Floor Statements

Mr. President, I compliment our distinguished Senator from Texas for the excellent remarks she has made about really what is going on right now and what the President is trying to do.

I, for one, want to help the President. I want to help him to help this economy. So I rise today in support of President Bush's growth and jobs plan, and I would like to take a few minutes today to tell you why I believe this is the right prescription for America at this time.

I know from talking to people in my own home State of Utah, and across the country, that our current economy is not meeting its full potential. This is crystal clear. The nationwide unemployment rate stands at 6 percent. And while that is better than usual after a recession, it is still far too high. Thousands of people in Utah and millions of people across the country are out there looking for work. Yes, most of them are finding jobs eventually, but jobs are far too scarce still. As long as there are people who want to work but cannot get work, we have a problem in our country.

The President's plan starts off by speeding up the tax reductions this body has already passed by a significant margin. This is just plain common sense. A big part of the tax cut we passed in 2001 was designed to be phased in over the following 10 years, with rate cuts, marriage penalty relief, and child tax credits increasing every few years. But since our economy is below its potential right now, then right now is the time to make the full amount of these tax cuts effective. Doing so would put money in people's pockets immediately. The IRS would change their withholding tables immediately after the accelerated tax cuts become law, so more money would show up immediately in workers' paychecks.

The President's plan to speed up the tax cuts now, right when we need them, will have an immediate, visible impact on practically every American taxpayer.

A key part of the President's plan is to accelerate marriage penalty relief and speed up the $1,000-per-child tax credit. Phasing in these family-friendly tax provisions slowly might have made some political sense 2 years ago, but today, when young families are wondering whether Mom and Dad will have a job next week, cutting the tax man's share of the pie will be a big help.

Waiting 3 to 5 years for family tax relief makes no sense in the middle of a slow economic recovery. Let's do it now. Let's provide a tremendous boost to millions of American families.

As to some of the media reports that the President's plan unfairly benefits the wealthiest people in the country and does little or nothing for low- or middle-income taxpayers, let me set the record straight.

According to the Treasury Department, a married couple with two children and an annual income of $40,000 would see their taxes decline, under the President's plan, by $1,133--from $1,178 to $45--in 2003.

In other words, under today's taxes, they would pay $1,178. That would be reduced $1,133 to where they have a tax bill of $45. That is for people who make $40,000 a year. For this family, there is not much more tax relief that can be given.

Under the Bush plan, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in the year 2003 and thereafter. Forty-six million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716. Thirty-four million families with children would benefit from an average tax benefit of $1,473. Six million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $1,384. Twenty-three million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042. Talk about helping the middle class.

In my home State of Utah, over 646,000 taxpayers would get tax relief from the President's package. That is important to me. That is important to almost 650,000 people in the State of Utah.

Under our ultra-progressive income tax, the top 50 percent of income earners--those who made $27,682 in the year 2000 or more--that upper 50 percent, from $27,000 and up, paid over 96 percent of all the income taxes paid in this Nation.

Therefore, those who are paying most of the income taxes are naturally going to get much of the benefit of a tax cut. In fact, it is almost impossible to cut any tax without making the people who pay that tax better off.

Projections prepared by the Treasury Department show that 40 percent of the President's proposed tax cut would go to people with income over $200,000 per year. But it is important to note that this same group is paying 44.8 percent--almost 45 percent--of the total income tax.

If we enact the President's plan, people making over $200,000 a year will end up paying even a larger fraction of the Nation's income tax bill, 45.4 percent. On the other hand, people making less than $50,000 would pay less of the total share than they do now.

Further, the President's plan contains an important provision to increase the incentive for small business investment. I might have made this provision even stronger than the President chose to make it. But even as it stands, the increase to $75,000 per year of business expensing will be a boon to companies struggling to grow. It will increase the demand for business equipment and software, sectors that have been hit especially hard in this downturn. This proposal can help to revive business spending and create new jobs in industries that make machines, computers, and software.

I would like to debunk one particular false notion that is making the rounds here on Capitol Hill and in the media; the idea that lower income people spend all of their tax cut but the middle and higher income people will just save them.

It turns out that how much you earn does not have a night-and-day impact on the people's decision to spend. A recent study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research concluded--and I quote--

Low-income households are not more likely to spend the

rebate.

In fact, as this chart shows, it looks as though families with lower incomes actually tended to spend a smaller fraction of their rebate.

I will just point to this chart now. The modest income earners spent little of their rebates. Americans who earned

up to $50,000 per year spent less than 20 percent of their 2001 tax rebate. But Americans who earned more than $50,000 a year spent over 25 percent of their rebate checks.

It would appear to me rebates are not the way to go if we want to stimulate the economy. Yet that is what our colleagues on the other side seem to think is the gold standard to help get the economy going.

I would now like to address the part of the President's package that has drawn the most attention, the plan to end the double taxation of dividends. Ending the double taxation of dividends will make stocks more valuable, it will make businesses more financially sound, and it will make it harder for a few wrongdoers to hide their corporate shenanigans.

Why do America's corporations load up on debt financing despite the fact that the higher debt levels increase the risk of bankruptcy? I will tell you why. Because our Nation's tax laws have always given them massive financial incentives to do just exactly that.

The reason is simple. When a corporation pays interest to bondholders, that payment is taxed only once. That is at the bondholder level. But, in contrast, when it pays dividends to stockholders, that payment is taxed twice--to both the corporation and the shareholder.

President Bush's economic growth plan contains a proposal to end this absurd incentive and, by doing so, his plan will strengthen the foundations of our economy and help ensure growth and new jobs for years to come.

This chart--``How the Double Taxation of Dividends Harms Our Nation''--shows that bankruptcies go up, corporate accountability goes down, and investment in capital formation also goes down. And that is where jobs are thrown to the wind.

Our Tax Code's harsh and unfair treatment of dividend payments harms the foundation of our economy in those three ways. It increases the number of bankruptcies, it weakens corporate accountability, and it slows the formation of capital.

By loading up on tax-deductible bonds and bank loans rather than issuing new shares of stock, corporations increase their chance of going bankrupt.

Our Tax Code should not encourage this behavior. When corporations load up on debt, they commit too much of their cash flow to making interest payments, and the danger of bankruptcy becomes all too real. Once we change this policy, businesses will find they have people lined up out the door to buy stocks that pay dividends. When companies hear of the clamor for dividend-paying stocks, they will have a much stronger incentive to pay for new projects and new factories by issuing new shares of stock rather than running to the bank or the bond market for a loan.

And then, if times get tough, businesses will not be as likely to declare bankruptcy and head to Federal court for a painful reorganization, as we are seeing today. Instead, many companies will be able to cut their dividend to shareholders, and continue business more or less as usual.

This is not speculation on my part. Just open up any textbook on corporate finance--books that are on the shelves of many an MBA--and you will see it yourself in black and white: Business managers are taught to weigh the benefits of tax-favored debt finance against the increased risk of bankruptcy. They even have a name for it. They call it the Trade-off Theory of Capital Structure. And it is caused by the double taxation of dividends.

Our Tax Code's inequitable treatment of equity also weakens corporate accountability. Dividend payments are cash-on-the-barrelhead evidence that a company is profitable.

While not a perfect measure by any means, it can be an important signal that a firm is solvent. As they say on Wall Street, ``Profit is an opinion, but cash is a fact.''

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that only about 30 percent of S&P 500 corporations pay any dividends at all. A crucial reason for this dividend drought is our Tax Code, which requires corporations to pay 35 cents in taxes for every dollar in profit and then, on top of that, requires taxpayers who get those profits in the form of dividends to pay personal income tax. The total government take, when state taxes are added, can exceed 70 percent. So what is the incentive to pay dividends--something we ought to be encouraging, rather than destroying.

Finally, our inequitable treatment of equity slows innovation and the formation of capital. The double taxation of dividend income cuts the flow of equity funding to all but the most promising investments. Good ideas go unexplored and promising investments go unfunded because they cannot guarantee enough after-tax profit to investors.

I believe it is important for Congress to eliminate the double taxation of dividends. It is important for our country and the stability of our business community. That is why I support President Bush's plan. By making shares a more attractive investment, his plan will boost demand for stocks and push up their value. By reducing the long-run risk of bankruptcy and encouraging companies to take on promising projects, it will be good for employees. And most importantly, ending the double taxation of dividends will make American corporations stronger, much more accountable, than they are today and more innovative in the years to come.

I am proud to be able to support the President's growth and jobs package, and I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, to pass out a bill that give tax cuts to America's families, that gives small businesses an opportunity to grow, and that end the double taxation of dividends to strengthen both our stock market and the financial foundations of American business. This is an economic agenda that addresses the needs of today as well as the challenges of the future. The American people deserve no less.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a question?

My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo, in my home State of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming into and out of the airport.

My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt Lake City International Airport traffic flow.

It is my understanding there are 143,000 operations at this airport per year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the citizens of Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control tower is very unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number of near misses.

I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the other Appropriations Committee members for this, and I know it will be very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million which would really help the city of Provo get this project underway. I am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try to work in conference to recede to the House number.

Would the distinguished Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a question?

My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo in my home state of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming into and out of the airport.

My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt Lake City International Airport traffic flow.

It is my understanding that there are 143,000 operations at this airport per year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the citizens of Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control tower is very unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number of near misses.

I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the other Appropriations Committee members for this and I know it will be very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million which would really help the City of Provo get this project underway. I am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try to work in conference to recede to the House number.

I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Maine. I sure appreciate the work that she has done on this issue. She deserves a lot of credit. This has been a big week for her with all of the things she has been able to accomplish.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the confirmation of my colleague and friend, Tom Ridge, to serve as this Nation's first Secretary of Homeland Security.

I commend my fellow Senators for moving this nomination with the speed that it deserves. Senators Collins and Lieberman have done an excellent job. I am very appreciative of that.

With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and now the confirmation of Tom Ridge to head that agency, the President finally has a unified department specifically devoted to fighting terrorism.

Tom Ridge will begin his tenure as Secretary with an enormous task: implementing the new Department that Congress has created just months ago.

This is the most comprehensive reorganization that our Federal Government has undergone in over 50 years.

Because I know Tom Ridge, I know that he is up to the task. I view his confirmation as critical to the success of the new Department's mission.

After successfully implementing the reorganization of nearly 200,000 Federal employees, Secretary Ridge's work will just have begun.

As the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge will face the awesome challenges and responsibilities of safeguarding our borders and enhancing our Nation's ability to respond to future terrorist attacks. He must do so while ensuring that our cherished individual civil liberties are protected.

He will be responsible for collecting intelligence from a number of different sources, fusing it into a single coherent picture, and then ensuring that it is acted upon appropriately.

While all of us hope and pray that our Nation will not be attacked by terrorists again, we must remain ever vigilant to that real threat. The department's goals and efforts are of paramount importance to all our constituents, including those in my home state of Utah and, of course, the entire Nation.

Tom Ridge is the right man for this challenge. He was a wonderful Governor of Pennsylvania. He certainly has been a heroic figure throughout the lives of many people.

Less than 1 month after the terrorist attacks on our country, Governor Ridge was sworn in as the Director of the White House Office of Homeland Security.

He has worked there with an unwavering dedication to protect our homeland. I commend Governor Ridge on his efforts to improve our Nation's security and his dedication and courage in tackling these most difficult issues in these times of crisis.

Tom has accomplished much.

While there is much more to do to ensure the safety of our great Nation, I am comforted by his demonstrated track record of leadership and success.

Tom Ridge and the President have been a steady beacon of hope for all Americans, and I want to thank them for all their accomplishments.

By confirming Tom Ridge, we are taking a big step forward in helping to defend our Nation from terrorism.

I am confident that Secretary Ridge will work vigorously to secure our Nation and protect Americans--and to protect all of us in ways that really have to be undertaken.

I am proud to support Secretary Ridge's nomination and look forward to working with him on homeland defense and security issues in the future.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Maine and others on the other side in the future on these very important issues.

This agency is so big that it crosses over a whole raft of communities.

I again want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee and her ranking member for having done such a good job in bringing this nomination forward at this particular time.

I reserve the remainder of my time for the chairman. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of S. 121, the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003. Specifically, I congratulate and thank my colleagues who have worked so hard toward the passage of this needed legislation: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Dianne Feinstein. Both of them are deserving of the credit for this bill. I am very proud to align myself with both of them.

Senator Hutchison has been a great leader in this area, and I am very much appreciative of her. Also, Senator Leahy and others have worked hard on this bill.

The horrific kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in my home State of Utah is illustrative of a terrifying wave of recent child abductions that has swept our Nation. Clearly, there is a tremendous need for legislation to help communities fight these terrible crimes.

Without question, when it comes to child abductions, time is of the essence. We are all too aware that child abductors prey on the youngest, most innocent and vulnerable members of our society--often for the purpose of committing other serious violent crimes against them.

Too often, it is only a matter of hours before a kidnapper abuses, assaults or kills the child victim.

According to figures released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, almost 75 percent of the murders that occur following child abductions happen within the first 3 hours.

AMBER Alert systems are critical to successful search and recovery efforts because they enable law enforcement authorities to galvanize entire communities to assist in the safe recovery of child victims.

We recently witnessed the success of the AMBER Alert system in California where the system was used to broadcast the disappearance of Nichole Timmons. After she was recognized, Nichole was safely recovered in the neighboring State of Nevada.

In another recent California case, the AMBER Alert system was used to broadcast the disappearances of Tamera Brooks and Jaqueline Marris. Just hours after their abduction, and minutes before their possible murder, the two young women were found.

My home State of Utah recently adopted a statewide alert program aimed at preventing child abduction called the Rachel Alert. The program was named after young Rachel Runyan who was kidnapped from behind her home in Sunset, UT, and later found murdered.

I know that law enforcement agencies are working closely with broadcasters and the public to develop AMBER Alert systems across our country. Despite these efforts, however, I believe a National AMBER Alert Coordinator in the Department of Justice is needed to assist States in developing effective alert plans that can be coordinated nationwide.

Fortunately, we already have the technology in place to do just that--the Emergency Broadcast System. For years, broadcasters have been cooperating with Government officials and reaching Americans across our country by issuing emergency alerts on our televisions and radios. We have all experienced an interruption in regular

programming so that a news breaking announcement can be made. With the addition of a National AMBER Alert Coordinator and continued cooperation between law enforcement officials and broadcasters, we can create an effective national AMBER Alert system.

Just now, I walked into the Senate Chamber with Ed Smart, who, as the country knows, has joined with his wife and family to launch one of the most brave, concerted, and vigilant efforts ever known to locate their precious daughter, Elizabeth.

On many occasions, Ed and Lois Smart have educated me about the need for enhanced efforts to combat child abduction, such as the National AMBER Alert Network Act.

This measure is overwhelmingly supported by the Smart family and all the parents who have firsthand experience with the uncertainty, pain, and trauma that exist while waiting for news about an abducted child.

We have no greater resource than our children, and we need to see to it that we do all we can to protect them from predators of all types.

So let us pass this legislation for Elizabeth Smart and Rachel Runyon and, indeed, for all children in our Nation.

Madam President, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Senator from Texas, who deserves so much credit for being on top of this bill and bringing it to the Senate.

Madam President, I yield back whatever time we have, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President: I rise to comment on amendment No. 32, which would restore $500 million in funding for the Department of Justice's Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, the Byrne Grant Program.

There is no question we all agree on the importance of maintaining adequate funding for the Byrne Grant Program. The Byrne Grant Program does much to enhance State and local law enforcement, providing critical grants which are needed to fight violent and drug-related crime. In the last year alone, over $4 million was awarded to State and local law enforcement agencies in Utah to fight violent and drug- related crime.

As many of my colleagues, I was extremely disturbed to learn the resolution we have before us today contains absolutely no funding for the Byrne Grant Program. Obviously, it is not in the interest of supporting local law enforcement for that situation to stand.

Let me discuss another consideration. Appropriation have worked very to craft a bill that is fiscally responsible, that will balance the need for spending against restraint, and that will help us restore a balanced budget which is so vital to our country's economic security. The amendment we have before us, offered by my good friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, proposes to add $500 million to the bottom line of this bill, without an offsetting reduction which will keep the resolution within the total funding level acceptable to the President. Thus, its passage would vastly exceed the carefully crafted Federal discretionary spending level agreed to by President Bush and congressional appropriators last year and jeopardize the legislation we must pass to ensure continued funding for virtually all of the Government except the Department of Defense.

I am relieved to hear our chairmen, Senator Stevens and Senator Gregg, provide assurances that if the Harkin amendment were not adopted, they will restore the funds in the conference committee with the House of Representatives. Based on those assurances, I will cast my vote to table the Harkin amendment.

Before I close, I wanted to also express my concerns about a provision in H.J. Res 2 which dramatically restructures the section 8 Housing Choice Voucher renewal calculation. The resolution states that contracts will be renewed based upon levels used in previous years to calculate future housing payments and administrative fees. This formula could result in a severe undercounting of the number of families likely to be served by vouchers in the upcoming year.

Housing Authorities are facing an ever-increasing series of challenges, including increases in low-income and disabled eligibles and rising rental costs in many areas. Many of Utah's agencies who have received new voucher awards within the last six to 12 months are projecting they will have inadequate funding to meet their needs.

As I read the resolution, any additional funding needed to support increased costs will be a limited amount that is located within a central fund allocated by the Secretary. This could force Housing Authorities to reduce staff, resulting in lost administrative fees, and a reduction in the percentage of vouchers being used. It is my hope that the conferees will be able to rectify this problem that could serve to undermine the successfulness of the Section 8 program.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Medicare provisions contained in H.J. Res. 2. These provisions would prevent unwise reductions in physician payments from taking effect by freezing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the 2002 level. They would also provide much-needed, increased funding for rural hospitals.

Enacting these important provisions has been at the top of my agenda, and I am pleased that the committee was able to include them in the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. After extensive conversations with constituents throughout Utah, it became obvious to me that Congress must act to support Medicare providers and patients by ensuring that payments are made more fair.

In 2002, physicians' Medicare reimbursements were reduced by approximately 5 percent. And, on March 1, 2003, Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians are scheduled to be reduced by another 4.4 percent. The provisions in H.J. Res. 2 that I strongly support will protect physicians across the country by preventing the 4.4 percent cut in physician Medicare payment from going into effect in March.

It is apparent to me that Medicare constraints have made it more and more difficult for hard-working physicians to provide the level of patient

care that they and their patients expect. Physicians in Utah with whom I have consulted over the past year have showed me the lasting, negative impact that the 2003 reductions would have on patient care. In addition, I have been dismayed to learn from several physicians that these unwarranted reductions would cause them to think twice about remaining in the Medicare Program.

In fact, as representatives of the Utah Medical Association have pointed out to me, Medicare's flawed reimbursement system has made it increasingly difficult for Utah physicians to accept new Medicare patients, putting many seniors who seek care in a quandary. This is not fair to the physicians, and it is not fair to the patients.

While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, reports that Medicare physician participation rate was 89.3 percent in January 2002, figures from Utah portray a dramatically different picture. In a recent survey conducted by the Utah Medical Association, the Medicare participation rate among physicians was significantly lower. The UMA found that only 77 percent of Utah's primary care physicians participated in the Medicare Program. I am hopeful that once Utah physicians see that we in Congress are listening and serious about supporting them, other doctors will consider participating in the Medicare Program once again.

I am also pleased that this legislation contains a provision which will provide additional funding for rural hospitals, something that is desperately needed in my home state of Utah. More specifically, the hospital provision contained in H.J. Res. 2 would raise the inpatient base rate upon which payments are calculated for hospitals in rural and small urban areas to the same rate as that in large urban areas for 6 months. This provision will provide both patients and hospitals in my state with necessary and welcomed relief.

Many of us who worked last year to enact needed changes such as this have been dismayed that, despite our best efforts, Congress could not find a collective way to rectify these problems that are doing so much to hurt patient care throughout Utah. It is high time we take this action.

I urge my colleagues to support these two important provisions because both will provide Medicare patients with access to quality and affordable health care across the country. Let's do the right thing and pass this legislation as quickly as possible, this issue is much too important to both Medicare beneficiaries and providers. Medicare providers, and most importantly, the beneficiaries they serve, are depending on us to get the job done.

Mr. President, it is with profound honor and reverence that I,

together with my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, introduce a bipartisan constitutional amendment to permit Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.

The American flag serves as a symbol of our great Nation. The flag represents, in a way nothing else can, the common bond shared by an otherwise diverse people. As a sponsor and long-time supporter of the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the American flag, I am very pleased, but not surprised, by the way Americans have been waving the flag as a symbol of solidarity following the September 11 attacks of 2001. The emotion that Americans feel when they see the stars and stripes confirms my view that the flag is much more than a piece of cloth--it is a unifying force that represents the common core ideals all Americans share. Whatever our differences of party, race, religion, or socio-economic status, the flag reminds us that we are very much one people, united in a shared destiny, bonded in a common faith in our nation.

More than a decade ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reminded us of the significance of our unique emblem when he wrote:

A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and

national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize

the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the

special history that has animated the growth and power of

those ideas. . . . So it is with the American flag. It is

more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination,

and the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling

colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of

equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill

for other peoples who share our aspirations.

Throughout our history, the flag has captured the hearts and minds of all types of people--ranging from school teachers to union workers, traffic cops, grandmothers, and combat veterans. In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln called our young men to put their lives on the line to preserve the Union. When Union troops were beaten and demoralized, General Ulysses Grant ordered a detachment of men to make an early morning attack on Lookout Mountain in Tennessee. When the fog lifted from Lookout Mountain, the rest of the Union troops saw the American flag flying and cheered with a newfound courage. This courage eventually led to a nation of free men--not half-free and half-slave.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt called on all Americans to fight the aggression of the Axis powers. After suffering numerous early defeats, the free world watched in awe as five Marines and one sailor raised the American flag on Iwo Jima. Their undaunted, courageous act, for which three of the six men died, inspired the Allied troops to attain victory over fascism.

In 1990, President Bush called on our young men and women to go to the Mideast for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. After an unprovoked attack by the terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein on the Kingdom of Kuwait, American troops, wearing arm patches with the American flag on their shoulders, led the way to victory. General Norman Schwarzkopf addressed a joint session of Congress describing the American men and women who fought for the ideals symbolized by the American flag:

[W]e were Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Moslems

and Buddhists, and many other religions, fighting for a

common and just cause. Because that's what your military is.

And we were black and white and yellow and brown and red. And

we noticed that when our blood was shed in the desert, it

didn't separate by race. It flowed together.

General Schwarzkopf then thanked the American people for their support, stating:

The prophets of doom, the naysayers, the protesters and the

flag-burners all said that you wouldn't stick by us, but we

knew better. We knew you'd never let us down. By golly, you

didn't.

The pages of our history show that when this country has called our young men and women to serve under the American flag from Lookout Mountain to Iwo Jima to Kuwait, they have given their blood and lives. The crosses at Arlington, the Iwo Jima memorial, and the Vietnam Memorial honor those sacrifices. But there were those who did not.

In 1984, Greg Johnson led a group of radicals in a protest march in which he doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire as his fellow protestors chanted: ``America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.'' Sadly, the radical extremists, most of whom have given nothing, suffered nothing, and who respect nothing, would rather burn and spit on the American flag than honor it.

Contrast this image with the deeds of Roy Benavidez, an Army Sergeant from Texas, who led a helicopter extraction force to rescue a reconnaissance team in Vietnam. Despite being wounded in the leg, face, back, head, and abdomen by small arms fire, grenades, and hand-to-hand combat with vicious North Vietnamese soldiers, Benavidez held off the enemy and carried several wounded to the helicopters, until finally collapsing from a loss of blood. Benavidez earned the Medal of Honor. When Benavidez was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, the honor guard placed an American flag on his coffin and then folded it and gave it to his widow. The purpose of Roy Benavidez' heroic sacrifice--and the purpose of the American people's ratification of the First Amendment--was not to protect the right of radicals like Greg Johnson to burn and spit on the American flag.

The American people have long distinguished between the First Amendment right to speak and write one's political opinions and the disrespectful, and often violent, physical destruction of the flag. For many years, the people's elected representatives in Congress and 49 state legislatures passed statutes prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag. Our founding fathers, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice Hugo Black believed these laws to be completely consistent with the First Amendment's protection of the spoken and written word and not disrespectful, extremist conduct.

In 1989, however, the Supreme Court abandoned the history and intent of the First Amendment to embrace a philosophy that made no distinction between oral and written speech about the flag and extremist, disrespectful destruction of the flag. In Texas v. Johnson, five members of the Court, for the first time ever, struck down a flag protection statute. The majority argued that the First Amendment had somehow changed and now prevented a state from protecting the American flag from radical, disrespectful, and violent actions. When Congress responded with a federal flag protection statute, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Eichman, used its new and changed interpretation of the First Amendment to strike it down by another five-to-four vote.

Under this new interpretation of the First Amendment, it is assumed that the people, their elected legislators, and the courts can no longer distinguish between expressions concerning the flag that are more akin to spoken and written expression and expressions that constitute the disrespectful physical desecration of the flag. Because of this assumed inability to make such distinctions, it is argued that all of our freedoms to speak and write political ideas are wholly dependent on Greg Johnson's newly created ``right'' to burn and spit on the American flag.

This ill-advised and radical philosophy fails because its basic premise--that laws and judges cannot distinguish between political expression and disrespectful physical desecration--is so obviously false. It is precisely this distinction that laws and judges did in fact make for over 200 years. Just as judges have distinguished which laws and actions comply with the constitutional command to provide ``equal protection of the laws'' and ``due process of law,'' so too have judges been able to distinguish between free expression and disrespectful destruction.

Certainly, extremist conduct such as smashing in the doors of the State Department may be a way of expressing one's dissatisfaction with the nation's foreign policy objectives. And one may even consider such behavior speech. Laws, however, can be enacted preventing such actions in large part because there are peaceful alternatives that can be equally powerful. After all, right here in the United States Senate, we prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even the silent display of signs or banners, in the public galleries.

Moreover, it was not this radical philosophy of protecting disrespectful destruction that the people elevated to the status of constitutional law. Such an extremist philosophy was never

ratified. Such a philosophy is not found in the original and historic intent of the First Amendment. Thus, in this Senator's view, the Supreme Court erred in Texas v. Johnson and in United States v. Eichman.

Since Johnson and Eichman, constitutional scholars have opined that an attempt by Congress to protect the flag with another statute would fail in light of the new interpretation currently embraced by the Supreme Court. Thus, an amendment is the only legal means to protect the flag.

This amendment affects only the most radical forms of conduct and will leave untouched the current constitutional protections for Americans to speak their sentiments in a rally, to write their sentiments to their newspaper, and to vote their sentiments at the ballot box. The amendment simply restores the traditional and historic power of the people's elected representatives to prohibit the radical and extremist physical desecration of the flag.

Restoring legal protection to the American flag will not place us on a slippery slope to limit other freedoms. No other symbol of our bi- partisan national ideals has flown over the battlefields, cemeteries, football fields, and school yards of America. No other symbol has lifted the hearts of ordinary men and women seeking liberty around the world. No other symbol has been paid for with so much blood of our countrymen. The American people have paid for their flag, and it is our duty to let them protect it.

This amendment offers Senators, from both sides of the aisle, the opportunity to stand united for the protection of the sacred symbol of our nation.

Restoring legal protection to the American flag is not, nor should it be, a partisan issue. More than 40 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have already joined with Senator Feinstein and myself as original cosponsors of this amendment. I am pleased that this amendment has the unqualified support of our distinguished colleagues: Senators Ted Stevens; Zell Miller; John McCain; John B. Breaux; Larry E. Craig; John E. Ensign; Richard G. Lugar; Blanche Lincoln; Max Baucus; Christopher S. Bond; Trent Lott; Ernest F. Hollings; Mark Dayton; Jeff Sessions; E. Benjamin Nelson; James M. Inhofe; Jim Bunning; Wayne Allard; Susan M. Collins; Michael D. Crapo; Michael DeWine; Bill Frist; Charles E. Grassley; Chuck Hagel; Kay Bailey Hutchinson; Pat Roberts; John W. Warner; George Allen; Sam Brownback; Conrad R. Burns; Pete V. Domenici; Judd Gregg; Rick Santorum; Richard C. Shelby; Olympia J. Snowe; Lindsey Graham; John Cornyn; James Talent; Lamar Alexander; Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

Polls have shown that 80 percent of the American people want the opportunity to vote to protect their flag. Numerous organizations from the American Legion to the Women's War Veterans to the African-American Women's clergy all support the flag protection amendment. All 50 State legislatures have passed resolutions calling for constitutional protection for the flag.

I am, therefore, proud to rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment that would restore to the people's elected representatives the right to protect our unique national symbol, the American flag, from acts of physical desecration.

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

I am very honored to be a cosponsor with my dear friend from California, Senator Feinstein. I appreciate the effort and unwavering support she has put forth in this battle. I am proud and privileged to be able to work with her.

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

Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful woman who has worked by my side for 26 years, Norma Holmgren. Norma has been my Northern Utah Area Director since the day I took office and is now retiring to enjoy the many wonderful things life has to offer. Norma has done an absolutely tremendous job in serving thousands of Utahns who needed assistance, direction, or just a listening ear.

Norma has worked on many important issues affecting our state including health care, private property rights, business expansion, and civic and community affairs. She has been a vital liaison between my office and the leadership of Hill Air Force Base, one of the State's largest employers, and is well respected and admired by the military officers and personnel on the base. Throughout her years of service, she has always conducted herself with professionalism and concern for the people she is serving.

Norma has always played a vital role in many northern Utah communities

serving on various boards and commissions, including the Garland Civic and Home Arts Club and the Box Elder County Fair. She was recognized for her dedication to improving the lives of young people when she was named the 1990 Weber County Youth Community Connection Woman of the Year, a recognition I know she treasures.

Norma has also been a driving force in many of Utah's premier women's organizations, including the National and State Federation of Women's Clubs and the Utah Womens' Legislative Council. In both of these organizations, Norma assumed numerous leadership positions helping to implement policy that directly affected the health and well-being of Utah women.

Norma's love and loyalty for the Republican philosophy has been evident in the many years she has served promoting the ideals and values of the Republican party. She has literally donated thousands of hours to the party, candidates, and campaigns who share her commitment to republican principles. She has served as the President of the Box Elder County Republican Women's Club and in many positions within the Box Elder County Republican Party. I am confident that her service to the Republican party will continue for many years to come.

In addition to the service she has rendered in the community and office, Norma is a loving mother to her son, Randy, and a loving grandmother. In fact, her granddaughter Emily will be joining us on the floor of the Senate as a page next fall. Norma takes great pride in her family and is grateful for the love that they share. She has a keen interest in and love for antiques and has made her home truly a treasure. She has welcomed many people into her home over the years to share with them the history of the antique pieces she has found and lovingly displays.

I am grateful for the service that Norma Holmgren has given to me, to her community, and to the state. She has been by my side from day one and has always been a vital component of my Senate organization. I will miss her tremendously but know that life holds many wonderful things for her to savor and enjoy. Norma Holmgren is a dedicated public servant, loving mother and grandmother, and fervently patriotic American. I want to wish her the very best in retirement and pray for her continued good health, success, and happiness.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my colleagues from Montana in introducing the Broadband Expensing Act. If enacted, this legislation would bring economic growth to rural America, and it would help bring community benefits to rural and underserved areas of the Nation, including many in my home State of Utah.

I think it is striking that most Americans still rely on very outdated telecommunications infrastructure, the same copper wire we have used for decades, for their connection to one of the most important communications innovations in history, the Internet.

This is true in my home State of Utah, where the telecommunications infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing number of high-tech firms, manufacturing companies, and very sophisticated workers. Our major metropolitan areas, of course, have access to high-speed Internet services. But the connections to most homes and many businesses have not been upgraded, meaning that data signals hit a bottleneck there and slow down dramatically.

Consequently, many wonderful Internet applications, such as video conferencing, large file sharing, telemedicine, and distance learning, are ineffective or unavailable. And this is certainly true outside the metropolitan areas of Utah, in the rural communities that are found all over the State.

One way to help overcome this situation is to offer a financial incentive to encourage broadband providers to extend their networks to underserved areas of the Nation. That is what this legislation would do. It would help broadband providers reduce the cost of new infrastructure. But it is important to note that they will only receive the benefit of this incentive if they actually build new infrastructure and actually provide broadband service. No new broadband network, no tax benefit. That is eminently fair and reasonable, and it is good tax and public policy.

This is a two-tiered tax incentive. Companies that bring new ``current generation broadband'' to rural and underserved areas would be able to expense, or write-off, half of their investment immediately. Companies that bring new ``next generation broadband'' to those rural or underserved areas, or to other residential areas, would get to write off immediately 100 percent of their investment.

What is ``current generation'' broadband? It is essentially cable modem, digital subscriber line, DSL, or wireless broadband service, and is generally five to ten times faster than a dial-up connection. Current generation broadband brings photo images to a computer screen very quickly, and allows the use of simple video applications. ``Next generation'' broadband, on the other hand, is hundreds of times faster than dial-up and allows television-quality images to flow from one computer to another.

In many rural areas of the Nation, dial-up service is all that is available. Current generation broadband is available in many urban and suburban communities, but still generally unavailable in rural areas. And next-generation broadband is only in its infant stages, available to fewer than 100,000 homes in the United States.

This legislation is well crafted to meet the broadband needs of the Nation. It would help spur current generation broadband deployment in areas of the Nation still relying on dial-up, but it would not provide tax incentives to areas that already have a broadband connection. And it would help spur the deployment of next generation broadband everywhere, since that level of service is available to very few people in the country today.

I look forward to taking a leading role in helping move this bill through the Finance Committee and the Senate. I am confident that this legislation will make an important contribution to the construction of a 21st century telecommunications network that will serve the Nation well.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critically important piece of legislation, the PROTECT Act of 2003. As its name makes clear, this bill will help to protect our children from the horrors of child pornography. Disgusting as child pornography is, the growth of technology and the rise of the internet have flooded our Nation with it. This is one area where we cannot afford to simply look the other way. Child pornography is routinely used by perverts and pedophiles

not only to whet their sick desires, but also to lure our defenseless children into unspeakable acts of sexual exploitation. In sum, child pornography is a root from which more evils grow. It creates a measurable harm to children in our society. On this record, we must act.

I am proud to have Senator Leahy as the leading co-sponsor of the PROTECT Act. We jointly introduced an earlier version of this bill last year in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. That decision greatly weakened the laws pertaining to child pornography and left some gaping holes in our Nation's ability to effectively prosecute child pornography offenses. We must now act quickly to repair our child pornography laws to provide for effective law enforcement in a manner that accords with the Court's ruling.

The PROTECT Act strikes a necessary balance between the First Amendment and our Nation's critically important interest in protecting children. This Act does many things to aid the prosecution of child PROTECT Act, and I highlight some of its most significant provisions here.

First, the Act plugs the loophole that exists today where child pornographers can escape prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material did not actually involve real children. Technology has advanced so far that even experts often cannot say with absolute certainty that an image is real or a ``virtual'' computer creation. For this reason, the Act permits a prosecution to proceed when the child pornography includes persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors. And even when this occurs, the accused is afforded a complete affirmative defense by showing that the child pornography did not involve a minor.

Second, the Act prohibits the pandering or solicitation of anything represented to be obscene child pornography. The Supreme Court has ruled that this type of conduct does not constitute protected speech. Congress, moreover, should severely punish those who would try to profit or satisfy their depraved desires by dealing in such filth.

Third, the Act prohibits any depictions of minors, or apparent minors, in actual, not simulated, acts of bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, when such depictions lack literary, artistic, political or scientific value. This type of hardcore sexually explicit material merits our highest form of disdain and disgust and is something that our society ought to try hard to eradicate. Nor does the First Amendment bar us from banning the depictions of children actually engaging in the most explicit and disturbing forms of sexual activity.

Fourth, the Act beefs up existing record keeping requirements for those who chose to produce sexually explicit materials. These record keeping requirements are unobjectionable since they do not ban anything. Rather, the Act simply requires such producers to keep records confirming that no actual minors were involved in the making of the sexually explicit materials. In light of the difficulty experts face in determining an actor's true age and identity just by viewing the material itself, increasing the criminal penalties for failing to maintain these records are vital to ensuring that only adults appear in such productions.

Finally, the Act creates a new civil action for those aggrieved by the depraved acts of those who violate our child pornography laws. This is one area of the law where society as a whole can benefit from more vigorous enforcement, both on the criminal and civil fronts.

I was disappointed that the PROTECT Act did not pass into law last year, although it unanimously cleared the Senate in the final days of the 107th Congress. As incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, passing this important bill will be one of my very top priorities. I remain open to hearing suggestions from all interested parties on how to improve the bill or make it even tougher against child pornographers. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me and join with me in promptly passing this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critically important piece of legislation, the PROTECT Act of 2003. As its name makes clear, this bill will help to protect our children from the horrors of child pornography. Disgusting as child pornography is, the growth of technology and the rise of the internet have flooded our Nation with it. This is one area where we cannot afford to simply look the other way. Child pornography is routinely used by perverts and pedophiles

not only to whet their sick desires, but also to lure our defenseless children into unspeakable acts of sexual exploitation. In sum, child pornography is a root from which more evils grow. It creates a measurable harm to children in our society. On this record, we must act.

I am proud to have Senator Leahy as the leading co-sponsor of the PROTECT Act. We jointly introduced an earlier version of this bill last year in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. That decision greatly weakened the laws pertaining to child pornography and left some gaping holes in our Nation's ability to effectively prosecute child pornography offenses. We must now act quickly to repair our child pornography laws to provide for effective law enforcement in a manner that accords with the Court's ruling.

The PROTECT Act strikes a necessary balance between the First Amendment and our Nation's critically important interest in protecting children. This Act does many things to aid the prosecution of child PROTECT Act, and I highlight some of its most significant provisions here.

First, the Act plugs the loophole that exists today where child pornographers can escape prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material did not actually involve real children. Technology has advanced so far that even experts often cannot say with absolute certainty that an image is real or a ``virtual'' computer creation. For this reason, the Act permits a prosecution to proceed when the child pornography includes persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors. And even when this occurs, the accused is afforded a complete affirmative defense by showing that the child pornography did not involve a minor.

Second, the Act prohibits the pandering or solicitation of anything represented to be obscene child pornography. The Supreme Court has ruled that this type of conduct does not constitute protected speech. Congress, moreover, should severely punish those who would try to profit or satisfy their depraved desires by dealing in such filth.

Third, the Act prohibits any depictions of minors, or apparent minors, in actual, not simulated, acts of bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, when such depictions lack literary, artistic, political or scientific value. This type of hardcore sexually explicit material merits our highest form of disdain and disgust and is something that our society ought to try hard to eradicate. Nor does the First Amendment bar us from banning the depictions of children actually engaging in the most explicit and disturbing forms of sexual activity.

Fourth, the Act beefs up existing record keeping requirements for those who chose to produce sexually explicit materials. These record keeping requirements are unobjectionable since they do not ban anything. Rather, the Act simply requires such producers to keep records confirming that no actual minors were involved in the making of the sexually explicit materials. In light of the difficulty experts face in determining an actor's true age and identity just by viewing the material itself, increasing the criminal penalties for failing to maintain these records are vital to ensuring that only adults appear in such productions.

Finally, the Act creates a new civil action for those aggrieved by the depraved acts of those who violate our child pornography laws. This is one area of the law where society as a whole can benefit from more vigorous enforcement, both on the criminal and civil fronts.

I was disappointed that the PROTECT Act did not pass into law last year, although it unanimously cleared the Senate in the final days of the 107th Congress. As incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, passing this important bill will be one of my very top priorities. I remain open to hearing suggestions from all interested parties on how to improve the bill or make it even tougher against child pornographers. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me and join with me in promptly passing this important legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I can proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the President has wasted no time in delivering his judicial nominations left behind in the last Congress. The President's judicial nominees have proven to be superb and among the best I have seen in all my years of service in this body.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I expect that my colleagues on both sides are eager to do the people's business and move as promptly as President Bush to fill judicial vacancies.

Of course, I realize that the distortions have begun.

The usual special interest lobbies, pursuing their political and economic interests, have already been busy painting a very scary picture with the usual shrillness and tired old tactics.

The President of the United States has nominated men and women who, whatever their personal politics or views, are constitutionalists who are committed to enforcing the law as the people's elected representatives have adopted, and who will interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it as if they were in the room with the founding fathers-- Constitutionalists, not Republican or Democrat, not liberal or conservative, who will approach their roles in a common sense manner.

But today, I rise to right one particular wrong. A recent report by People for the American Way, with, oddly enough, a remarkably biblical title, paints President Bush's nomination as an Armageddon. In reading the report, one would well think the President is choosing judges from the ranks of the Raelians.

But they especially go out of their way to malign the thousands of honest, smart and hard-working lawyers and law students who are members of the Federalist Society as if these fine men and women wear the mark of the devil.

Mr. President, I am a member of the Federalist Society and I am proud of it. Last year, the Federalist Society celebrated its 20th anniversary, and we are all proud of that.

Of course, the childish games played against the Federalist Society are not new. Over the past 2 years, members of the Federalist Society have been much maligned by some even in this body. The Federalist Society has even been presented as an ``evil cabal'' of conservative lawyers. Its members have been subjected to questions which remind one of the McCarthy hearings of the early 1950s. Detractors have painted a picture which is surreal, twisted and untrue.

The truth is that liberal orthodoxies reign rampant and often unchecked in a majority of this country's law schools and in the legal profession, and that the left is shocked that an association of honest, non-partisan, constitutionalist lawyers would exist, much less include the notable legal minds it does.

During the mid-1990s, Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School conducted a survey of law school professors and came to the following conclusion. At the faculties of the top 100 law schools 80 percent of law professors were Democrats or leaned left and only 13 percent were Republicans or leaned right. These liberal professors promulgate their ideology in and outside the classroom.

Mr. President, anyone associated with America's campuses or law schools knows that non-liberal views are regularly stifled and those espousing those views are often publicly shunned and ridiculed. It was this environment of hostility to freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas in universities that set the stage for the formation of the Federalist Society. And given my Democrat colleagues' reaction to the Society, it appears to be fighting against narrow-mindedness still.

In 1982, the Federalist Society was organized, not to foster any political agenda, but to encourage debate and public discourse on social and legal issues. Over the past 20 years, the Federalist Society has accomplished just that. It has served to open the channels of discourse and debate in may of America's law schools.

The Federalist Society espouses no official dogma. Its members share acceptance of three universal ideas: One, that government's essential purpose is the preservation of freedom; Two, that our Constitution embraces and requires separation of governmental powers; and, three that judges should interpret the law, not write it.

Tell me if you disagree with any of these ideas. Most Americans do not, but it seems like some in this town do.

For the vast majority of Americans, these are not controversial issues. Rather, they are basic constitutional assertions that are essential to the survival of our republic. They are truths that have united Americans for more than two centuries.

Recently we have seen the emergence of some groups that seek to undermine the third of these ideas--that judges should not write laws. These groups have attempted to use the judiciary to circumvent the democratic process and impose their minority views on the American people.

This judicial activism is a nefarious practice that seeks to undermine the principle of democratic rule. It results in an unelected oligarchy--government by small elite. Judicial activism imposes the will of a small group of politicized lawyers upon the American people and undermines the work of the people's representatives.

Indeed, if the radical left, the abortion on demand lobby, and some predatory businessmen who happen to hold law degrees and call themselves trial lawyers are successful; if we appoint judges that are committed to writing the law and Constitution and not interpreting it only, then all of us can just go home. We can resign ourselves to live under the oligarchic rule of lawyers--or should I say judges.

I happen to know a few lawyers, and please trust me when I say, this is not a good idea.

Not surprisingly in an association of lawyers, the truth is that beyond acceptance of the Federalist Society's three key ideas: freedom, separation of powers, and that judges should not write laws, it is challenging, if not impossible, to find consensus among Federalist Society members. Its members hold a wide array of differing views. They are so diverse that it is impossible to describe a Federalist Society philosophy.

The assertion that members are ideological carbon copies of each other is at the very least ludicrous.

The Society revels in open, thoughtful, and rigorous debate on all issues. It rests on the premise that public policy and social issues should not be accepted as part of a party line but, rather, warrant much thought and dialog. Any organization that sponsors debate on issues of public importance, as opposed to self-serving indoctrination, is healthy for us all and it is good for this body as well.

Now, how does the Federalist Society accomplish its goal? Not by lobbying Congress, writing amicus briefs, or issuing press releases. And, no, it does not threaten members with withdrawal of support in campaigns or running negative smear ads, which some of the special interest groups that smear this President's good judges engage in. The Federalist Society seeks only to sponsor fair, serious, and open debate about the need to enhance individual freedom and the role of the courts in saying what the law is rather than what it should be. The Society believes that debate is the best way to ensure that legal principles that have not been the subject of sufficient attention for the past several decades receive a fair hearing.

The Federalist Society's commitment to fair and open debate can be seen by a small sampling of some participants in its meetings and symposiums. I venture to say the Federalist Society's meetings and symposiums are among the most well attended and among the most widely attended and among the most diversely attended and among the best symposiums held by anybody in the judicial field. But those participants who have participated--maybe we should look at some of them. They have included scores of liberals such as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Michael Dukakis, Barney Frank, Abner Mikva, Alan Dershowitz, Laurence Tribe, Steve Shapiro, Christopher Hitchins, and Ralph Nader, to name a few.

I would like to include for the Record a list of 60 participants in Federalist Society events that demonstrates the remarkable diversity of thought of Federalist Society events. One of them is Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, who many of us know, respect, and have worked with, and who has participated in Federalist Society functions regularly and constantly since its founding, and who attended the recent 20th anniversary dinner.

The ACLU's president has praised the Society's fundamental principle of individual liberty, its high-profile on law school campuses, and its intellectual diversity, noting that there is frequently strenuous disagreement among members about the role of the courts. Ms. Strossen has said that she cannot draw any firm conclusion about a potential judicial nominee's views based on the fact that he is a Federalist Society member.

It seems to me that an organization that includes such a wide array of opinion serves this Nation well and does not deserve the vilification it gets from the usual suspects here in Washington.

There are many notable conservatives that also affiliate with the Federalist Society. But as the members of the Senate demonstrate, even amongst those that are often labeled ``conservatives'' there is much disagreement on most social and political issues. Some, unfortunately, often portray the Federalist Society as a tightly knit, well-organized coalition of conservative lawyers who are united by their right-wing ideology. This is far from true. Allow me to illustrate further.

Three years ago the Washington Monthly published an article entitled ``The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law,'' which cited a 1999 decision by a panel of the D.C. Circuit's Court of Appeals as the ``network's most far-reaching victory in recent years.''. The decision overturned some of the EPA's clean-air standards

on the grounds that it was unconstitutional for Congress to delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. C. Boyden Gray, a former White House Counsel for the first President Bush and a member of the Federalist Society's Board of Visitors, filed an amicus brief making the winning argument.

However, this is not the smoking gun case that opponents of the Federalist Society would have us believe it to be to prove that it is part of the vast right wing conservative conspiracy. First, the case was overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, a frequent participant in Federalist Society activities who was the faculty advisor to the organization when he taught at the University of Chicago.

Second, the Washington Monthly piece also attacked Boyden Gray as a water carrier for the Federalist Society for advancing Microsoft's effort against antitrust enforcement.

Of course, Mr. Gray serves on the Society's Board of Visitors with Robert Bork, who has been Microsoft's chief intellectual adversary. They are on opposite sides.

There is not quite the vast right wing conspiracy hobgoblin some of the special interest groups in this town would have the American people and members of this body believe in. Indeed, I urge my colleagues to be extra careful when and look at the record before they attack this fine organization or its members.

A close examination of the Federalist Society reveals not a tight- knit organization that demands ideological unity, but an association of lawyers, much like the early bar associations that first appeared in this country in the late 19th century, made up of individuals from across the political spectrum who are committed to the principles of freedom and the rule of law according to the Constitution.

As a co-chairman myself, I am not surprised that the President has sought out its members to appoint for position on the bench and in the government. I applaud his foresight and wisdom. I am proud that its members are solid constitutionalists, whether they are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.

Mr. President, contrast that with People for the American Way, which has waged every obnoxious rotten fight against President Bush's nominations that has been waged in the last year. This is a very well- heeled organization. It is totally ideological. If you disagree with their far left liberal viewpoints, then they vilify you and try to impugn your motives. That is not what I call fairness in the debates that we should have around this body. Yet it is amazing to me how some in this body seem to be absolutely in tune, or should I say marching to the drumbeat of People for the American Way.

I started off by mentioning criticisms by the People for the American Way of the Federalist Society, and I have to say, if you add it all up, this is a well-heeled, very liberal organization that is as partisan, combative, obnoxious in many ways, and false in its arguments and accusations as any organization I have seen in this country.

In almost every case where there has been any type of conservative of stature nominated to the courts, they have come in and completely done their best to deliver body blows to that nominee. It all seems to come down to basically one issue, and that is, if they suspect that a nominee is pro-life, then that is just an absolute no-no to them. It isn't just that. They have taken other nominees nominated by this President and others in the past, have taken their records and, in my opinion, have distorted in many ways their record. I don't think People for the American Way should be in a position to criticize the Federalist Society which primarily conducts the best symposia in law in America today. That is a fact.

I will never forget; I was invited to the University of Chicago by the Federalist Society members--150 members at that time--to speak at the law school at the behest of the Federalist Society. I figured there would be 100 or 150 people there. They had this one hall rented. They had to take me in the back way because of the protesters out front. Although I was willing to go through the protesters, they were afraid some of them were violent. We went inside the hall, and they were absolutely jampacked, people hanging from the rafters. Almost all of those who disagreed with the Federalist Society principles--in other words, principles that were not the left-wing principles--had a heavy piece of parchment paper. As I went to speak, they would stand up and rattle that paper. And that sound was deafening. You could not be heard. I have to say that what was going to be about a 20-minute speech turned out to be 145 minutes, or 2 hours by the time I could complete it.

I have to say I enjoyed the experience. But it was disconcerting that people at a major university--these were not people from the law school, in my opinion. And I am not sure they were even students at the university, many of them--would try to stop discourse from a U.S. Senator or anybody else, for that matter, who came there in good faith to deliver points of view that certainly I felt were worthy of consideration in this field of law.

I have to say there was one young lady three or four rows down who kept yelling epitaphs at me throughout my remarks. I tried to humor her, and I tried to go along and be reasonably thoughtful and kind to her. But, finally, I could tell she was getting on the nerves of almost everybody because she was really out of line and loud. I kind of enjoyed the confrontation to a degree. But it was getting old. Finally, after about an hour and 15 minutes, I looked at her, and, I said, I finally figured it out. You could not possibly be a member of this great law school, because, No. 1, you are so rude. I said, No. 2, you are so stupid. Of course, even at that point, even those who were there to oppose me and to rattle their parchment so I couldn't be heard started to cheer and applaud. I was able to end my remarks, which I felt were remarkably good for anybody in the field of law, whether they were from the left or the right or the center. I think in the end they were good for everybody there.

That is what is going on in the debate on judges today. We have some of these well-heeled left-wing groups that don't care what the facts are and distort anybody's life by coming in and utilizing their economic swat because they have all kinds of left-wing money behind them to malign and to slander and sometimes libel very good nominees.

I know a number of people in People from the American Way, and I have respect for some of them, but I have to tell you I hope they will elevate their discourse so that we will have true debates and not distortions and slander and libel and complete ignorance of what people stand for and what their records are.

I think we are getting down to where we are getting very close in this country to where single litmus tests are going to determine whether we can have judges. And we are getting to the point where the great jurists of the future might not arise because we might have to go to the lowest common denominator.

Having said all of that, I look forward to working with every group in this coming year. Hopefully, we can get a greater sense of discourse and a greater sense of responsibility, and that when we raise objections we hope they will be legitimate and honorable objections rather than objections geared to trying to smear somebody because of their disagreement. I think it is time we elevate the discourse around judges in this country, and I hope this year we can prove we can do that. But, in any event, my hopes have not been fulfilled today.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 60 diverse participants who have participated in Federalist Society events at this point.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on this first day of the 108th Congress, I rise to address the serious matter of pay inequity in the Federal judiciary.

As things stand now, nearly every Federal employee will receive a cost of living adjustment during 2003, every employee, that is, except Federal judges. This is because of a legislative prescription that requires Congress to authorize raises in the salaries of Federal judges. Although this COLA of roughly three percent may seem small and inconsequential, it makes a significant difference in light of the fact that Federal judges earn far less than many, it not most, of their counterparts in the private sector.

In this 2002 year-end report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist 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.'' The Chief Justice lamented, ``Unless the 108th Congress acts, judges will not even receive the cost-of-living adjustment that nearly every other federal employee will receive during 2003.'' He concluded by urging Congress and the President to ``take up this issue early in the new year.''

Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing a bill that will allow Federal judges to receive the COLA that other Federal employees are already slated to receive this year. Although the larger issue of minimizing the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries still remains, this small step will resolve the salary inequity between Federal judges and other Federal employees. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bipartisan measure.