years .

. . I think it is fair to say that most individuals who are

committed to furthering the cause of State's rights without

regard to any other values or interests in our society do not

evidence that type of concern for tribal interests.

I would also like to share a letter from a good friend, former colleague to all of us in this body, Senator Robert Dole. Senator Dole was also in the meetings when we were able to arrive at a final conclusion on the Americans with Disabilities Act. He was instrumental in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Senator Dole is a well- known advocate for the rights of disabled Americans. He wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee strongly supporting Jeffrey Sutton because of his ``demonstrated commitment to safeguarding the rights of all Americans, especially those of persons with disabilities.''

I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the Dole letter in the Record, along with some of the copies of other letters of support for Jeffrey Sutton's nomination that the committee has received.

Mr. President, I also point out a letter from Bonnie Campbell from Arent Fox, who herself was not approved to go on the court. I feel badly that we were unable to get to her. But she writes:

. . . to urge prompt confirmation of Jeffrey S. Sutton to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I

believe that Mr. Sutton is eminently qualified and would be a

great asset to the federal judiciary.

By the way, Ms. Campbell headed the Violence Against Women efforts on behalf of the Clinton administration; some on the other side have criticized Mr. Sutton and his arguments on the violence against women cases before the Supreme Court.

She goes on to say:

Mr. Sutton is one of the top appellate advocates in the

country, having argued twelve cases in the United States

Supreme Court, with a 9-2 record (and one case pending). In

the 2002 and 2001 Term, he argued more cases than any other

private attorney in the country, and won all four of them.

And in Hohn v. United States . . . the Court sua sponte

appointed Mr. Sutton to argue the case as a friend of the

Court.

That in and of itself, I might add, shows the high esteem with which the Supreme Court holds this man, certainly a man not outside the mainstream. She said:

When he served as State Solicitor of Ohio, the National

Association of Attorneys General presented Mr. Sutton with

the Best Brief Award for practice in the United States

Supreme Court, an unprecedented four times in a row.

Does that sound like somebody outside the mainstream? Continuing from the letter:

And this month the American Lawyer included Mr. Sutton in

its list of the top 45 lawyers in the country under the age

of forty-five.

I understand that some legal arguments Mr. Sutton has made

in the course of representing clients have aroused some

controversy in connection with his nomination. Having recent

experience myself with the judicial confirmation process, I

strongly urge the Senate to reject any unfair inference that

Mr. Sutton's personal views must coincide with positions he

has advocated on behalf of clients.

This is exactly the argument made by a number on the other side, an argument she rejects. She continues:

It is, of course, the role of the advocate to raise the

strongest available arguments on behalf of a client's

litigation position regardless of the lawyer's personal

convictions on the proper legal, let alone policy, outcome of

the case. I am confident that Mr. Sutton has the ability,

temperament, and objectivity to be an excellent judge.

I respect her for writing that letter. I have to say I admire her for doing so.

I might add that in Senator Dole's letter, he went on to list Mr. Sutton's work on behalf of Cheryl Fischer and the nonprofit Equal Justice Foundation, which often represents disabled clients in the Ohio community. Senator Dole continued:

I do not write these words lightly. As you know, I spent

many years in the United States Senate fighting for the

rights of the disabled.

I have no doubt that, if he is confirmed, Jeff Sutton will

faithfully enforce that law, just as he will enforce all laws

of Congress. And I have no doubt that he will scrupulously

respect the rights of the disabled, just as he will respect

the rights of all Americans.

I hope my colleagues will take note of Senator Dole's endorsement, which I believe speaks volumes on the integrity and fairness of Jeffrey Sutton. His record indicates he will be a brilliant jurist of whom we can all be proud.

I am going to cast my vote in favor of this confirmation to the Sixth Circuit, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I urge my colleagues to get beyond these fallacious arguments that he is outside of the mainstream of American jurisprudence, these arguments that he is unworthy of being in this position--although they admit he is a highly qualified, good person. Think about it.

The fact is, their gold standard rated him--the American Bar Association--nearly the highest possible rating available. Now, that speaks volumes.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

How much time remains on both sides?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I will only take a few minutes and then I intend to yield back the remainder of our time, as long as no one else wants to speak.

I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I would have yielded time to him, had he needed time, without the extra 10 minutes that were asked for.

It seems to me the arguments on the other side come down to this. Mr. Sutton is outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence, that he advocated cases that literally the Supreme Court agreed with, that they disagree with, maybe I disagree with, but the Supreme Court did decide in at least two of those cases, nine to zip, in favor of Mr. Sutton's position. That is basically what it seems to come down to.

The fact is, Mr. Sutton, as an advocate, has an obligation to argue the best he can for his clients. He did that, winning 9 of the 12 cases that he had before the Supreme Court, and a number of them unanimously--that they have been complaining about. In the Garrett case, he got five Justices on the Supreme Court, a clear majority, to go along with his particular position.

I have read the letter from some of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that indicated he has never advocated for a civil rights position. That is pure bunk, and I have made that case here today.

What is behind this type of treatment of an excellent nominee such as Jeffrey Sutton? I can understand the distinguished Senator from Iowa who is a very strong advocate for persons with disabilities, as am I, who may not have read the full judicial record and who may not, as a nonlawyer, fully appreciate the role of an advocate. But it is very difficult for me to understand how members of the Judiciary Committee who are advocates themselves, who hold their attorney's licenses in good esteem, can make some of the arguments they have made, and especially in the letter they distributed to all Senators.

The record flies in the face of those allegations. The fact is, I believe Jeffrey Sutton will be one of the most sensitive people towards persons with disabilities because he comes from that mindset. His father ran a school for persons with disabilities, kids who suffered from cerebral palsy. He worked for his father. He has argued for persons with disabilities and he has argued in cases where the Court decided against the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the Court made that decision.

Is the Court outside the mainstream of American juris prudence? I am sure each of us in this body can find a case or two in which we disagree with the Supreme Court. I can find a lot of cases with which I disagree. But their pronouncements happen to be the law and that has been the law ever since Marbury v. Madison.

All I can say is that here is a person who is respected by his peers, who receives the highest rating from the American Bar Association--not a conservative organization, something that has been called the gold standard by my colleagues on the other side--who has eminent experience before the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate bodies in this country, one of the premier appellate lawyers in the country, even though he is only 45 years of age, who has had extensive experience as an advocate for a wide variety of diverse people, who appeared before the committee and everybody on the committee, even those who are against him here today, admit he is a fine person with great ability.

But they try to smear the Federalist Society by saying these are Federalist Society nominees. That is a joke. The Federalist Society puts on the best seminars of any legal society in America today, and those seminars are always balanced with the left and the right. They give the left every chance to explain their position and give the right every chance to explain their position. That is precisely what a good legal society should do. They do not take advocacy positions but they do try to get people to think about the law.

I get a little tired of having the Federalist Society run down when some of the most eminent people in society are members of the Federalist Society, which is basically a debating society considering the various aspects of the law and making sure both sides are heard. That is pretty hard to beat.

I hope I am wrong, that the real reasons against Mr. Sutton is, No. 1, he is so good; No. 2, he has a chance of being on the Supreme Court someday and why not damage him now so he can't be there; No. 3, he might be pro-life, although I personally don't know what he is with regard to that issue. Those seem to be the major issues.

The fact is, he has the highest rating he can possibly have from the American Bar Association. He is an excellent lawyer. He is an excellent advocate. He is a person whom I believe will do justice on the courts. By all measurement by any fair person, any student of the law, you would have to conclude that this man not only is within the mainstream of American juris prudence, but he is one of the leaders in the mainstream of American juris prudence.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anybody would vote against Jeffrey Sutton. The mere fact that he may have represented some clients who they don't like, they on the other side, that is not a good enough argument. In fact, it is laughable. Good lawyers represent their clients.

In the Garrett case, contrary to what has been argued, he didn't ask for that case. He was called by the attorney general of the State involved and asked if he would be willing to represent them, if I recall correctly.

So the arguments that have been made--I haven't heard one meritorious argument on this whole debate. If you look at the record, there is every meritorious argument as to why those who really understand the law, those who really are fair about this process, would vote for Jeffrey Sutton.

Mr. President, if there is no one else who wants to speak, then I yield the remainder of my time.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to voice my strong support for the confirmation of Justice Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Owen's nomination has been pending now for nearly 2 years--720 days in total, so I hope we can vote on it soon. Justice Owen is among the longest pending judicial nominees selected by President Bush. She was first nominated on May 9, 2001, so it is natural that we should move forward at this time.

I should say at the outset that I truly hope the news reports are inaccurate about another move by the other side to filibuster a well- qualified nominee and deny a vote by the full Senate. We know the usual liberal interest groups are crying for a filibuster, but we ought to do what the American people have sent us here to do, and vote.

I expressed a similar hope when Miguel Estrada's nomination reached the floor on February 5. Yet here we are 3 months and 4 cloture votes later and still he has not been allowed a vote.

We have 200 years of precedent for providing an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees and we should follow that.

If certain Senators do not like Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada, they ought to vote no. That is their right. But they ought to vote.

I fully support an open debate on Justice Owen's nomination. And we have had a number of debates already. I do not, however, support any filibuster on a circuit court nominee, or any judge for that matter, or, frankly, anybody on the Executive Calendar. I think in the past some of us voted against cloture on Executive Calendar nominees without realizing how important it is to not filibuster the President's nominees, whoever the President might be. I believe we have made those mistakes. And I believe I probably have. It is the wrong thing. But nobody has ever filibustered a circuit court of appeals nominee until Miguel Estrada. If they filibuster Priscilla Owen, that means two in 1 year in a procedure that has never before been used.

I fully support an open debate on Justice Owen's nomination. Like I say, we should not suffer through another filibuster. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have already set a terrible partisan precedent in filibustering for the first time in history a circuit court nominee, Miguel Estrada. A simultaneous filibuster of two nominees would not only be unpredecented, but I think it would damage all three institutions even more. Let us have a full and open debate and then leave it up to each Senator to decide for himself or herself by holding a simple up-or-down vote.

Let me now explain why I intend to vote yes on Justice Owen's nomination.

Justice Owen is a terrific selection for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She has the intelligence, the education, the experience, and the integrity we look for in a federal judge. A native of Texas, Justice Owen attended Baylor University and Baylor University School of Law. She graduated cum laude from both institutions and served as a member of Baylor's law review. In addition, she finished third in her law school class, which means that she is worthy of the appointment, something most lawyers can never dream about.

Justice Owen went on to earn the highest score on the Texas bar exam and thereafter accepted a position at the nationally ranked Houston law firm of Andrews & Kurth. She worked for the next 17 years as a commercial litigator with the firm, specializing in oil and gas matters and doing some work in securities and railroad issues.

Justice Owen has the full support of Senators Hutchison and Cornyn-- both Senators from Texas--who know her well. Senator Cornyn has spoken in committee and on the Senate floor about his time working as a fellow Justice to Justice Owen on the Texas Supreme Court. Senator Cornyn has spoken to the criticism of Justice Owen's work on the bench and has made a strong case for Justice Owen's confirmation. I would commend Senator Cornyn's remarks regarding Justice Owen as worthy of the special attention of all my fellow Senators. Senator Cornyn's responses to criticisms of Justice Owen's judicial record are especially enlightening.

Former Texas Supreme Court Justices John L. Hill, Jack Hightower, and Raul Gonzalez--each of them a committed Democrat--also endorse Justice Owen. In particular, they note her impartiality and restraint on the bench. A group of 15 former Presidents of the Texas State Bar supports Justice Owen. This is no partisan group. They write: ``Although we profess different party affiliations and span the spectrum of views of legal and policy issues, we stand united in affirming that Justice Owen is a truly unique and outstanding candidate for appointment to the Fifth Circuit.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Justice Owen is recognized for her services for the poor and for her work on gender and family law issues. Justice Owen has taken a genuine interest in improving access to justice for the poor. She successfully fought with others for more funding for legal aid services for the indigent. Hector De Leon, former president of Legal Aid of Central Texas, has written: ``Justice Owen has an understanding of and a commitment to the availability of legal services to those who are disadvantaged and unable to pay for such legal services. It is that type of insight and empathy that Justice Owen will bring to the Fifth Circuit.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Justice Owen is committed to opening opportunities to women in the legal profession. She has been a member of the Texas Supreme Court Gender Neutral Task Force, and she served as one of the editors of the Gender Neutral Handbook, a guide for all Texas lawyers and judges on the issue of recognizing and combating gender bias in the legal field. Incredibly, this is the same woman the usual interest groups mischaracterize as ``anti-woman.''

Justice Owen's confirmation is backed by Texas lawyers such as E. Thomas Bishop, president of the Texas Association of Defense Counsel, and William B. Emmons, a Texas trial attorney and a Democrat who says that Justice Owen ``will serve [the Fifth Circuit] and the United States exceptionally well.''

You can see the type of bipartisan support Justice Priscilla Owen enjoys.

Justice Owen has served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994, winning reelection to another 6-year term in the year 2000. She had bipartisan support, earning the endorsement of all major Texas newspapers and the endorsement of the Texas voters--84 percent of the electorate to be exact.

This kind of support--running across the board and across party lines--leaves no doubt that Justice Owen is a fair-minded, mainstream jurist.

The fact that Justice Owen earned an ABA rating of unanimous well qualified, the gold standard of many of my colleagues on the other side when evaluating judicial nominees, is further evidence of Justice Owen's fitness to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This well qualified rating means that Justice Owen is at the top of the legal profession in her legal community; that she has outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience, and the highest reputation for integrity; and that she has demonstrated, or exhibited the capacity for, judicial temperament.

This ranking comes only after careful investigation and consideration. There is close examination of the nominee's legal writing--whether judicial opinions, law review articles, or other scholarship. Lawyers in private practice and in the public sector are interviewed and provide their candid assessment of the nominee. Those interviewed may be law school professors, lawyers working for public interest services, members of bar associations and legal organizations, and community leaders. Men and women of all backgrounds are invited by the ABA to assess the nominee's fitness for judicial service. All of this investigation is done to provide a full picture of the nominee's qualifications for the federal judiciary.

Justice Priscilla Owen will be a great asset to the Fifth Circuit. One can nitpick at her record, as many have done, and will no doubt continue to do, but when we lay out her full record and look at it with a sense of balance, we see a judge who honors the law and lives up to her judicial oath.

I express my hope, once again, that we will commit to hold a debate and

then vote on Justice Owen's confirmation. This will allow each Senator to decide the merits of her record for himself or herself and allow the entire Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty.

I, for one, hope we are not set up for another filibuster--another first time in history. I hope that will not be the case, but if it is, I hope we can face it head on. Ultimately, I hope we can somehow or other pull out the stops and get a vote for Justice Owen up and down. Those who do not agree with her can vote against her; and those who do, can vote for her.

This is an excellent woman, one of the best nominees I have seen in my whole 27 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I do not think you can find better people than Justice Owen. I personally believe she is a person of great capacity, and I think her record proves that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I believe the majority leader realizes there is a way of doing this and a way not to do this. I will have to object to the unanimous consent request because Priscilla Owen has been nominated for the exact same court of appeals as Judge Prado. We all agree Judge Prado is an excellent candidate and nominee, and we intend to fully support him and to have him confirmed. We also know there is the matter of seniority and a number of other matters as well.

In addition, the majority leader has seen fit to bring the Owen nomination to the floor, because we hope to have a vote up or down on Priscilla Owen. We look forward to that particular vote. We would like to confirm her first.

I made it clear a short while ago, in fact early in the year, that we would try on the Judiciary Committee, to the extent that we can, to bring people up in chronological order. Justice Owen has been sitting in the Judiciary Committee as a nominee on the Executive Calendar for 2 years this May 9. So within a week and a half, she will have been sitting there for 2 solid years. It is only fair to ask that her nomination be acted upon first. We fully intend to do that although it has no reflection at all on Judge Prado.

I have to object at this time. We will get to Judge Prado in due course in the way it should be done, not by bringing him up out of order and not by trying to upset the motions of the majority leader in this body. I look forward to that. Having said all of that, I object.

I have a perfect solution to the distinguished minority leader's suggestion. I would like to have Judge Prado brought up as well. I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Owen nomination, which was reported on March 27, there be 8 additional hours for debate prior to the vote on the confirmation of the nomination.

Then I modify my request to allow for 10 hours.

Mr. President, I think I have the floor.

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

Mr. President, that is not only absurd, it is ridiculous. But that is typical of what is going on here. Rather than give an honest vote up or down, which is what advise and consent means under the Constitution, they would prefer to try to take back the floor, although they are in the minority.

I have nothing against Judge Prado. In fact, I will vote for him. I think he is terrific. But it is unseemly for them to try to interrupt the Owen nomination, which has been brought to the floor in accordance with the usual procedures around here, to try to justify their obstruction of not only Miguel Estrada but also Justice Owen by voting for another nominee and making it look as if they are being reasonable about these matters.

First of all, this is the first time in the history of this Republic that a second nominee for a circuit court of appeals is being filibustered.

To make it look like they are not filibustering, to make it look like they are being reasonable, they are trying to overrule what the majority leader has brought to the floor. I suspect if the Parliamentarian continues to maintain that ruling, we will have to face that problem.

Will our colleagues on the other side stop at nothing in their zeal to obstruct a vote up or down on President Bush's nominees? I think it shows even further how broken the Senate is, how broken this procedure and process is.

Now, my Democratic colleagues have brought up the fact that Priscilla Owen was defeated last year. Let us remember that she was defeated on a party line, partisan vote, a vote of obstruction. After the first of this year, she was brought up again in committee and passed through the committee with a majority vote--again, a straight partisan vote. All Republicans voted for her and all Democrats on the committee voted against her.

Mr. President, I think it is unseemly what the Democrats are trying to do. I think they are trying to cover up their approaches. I think they are trying to cover up their obstruction. I think it is an insult to Justice Owen, an insult to the President of the United States, and it is unfair. Unfortunately, I suspect we have to live with this type of unfairness.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let's be honest about this. The Senator has been very blunt, very forthright and honest in his remarks that they intend to stop Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. So now we are in the second filibuster. Let nobody have any illusions, we did not know until now that literally they were going to filibuster Priscilla Owen. Now we have two first-time-in-history filibusters against circuit court of appeals judges because the minority does not like these two judges, even though both of them have their gold standard imprinted upon them, unanimously well qualified, by their gold standard, the American Bar Association.

It is unseemly, and it appears to anybody who is a fairminded person that there is no real desire to treat Miguel Estrada, with all of his qualifications, and Priscilla Owen with all of her qualifications, in a fair manner. It is also very apparent that the President of the United States is not going to be treated in a fair manner as well.

I have no objection to Judge Prado. If that is what they want to do, we will see about that, and we will see about it tomorrow. The fact is, that does not negate the fact that for the first time in history we have this type of obstruction rather than up-or-down votes of executive nominee judges for the circuit court of appeals.

I hate to think how this body has devolved from a body that works together to try to albeit argue and fight over certain nominees, but usually and always in the past we voted on them, how it has devolved into this morass whereby two excellent people with the highest recommendations from the American Bar Association and virtually everybody in their communities are being held up for no good reason at all, other than obstruction.

Now we at least know where we stand. I am willing to say I believe both of these people will be confirmed in the end, and I believe our colleagues on the other side are going to see that confirmation occur. At least that is what I intend. I hope we can fully debate these matters and then vote up or down. If my colleagues do not like Miguel Estrada, vote against him. If they do not like Priscilla Owen, vote against her. But do not do this anticonstitutional approach of filibustering Executive Calendar circuit court of appeals nominees for the first time in history.

We have been willing to put up with a certain amount of this, but there is going to be an end to this type of obstruction. It has got to come to an end, and I intend to see that it comes to an end if I can. I may not be able to, but I think there is a way we can do that. I am just warning the other side that I believe sooner or later we are going to have up-or-down votes on these two jurist candidates.

I think it is pretty hard to make a case against Priscilla Owen that does not distort her record, that is factual and nondistortable. I think it is going to be very difficult to make a case against her. For the life of me, I do not understand why our colleagues on the other side are filibustering this excellent woman, who has such impeccable credentials. They have plucked a couple of cases out of the air to criticize her. I venture to say any judge who has been around for a considerable period of time, any of us could find some faults with that judge or we could find cases with which we do not agree. But relatively few matters can they point to that would justify the kind of treatment Priscilla Owen is receiving at this time.

I think we should continue the debate. I intend to do so, and we will see

where we go from there. I hope my colleagues will be fair, but so far I have not seen it. I think we are in the middle of an obstructive set of tactics that are beneath the dignity of the Senate.

Be that as it may, our colleagues do have certain rights. I respect those rights and we will just see where we go from here. I believe Priscilla Owen ought to be confirmed, as I believe Miguel Estrada ought to be confirmed, as I believe Mr. Sutton, who is now confirmed, needed to be confirmed.

With regard to Roberts, I might as well make it clear we already have a deal. We have made an agreement. So that should not even enter into this question of whether one person should be confirmed ahead of another. I agree that is a comme ci, comme ca type of thing, but we expect to have a vote on Mr. Roberts. So we will revote him out of committee. We have a rehearing after 12 hours of hearings.

We were promised a vote on Justice Cook from Ohio. I hope that vote will be tomorrow, or the next day, in accordance with the agreement we made, because she was supposed to come up right away within a week. Roberts will be up for his second extensive confirmation hearing tomorrow. I intend to be there. Then he will be put on the markup a week from this Thursday. We have had a good-faith assurance that they will not try to put him over for another week.

So let's hope our colleagues live up to this agreement. It has not been an easy one for me to make, but we have made it. There have been some pluses to us and some pluses to them. But it is done.

So Roberts is not part of the equation, nor should he be used as part of the equation.

It is the desire of the majority leader to have Owen approved first. On the other hand, we will see what happens tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate the Senator yielding to me on that particular question because, yes, it is obstruction. For the first time in history to now, I understand from the Senator, he will be obstructing three circuit court of appeals nominees: Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Judge Pickering; three nominees filibustered for the first time in history.

I agree with the distinguished Senator; I think there have been 119, with Jeffrey Sutton, who have been confirmed. That is a good record. But most of them are district court nominees who act as federal trial judges. There are a number of circuit court of appeals nominees. Five of them are still held over, as I recall it, from May 9 of 2001. Five of those original eleven are still not confirmed. There are all kinds of judicial emergencies out there that we are trying to take care of that are being obstructed. Yes, I think it is obstruction.

I do not expect my colleagues on the other side to approve everybody the President nominates. Vote against them. If you don't approve, vote against them.

Sure. But I am saying if you don't approve of them, vote against them. We didn't obstruct yours. We voted. Everybody who came to the floor was voted upon, and there was no filibuster conducted by us.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

Remember, on Judge Paez, I was the one who moved Judge Paez admittedly in the 4 years. But in that 4-year period he issued a number of hearings that were highly suspect, not only by people on our side but some on your side. We had other investigations that had to be conducted. Admittedly, it was too long; there is no question in my mind. That is a glaring example.

In the case of Judge Berzon, I was the one who pushed her through. With regard to cloture votes----

I don't recall how long she waited.

I don't know if that is true or not. All I can say is I was the one who put them through.

I also have to correct the record because there has never been a true filibuster against President Clinton's nominees or any other Democrat President's nominees--never. There have been cloture votes. In most of the cloture votes, those were time management approaches. Yes, we had a few people over here who wanted to filibuster, but we were able to stop them. There was no case--none, zero, nada, not ever--where a Democrat nominee who was brought to the floor was not ultimately voted on up or down--never--until this year with Estrada and now Priscilla Owen, and I presume, from what you have said, perhaps Judge Pickering.

My contention is this. I know the distinguished Senator from New York is a good lawyer. He is a good friend. I value his friendship. But the fact is, I think there is much merit in having healthy debate, raising the difficulties you have with a judge, but then having a vote up or down. Vote whichever way

you want to, for or against. But it is unseemly to start clogging up the Senate with true filibusters for the purpose of trying to stop these people from having a vote up or down. That was never done, not at any time during my tenure as chairman, and I made sure it wasn't done because I don't believe that is constitutionally a sound thing to do.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate the Senator yielding. I think it is a credit to him. We don't have enough debates around here where we have interchanges with each other. We stand up and make speeches, and generally they are written speeches. We don't have this type of high- quality debate.

Let me just answer the Senator on a few of his assertions that I think are profoundly wrong.

First of all, they were not just a few bad cases. They were activist cases that were clearly outside the realm, in the eyes of many, including mine, of what good judicial conduct should be. Second, I think there were other reasons--further investigation and so forth. But even more important than that, I would put my report record up as chairman of the Judiciary Committee against any Democrat chairman--my chairmanship with a Democrat in the White House--against any Democrat chairman with a Republican in the White House with regard to how many people were held over who didn't make it through the process.

For instance, when Joe Biden was chairman and the Democrats controlled the committee in 1992 and President Bush left office, there were 97 vacancies and 54 left holding. Two of the fifty- four included Mr. Roberts--who is going to come up again for another hearing tomorrow in committee--and Judge Boyle from North Carolina, who have been sitting there for over 12 years. We didn't complain about it. I think maybe somebody complained, but I didn't. We understand that there are some holdups.

Please let me finish.

I understand. They were nominated by a Republican President. Let me finish this. My colleague has been very generous with his time.

They were nominated--both of them--three times by two different Presidents. From the time they were first nominated to today, it has been 12 years. I will make that more clear.

With regard to the 54 holdovers when the Democrats controlled the committee and we had a Republican President, we didn't have the screaming and mouthing off about that from our side. Compare that to when President Clinton left office and there were 67 vacancies, 30 fewer during my chairmanship and 41 left holding versus the 54.

By the way, of the 41, 9 were put up so late that nobody could have gotten them through no matter who the Judiciary chairman was. There were really 32. If you take away those who had absolutely no consultation with home State Senators--I mean none--then that reduces it some more. If you take away those who had further investigatory problems, that reduced it some more. There were some--I have been honest to admit this--whom I wish I could have gotten through who I think deserved to go through. But there were many in the 54 who were left by the Democrats who should have gotten through, too.

The point I am making is that it isn't the same because the Judiciary Committee chairman can't get some of the holdovers through. I don't blame Senator Biden. I don't think I should be blamed. I did the best I could. It isn't the same as when somebody is brought to the floor and a filibuster occurs. The fact is there has never been a true filibuster up until Miguel Estrada--now Priscilla Owen--and from what the Senator told me, it looks as if they are going to filibuster Judge Pickering even before we have his hearing this year. I hope that is not true. But it apparently is true with regard to Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen.

I think we have to break through this nonsense. Maybe we will approve all of these judges who are brought to the floor. That is what we should do as Republicans with a Republican President, and we would hope--and, in fact, in every case we have had Democrats' support for these judges--in every case, including Jeffrey Sutton today. It isn't as if it was a wholly partisan process. The Senator is probably right. If we get these judges to the floor, presumably we will pass them. I am not sure of that in every case, as I think we should. But if the Senator doesn't like them, and if others on this side don't, as they did in the case of Jeffrey Sutton, vote against them.

It is true, Jeffrey Sutton is now confirmed and will receive his certification to become a circuit court of appeals judge. But my colleagues on the other side made this political point. They don't like some of the things he has done as an advocate. That was their right, to do so. I thought it wasn't the right thing to do myself. I believed there was too much politics

involved. But you had a right to do that. But he was confirmed. As Senator Reid, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, pointed out, there were a number of Presidential candidates who were not here to vote on Jeffrey Sutton's nomination. If they thought it was so important a vote, and that the judicial confirmation process is important, they should have been here. I think we all would agree with that. They knew this was the game that was being played to embarrass Mr. Sutton--not by the Senator from New York, and not by a number of others.

Will the Senator yield on that?

Well, if the Senator would yield, maybe I can satisfy--I have no objection----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on the future of intercity passenger rail service and Amtrak.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to consider comprehensive energy legislation

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on An Enlarged NATO: Mending Fences and Moving Forward on Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on The Severe Acute Respiratory syndrome Threat, SARS, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. in

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.