Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, we vote to confirm 5 district court nominees, including 4 nominees to the U.S. district courts in New York.

With today's confirmations, the Senate will now have confirmed 151 judicial nominees for this President. This stands in stark contrast to what occurred with judicial nominees during the Clinton administration. More than 3 years passed during President Clinton's second term, when Republicans controlled the Senate, before the 150th judicial nominee was confirmed. It also took more than three years from when the Republicans gained control of the Senate majority in 1995 to confirm 150 judges for President Clinton.

Moreover, this President's nominees have been considered more expeditiously than were his father's or President Reagan's. It took President Reagan, during his first term, almost to the end of his fourth year to get 150 of his judicial nominees confirmed, and that was with a Senate that was controlled by the same party. President Reagan's 150th judicial nominee was not confirmed until September 17, 1984. It also took President George H.W. Bush well into his fourth year to get 150 of his judicial nominees confirmed. His 150th judicial nominee was not confirmed until April 8, 1992.

In contrast with the shifts in Senate control, it has effectively taken just 2 years of rapid Senate action to confirm 150 judicial nominees for this President. The fast and fair pace at which this Senate has considered this President's nominees is also demonstrated by how many circuit court nominees have been confirmed. We have now confirmed 28 circuit court nominees for President Bush since July of 2001, which is more than were confirmed at this time in the third year of President Reagan's first term, President George H.W. Bush's term, or either of President Clinton's terms.

In contrast to how President Clinton's nominees were treated, the confirmation process for these 5 district court nominees has been expeditious and smooth. The 4 New York nominees come to us with broad bipartisan support, including the support of their two home-state Senators. Their confirmations today show how cooperation can work to fill vacancies on the Federal bench with qualified, experienced and diverse candidates.

All four New York nominees were given hearings at the end of July under an agreement that allowed them to be on a hearing on an expedited basis. This was an example of how the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee cooperated with the President and with the Committee's Republican

majority. Given the nominees' bipartisan support, I expect them to be unanimously confirmed today.

New York is an example of how a bipartisan process can work right to equip the Federal bench with excellent and moderate judges. All 4 of these nominees have impressive legal careers, and received the highest rating from the American Bar Association.

Justice Feuerstein, nominated to the Eastern District of New York, currently serves as a justice in the New York State Appellate Division and has served as a judge in the New York State court system for approximately 15 years. Justice Feuerstein also has a distinguished record of service as a judge beyond her work on the bench, including serving as director of the Nassau County Bar Association and as president of the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York.

Mr. Castel, Mr. Holwell, and Mr. Robinson, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, all have significant litigation experience as well as commendable records of providing legal services to disadvantaged persons. Peter Castel is currently a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel and has litigated there for over 20 years. Among other civic activities, Mr. Castel has served on the board of directors for the Legal Aid Society.

Richard Holwell has been practicing for over 31 years as a litigation attorney with White and Case in New York, where he has served as executive partner of the global litigation practice and a member of the firm's management board. He has dedicated hundreds of hours to pro bono activities every year, and received a Pro Bono Award from the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund for his services.

Stephen Robinson has significant experience in litigation and investigations. He served as the first African-American U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, appointed by former President Clinton, from 1998 to 2001. Prior to that, he had served as a litigator in private practice, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and as a counsel and special assistant to the Director of the FBI. Mr. Robinson has also served as secretary and a member of the board of directors of MFY Legal Services, an organization that provides legal services to the poor.

David Proctor is nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, and comes to us with experience as a private practice attorney and the support of both of his home-state Senators. Mr. Proctor is filling a new position that was just created on July 15, 2003.

Finally, I would like to point out that there are now more active George W. Bush appointees on the bench than there are active George Herbert Walker Bush appointees. The President's father served 4 full years. This President has served less than 3 and already has made as much impact on the Federal courts across the country.

We are glad that the Republican leadership has now agreed to confirm these consensus nominees. We have and will continue to work with the Republican leadership and Administration. We would like to be more helpful in the President's identification of nominees and advising him on the selection of consensus nominees so that we can join together in adding those confirmations to the 151 achieved as of today.

Madam President, I support the nominee who has been addressed by the Senator from Alabama.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I yield to the senior Senator from New York. These next four nominees come here with bipartisan support. As a result, they went through very quickly.

Madam President, if I may respond to my friend from South Dakota, I assured the distinguished Senators from New York and the distinguished Senators from Alabama that we would have support on the Alabama judge, which we just voted on, and the next one is from New York, and we would get them confirmed.

I have been asked by a number of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, because of the weather, if there is a possibility to just have this next rollcall vote and do the remaining three by voice vote. I would have no objection. Would that be the last vote of the day?

If we are going to have more votes, we might as well go ahead.

Why don't we go forward with this vote. If the decision is made that there will be no further rollcall votes while we are voting on this next

nomination, then I will not ask for rollcall votes on the remaining three nominations.

The Senator from South Dakota has the floor.

Madam President, if the distinguished Democratic leader and the distinguished Republican leader do not intend to have any more rollcall votes, I certainly am not going to ask for any more rollcall votes on the remaining judges.

Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission's rules pertaining to media ownership have long served a vital function, helping to ensure a diversity of viewpoints in the media marketplace. The FCC's attempt to undo these important rules that have served us so well is misguided and harmful. The FCC's 35 percent cap on national audience reach has not only served to promote diversity, it also protects local programming, allowing it to reflect local values and preferences. If the cap is increased to 45 percent we can be sure that major networks will meet or exceed the new threshold, as some companies have done under the current standards, allowing for the acquisition of local stations while eliminating the unique choices that local programming can provide.

I am also concerned about the FCC's effort to remove the newspaper/ broadcast cross-ownership limitations in 80 percent of all media markets. Currently, cross-ownership rules prevent a single corporation from becoming too powerful a voice in a given community. Lifting the cross-ownership ban will leave many communities reliant on one company to decide what they are able to see and hear.

There are those who argue that the increase in the number of media outlets has obviated the need for such rules. The reality, of course, debunks this notion. While the number of media outlets has increased, ownership has become more concentrated. What's more, many of the largest new media outlets appear to be owned and controlled by the same conglomerates that control traditional media.

In light of these facts, it seems illogical that the FCC would exacerbate a disturbing trend that is transforming the marketplace of ideas into little more than a corporate superstore. A recent, troubling tendency of the large media companies was highlighted in The Wall Street Journal this week in an article noting these companies' rapid acquisitions of cable channels to ``re-create the old programming oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era. The numbers tell the story. Of the top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by one of the big five media companies, according to The Wall Street Journal article of September 15, 2003.

The unsettling statistics extend to other communications branches as well. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the number of owners of commercial radio stations has declined by approximately 25 percent since 1996. Even more alarming is the fact that since 1995, ``the number of entities owning commercial TV stations has dropped by 40 percent.''

I welcome and strongly encourage the emergence and proliferation of new and different platforms for news and information. We can expect that more and more Americans will gain access to and will use these resources. In our democratic society, there still are good and sound reasons for encouraging and protecting the diversity of viewpoints available in more traditional media. The FCC--to which the American people have entrusted some of this responsibility--should be working to diversify, not homogenize, the news and information media available to the American public.

I ask the Wall Street Journal article of September 15, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, earlier this month the President withdrew the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit. This was a nomination for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. The Constitution accords the Senate the duty to make informed judgments for these lifetime appointments to our Federal courts. Senators cannot make informed judgments if the White House stonewalls the Senate.

This withdrawn nomination is another example of the White House's insistence on dividing instead of uniting the American people over the President's decisions for the Federal courts. Ultimately, the nomination was a casualty of that divisive policy. For more than a year, the White House has consistently spurned many private and public bipartisan appeals to resolve this matter by working with the Senate to provide access to requested information. Mr. Estrada's work at the Justice Department was at the core of the administration's claims for his qualification to serve on this court. Despite the questions raised about his work at the Justice Department and the ample precedents from similar document requests involving earlier nominations, this administration decided to stonewall the Senate. This stonewalling, combined with Mr. Estrada's reluctance to answer substantively Senators' questions, prompted this impasse. The White House always had the key to unlock this stalemate.

In the absence of cooperation from the White House, and with the persistence of the White House's stonewalling, Mr. Estrada has concluded that this impasse will continue. He is probably right, and he and his family can now move on with their lives.

In the aftermath of the announcement on September 4, some Republican Members of the Senate have come to the Senate floor and sought out the airwaves to renew their offensive and untrue rhetoric about this nomination. I must take a few moments to set the historical record straight.

First, some Republicans have repeated their false assertion that Democrats opposed Mr. Estrada's nomination because of his ethnicity. That is absurd. In the last Congress, Senate Democrats swiftly acted to confirm six Latino judicial nominees--Christina Armijo, NM; Judge Phillip Martinez, TX; Randy Crane, TX; Judge Jose Martinez, FL; Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, TX; and Jose Linares, NJ. During this Congress, Democrats have unanimously supported the confirmation of six other Latino judicial nominees--Edward Prado, Fifth Circuit; Consuelo Callahan, Ninth Circuit; S. James Otero, CA; Cecilia Altonaga, FL; Xavier Rodriguez, TX; and Frank Rodriguez Montalvo, TX. All of these nominees received the unanimous support of the Senators in the Democratic caucus.

Moreover, it was Democrats who worked to clear the nominations of Judge Prado and Judge Callahan to the circuit courts over delays and initial objections from the Republican side of the aisle. Yet some Republican Senators assert that those who opposed Mr. Estrada's confirmation to the circuit court did so ``because he's Hispanic.'' That is obviously false, demeaning and divisive.

These partisans may need to be reminded that, in addition to supporting the confirmation of two other Latinos nominated to the appellate courts by President Bush, Democrats supported the appointment of 11 Latinos nominated by President Clinton to the appellate courts. It was Republicans who blocked three of those Latino circuit court nominees of President Clinton. Those qualified and distinguished Latino nominees were never given hearings by the Republican majority and never allowed to come before the full Senate. They were not opposed through debate and votes in the light of day; instead, their nominations were filibustered and killed by delay, in the dark of night, without any meaningful explanation of any substantive concerns about their nominations. This all begs the rhetorical question: Do the current Republican charges mean that Republicans are anti-Hispanic for having blocked three Hispanic nominees to

the circuit courts and for having opposed, delayed and voted against numerous others nominated by President Clinton? The facts are clear and the facts are indisputable, and the facts belie the false charges that we have heard from some on the other side of the aisle.

Republicans blocked three Latino nominees of President Clinton to the appellate courts from ever receiving a vote: Enrique Moreno, who was nominated to the 5th Circuit; Jorge Rangel, who was nominated to the 5th Circuit; and Christine Arguello, who President Clinton nominated to the 10th Circuit. In addition, Republicans refused to allow votes on three of President Clinton's Hispanic district court nominees, Ricardo Morado, R. Samuel Paz, and Anabelle Rodriguez. Republicans did not allow a hearing or a vote in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor in a cloture vote or confirmation vote on any of these six Latino nominees. I will include for the Record a letter from Judge Rangel, a well-regarded nominee of President Clinton, who never received a confirmation vote from the Republican majority at that time.

Republicans did not just block those six Latino judicial nominees of President Clinton from receiving votes, they also dragged their feet on the confirmation of others who were left pending for a long time, often without any public statements identifying the concerns that were delaying those nominees, in contrast to Mr. Estrada's nomination which has been debated in the light of day. When they unsuccessfully filibustered Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge Richard Paez, were they doing so because the nominees were Hispanic? When they delayed and opposed the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, do recent Republican statements mean that they did so because she is Hispanic?

Overall, during President Clinton's tenure, 10 of his more than 30 Hispanic nominees were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by Republican leaders. The Hispanic judicial nominees denied a vote by Republicans are Moreno, Rangel, Arguello, Morado, Paz, and Rodriguez. The four Hispanic judicial nominees delayed but ultimately confirmed over Republican opposition are Judges Richard Paez, a Mexican-American nominated to the Ninth Circuit; Judge Hilda Tagle, a Mexican-American nominated to the Texas district court; Judge Rosemary Barkett, an immigrant from Mexico nominated to the Eleventh Circuit; and Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whose family hails from Puerto Rico. Of these 10, three waited more than 2 years to receive a vote or were never accorded one. Republicans delayed consideration of the nomination of Judge Richard Paez for more than 1,500 days yes, that is correct, more than 1,500 days and then when he finally did get a vote, 39 Republicans voted against his confirmation to the Ninth Circuit. He was unsuccessfully filibustered by Republicans. Senator Sessions moved to indefinitely postpone the vote after we overcame the Republican filibuster, after Judge Paez had been waiting for more than 4 years, and 31 Republicans voted with Senator Sessions on that motion after their filibuster failed. Of course, now Republicans have the temerity to assert that it is unprecedented to filibuster a circuit court nomination. What short memories they must believe the American people have. I discussed this in more detail in the Congressional Record of February 10, 2003.

The nomination of Judge Hilda Tagle to a District Court seat in Texas was pending before the Senate for 943 days, before Republicans finally allowed her a vote on the floor of the Senate. After failing to defeat her nomination through anonymous delay, not a single Republican explained the delay. Republican delays such as these on Clinton nominees are discussed in more detail in my statements published in the Congressional Record on May 1, 2003, as well as in statements about Mr. Estrada's nomination by Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer and others.

I hope these facts will finally put to rest the untruths that have been manufactured and perpetrated to attack those who opposed the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. For Republicans to claim that those who opposed the Estrada nomination were motivated by anti-Hispanic sentiment is wrong. It is offensive, base and baseless. Indeed, I have spoken about the extensive opposition to the Estrada nomination from Hispanic leaders and organizations. That opposition of Latino leaders from around the country who opposed the Estrada nomination included our colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, CHC. According to the CHC scorecard, Mr. Estrada failed most of the factors for their evaluation of judicial nominees. Furthermore, Mr. Estrada told members of the Caucus:

[H]e has never provided any pro bono legal expertise to the

Latino community or organizations. Nor has he ever joined,

supported, volunteered for or participated in events of any

organizations. Nor has he ever joined, supported, volunteered

for or participated in events of any organization dedicated

to serving and advancing the Latino community. As an attorney

working in government and the private sector, he has never

made efforts to open doors of opportunity to Latino law

students or junior lawyers . . . [and] he never appealed to

his superiors about the importance of making such efforts on

behalf of Latinos.

These are just a few of the concerns raised by the Members of the CHC, which are detailed in several statements I have made, including my statements in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2003; February 10, 2003; February 24, 2003; February 25, 2003; as well as on July 30, 2003.

Mr. Estrada was also opposed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, PRLDEF, a national civil rights organization concerned with advancing the civil and human rights of the Latino community. After interviewing Mr. Estrada, like the CHC, and also reviewing his public record and his reputation, PRLDEF concluded that Mr. Estrada was not sufficiently qualified for a lifetime seat on the nation's second highest court and that, among other concerns about his poor temperament for the job, ``he has not had a demonstrated interest in or any involvement with the organized Hispanic community or Hispanic activities of any kind.'' Their letter was included in the Congressional Record and discussed on the dates I just noted. I also included for the Congressional Record, the serious concerns raised by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, MALDEF, and California La Raza Lawyers, CLRL, which also opposed Mr. Estrada's confirmation. They wrote:

[I]t is unclear whether he would be fair to Latino

plaintiffs as well as others . . . we found evidence that

suggests he may not serve as a fair and impartial jurist on

allegations brought before him in the areas of racial

profiling, immigration, and abusive or improper police

practices where those practices are adopted under a 'broken

window theory' of law enforcement . . . We have concerns

about whether he would fairly review standing issues for

organizations representing minority interests, affirmative

action programs or claims by low-income consumers. We are

also unsure, after a careful view of his record, whether he

would fairly protect labor rights of immigrant workers or the

rights of minority voters under the Voting Rights Act.

In the Congressional Record of February 24, 2003, I also included the announcements of the opposition to this nomination by most of the past Presidents of the Hispanic National Bar Association. In the face of the facts about our confirmation of a dozen Hispanic candidates nominated by President Bush to the circuit or district courts and the breadth and depth of the opposition of most of the Latino civil rights groups, it is astonishing that Republicans continue to assert that those who oppose Mr. Estrada's confirmation are anti-Hispanic. That is such an outright and obvious untruth. Yet we see some of these untruths recycled again and again in news reports and commentaries, despite the facts. These baseless allegations for purposes of wedge politics and partisan advantage are wrong and dangerous.

The facts are that of the 12 Latino appellate judges currently seated on the Federal courts, eight were appointed by President Clinton and two, Judges Prado and Callahan, were nominated by President Bush and confirmed with unanimous Democratic support. I discussed the problems with the Estrada nomination in contrast to the nominations of Judge Prado and Judge Callahan in the Congressional Record of April 28, 2003 and May 22, 2003, respectively, as well as in contrast to less controversial district court nominees on March 27, 2003, March 31, 2003, and May 6, 2003.

I have included in the record almost seven dozen editorials or commentaries

in opposition to the Estrada nomination or in support of the Democratic filibuster. Those editorials were mentioned in the Congressional Record on March 6, 2003, and April 2, 2003. At the end of my remarks today, I will include excerpts from additional editorials and op-ed columns in opposition to the Estrada nomination or in support of the Democratic filibuster of this nomination. In particular, I note the editorial of The New York Times this week entitled, ``Straight Talk on Judicial Nominees.''

On the issue of the history of the use of filibusters in connection with nominations, some Republicans would now have the public believe that a filibuster of a nominee is, in their words, ``unprecedented.'' This is another deception. As some of these same Republicans well know, they filibustered the nominations of Judge Paez and Judge Berzon on the floor of the Senate in 1999 and 2000, as they conceded at that time. By way of example, I note that several Republicans currently serving voted against cloture, the motion to close debate, after the Paez nomination had been pending before the Senate for more than four years. I have already noted that even after losing the cloture vote, Republicans led by Senator Sessions moved to indefinitely postpone a vote on Judge Paez's nomination, and a number of Republican Senators currently serving voted to continue to block action on the Paez nomination in 2000. Yet some Republican Senators now claim that it is unprecedented to filibuster or deny a circuit court nominee an up or down confirmation vote on the Senate floor.

Their filibuster of Judge Paez's nomination is just one example of Republican filibusters of Democratic nominees. Others include Dr. David Satcher to be Surgeon General in 1998; Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General in 1995; Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the Third Circuit in 1994; Ricki Tigert to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1994; Derek Shearer to be an Ambassador in 1994; Sam Brown to an ambassador- level position in 1994; Rosemary Barkett, born in Mexico, nominated to the Eleventh Circuit, 1994; Larry Lawrence, to be ambassador in 1994; Janet Napolitano at the Justice Department in 1993; and Walter Dellinger to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department in 1993.

The nominations of Dr. Foster and Mr. Brown were successfully filibustered on the Senate floor by Republicans. Similarly, the nomination of Abe Fortas by President Lyndon B. Johnson to the Supreme Court of the United States was successfully filibustered by Republicans with help from some southern Democrats.

In addition, to the short-term and life-time appointees of Democrats whose nominations were subject to sometimes fatal delay on the floor, Republicans made an art form of killing nominations in Committee so that they would never have a vote on the floor. According to the public record, more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated by willful refusal to allow them a vote and more than 200 executive branch nominees of President Clinton met the same fate, including several Latinos, with their nominations nixed in the dark of night without any accountability. They were filibustered and never allowed a vote on the Senate floor. I discussed this history in more detail on February 26, 2003, in the Congressional Record.

In addition, in the Congressional Record on March 5, 2003, March 11, 2003, and March 13, 2003, I summarized the history of filibusters of nominees. I also spoke on May 19, 2003, about the history of Senate debate and the constitutionality of Rule XXII of the Senate rules. The fact of the matter is that many nominees have been blocked from receiving votes throughout the Senate's history. For example, 25 Supreme Court nominees were not confirmed in the history of our Nation. Eleven of those nominations were defeated by delay, not by confirmation votes on the Senate floor, including the nomination of Justice Fortas. Since the early 19th Century, nominees for the highest court and to the lowest short-term post have been defeated by delay, while others were voted down. Not even all of President Washington's nominees were confirmed or those of other presidents, often for political or ideological reasons. Filibusters and other parliamentary tactics to delay matters were known to the Framers. There was even a filibuster in the first Congress over locating the capital.

The plain truth is that Democrats opposed the nomination of Mr. Estrada to the DC Circuit based on serious and legitimate concerns regarding the stonewalling of the Senate by this White House and this nominee. The DC Circuit is the nation's second most important court, because it has exclusive or special jurisdiction over a broad array of far-reaching federal regulations, such as the rights to safe workplaces, fair employment practices, clean air and water, and other important laws--areas with which Mr. Estrada had very little experience.

Republicans lean heavily on the rating of the ABA, a group that Republicans helped oust from the pre-nomination process and a group which ever since then has sometimes seemed overly eager to get back into their good graces. Yet, as Senator Reid noted in the Congressional Record in February and March of this year, there were certainly irregularities in the rating given to this nominee by the American Bar Association, with the person who recommended a well qualified rating working closely with the Bush administration on high- level appointments and co-founding the Committee for Justice to run attack ads against Democrats, while still serving on the ABA rating committee. Other nominees with similar records did not receive the high rating Mr. Estrada did, in this or past administrations. In fact, people with similar records received partial not qualified ratings, when the process was conducted more fairly and with more candor, and when the candidate did not already have the imprimatur of the President through his nomination.

I would also note that before the hearing on the Estrada nomination, Federalist Society insiders gave a special seminar on how to get through the confirmation process and urged President Bush's judicial nominees to say as little as possible. Mr. Estrada appears to have followed those marching orders to a ``T'' and to his own detriment. During the hearing on his nomination he often refused to answer questions or provided evasive answers. He declined to share his views on important Supreme Court cases and his judicial philosophy. For example, Senator Schumer asked Mr. Estrada to name a single case from the entire history of Supreme Court law that he disagreed with, Mr. Estrada refused. He claimed he could not comment on any case if he had not read the briefs, listened to oral argument, done independent research and conferred with colleagues.

Most who knew Mr. Estrada personally seemed to agree that he was actually a very opinionated person. He admitted in his testimony that he could be ``ruthless'' in his criticism of legal and political opinions. Yet, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would not describe those views and claimed to have no views he could or would share with the only people entrusted with reviewing his record and recommending his nomination for a lifetime job on the Federal bench.

Then Republicans even tried to assert that it would be unethical for Mr. Estrada to answer questions by Senators. However, the Supreme Court held in 2001 that it does not violate judicial ethics for judicial candidates to comment on legal issues, as long as they do not promise how they will rule. Ironically it was the Republican Party that had sued the State of Minnesota to ensure that their candidates for judicial office could give their views on legal issues without violating judicial ethics, the State counterpart to the ABA model rule. Republicans took the case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the ethics code did not prevent candidates for judicial office from expressing their views on cases or legal issues. Justice Scalia said that anyone coming to a judgeship is bound to have opinions about legal issues and the law, and there is nothing improper about expressing them. Specifically, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S. Ct. 2528 (2002), the Supreme Court overruled ABA modeled restrictions against candidates for judicial office from expressing their views on legal issues while seeking judicial office. Justice

Scalia explained in that majority opinion:

Even if it were possible to select judges who do not have

preconceived views on legal issues, it would hardly be

desirable to do so. ``Proof that a Justice's mind at the time

he joined the Court was complete tabula rasa in the area of

constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of

qualification, not lack of bias.''. . . And since avoiding

judicial preconceptions on legal issues is neither possible

nor desirable, pretending otherwise by attempting to preserve

the ``appearance'' of that type of impartiality can hardly be

a compelling state interest either.

Id. at 2536 (quoting Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824 (1972)).

Judicial ethical rules do not prevent Senators from learning about a judicial candidate's views. Senators are trying to evaluate whether a nominee should be given a lifetime position, and the Senate hearing room should not be the only place where a judicial candidate cannot or will not discuss his views of the law and his opinions.

Especially problematic was the stand taken by the administration on the Senate's request to examine the memoranda written by Mr. Estrada at the Justice Department. Because Mr. Estrada has no record and because his impartiality was called into question by one of his direct supervisors at the Justice Department, these memoranda would have provided important insights into Mr. Estrada's approach to issues involving individual rights and the weight of precedent. I discussed the precedent for this request in my remarks reprinted in the Congressional Record of February 5, 2003; February 12, 2003; February 13, 2003; March 5, 2003; March 18, 2003; and May 8, 2003. Senator Durbin and Senator Kennedy also addressed this issue at length in their remarks. History makes clear that internal legal memos were requested and provided to the Senate in connection with, among others, the nominations of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, Brad Reynolds to be Associate Attorney General, William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court, Stephen Trott to the Ninth Circuit, and Ben Civiletti to be Attorney General. In each of these appointments, internal legal memos to or from the nominees were requested and provided to the Senate.

Basically, the Bush administration's response to our request has been contemptuous from the beginning. The initial response of the Justice Department was that the request was unprecedented. That is abundantly inaccurate. This administration has itself shared White House Counsel records in connection with a nomination. There is simply no legal or historical basis for denying the Senate access to the memoranda requested here. The historical precedent for the Senate's request actually supports it. Scores of legal memos to and from Robert Bork when he was Solicitor General were provided to the Senate during his judicial nomination. Walter Dellinger himself advised the Senate during Justice Rehnquist's judicial nomination when he reviewed memos provided to the Senate by the Justice Department which were written by and to Rehnquist when he was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Indeed, the long-standing policy of the Justice Department, prior to this administration, regarding Congressional requests for memos and other non-public information was a ``policy of accommodation.'' Former administrations cooperated with countless requests for internal documents sought by Members of Congress as well as more recently by Kenneth Starr, who sought and obtained documents containing the advice of the President's attorneys and closest advisors.

The administration also objected that some other Justice Department attorneys who have been nominated to other positions were not the subject of memo requests. However, they fail to acknowledge that those nominees were not the subject of allegations by their supervisor of many years that they could not keep their ideological views out of their memos and their work for the Department, unlike Miguel Estrada. The fact that the Senate does not always request such memos does not diminish its power to do so and the precedent to request such documents when Senators believe it is important to examine them. Indeed, the Senate would be abdicating its responsibilities to serve as a check on nominations if it had ignored the serious concerns raised about Mr. Estrada's writings before giving him a lifetime appointment as a judge with immense power over the lives of all Americans. Mr. Estrada told the Senate that he was proud of his writings and that he did not object to their being shared with the Senate but the administration refused every attempt at compromise. Additionally, as Republicans readily admitted when a Democrat was in the White House, it has been the long- standing practice of the Senate not to recognize attorney-client, work- product, or deliberative process privilege claims.

As for the generic claim that people working for the federal government in the Solicitor General's office would be chilled from candidly expressing their views, it seems unlikely that Mr. Estrada was chilled by the revelation of legal memoranda during the Bork, Rehnquist, Trott and Reynolds nominations in the few years before he joined the Solicitor General's office. Indeed, as the Supreme Court noted in the Nixon tapes case, it is quite unlikely ``that advisors will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure.'' U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 at 712, 1974. Thus, while the desire for candor in the Executive Branch may be strong, it is not an absolute right against disclosure in response to requests from a co-equal branch pursuant to its express powers under the Constitution.

In my previous statements on the floor of the Senate about the document request, I have put into the record numerous examples of legal memos provided to the Senate by other administrations, so I will not list them again. I will only say that it is clear to me and other Senators who have examined the record or remember the history that past requests of the Senate for legal memos from the Justice Department were honored, that many of these memos involved decisions about appealing cases or other significant legal or policy issues, that these memos were written by line attorneys to the Solicitor General as well as by the Solicitor General or Assistant Attorney General, that some memos were provided on a confidential basis while others were made public and placed in hearing records and other congressional documents, and that all these claims about this request being unprecedented are just so much false rhetoric. Congress was not required to stumble in the dark in connection with other nominations where memos were sought, and I am glad that the Senate did not cave in here, despite all of the attacks, intimidation and false claims the Bush administration and its allies have made.

In sum, this administration treated the concerns of members of this co-equal branch with contempt at nearly every turn. As I stated at the outset of this debate, I would have welcomed a record on which I could have had strong confidence about the type of judge Mr. Estrada would be. Senators were denied adequate information to make an informed judgment about whether to entrust this nominee with the powerful position to which he was nominated. As I mentioned in the Congressional Record of July 30, 2003, it is regrettable that this Administration did not choose to cooperate and act in good faith in this nomination and instead sought to use this nominee as a pawn in its high stakes game of wedge politics. I am certain that this process must have been a difficult one for Mr. Estrada and his family. It is too bad that White House and Justice Department advisors did not follow the approach they took with another Bush nominee, Jeffrey Holmstead who was nominated to the EPA, and whose White House Counsel's Office memos this very administration shared with the Senate in order to accommodate the concerns of Senators. Instead, the Administration ignored precedent and common sense in stonewalling the Senate, ignored the suggestions of compromise by Republican and Democratic Senators, and chose the path and the tactics of unilateralism.

As I mentioned, earlier this year, on March 6, and April 2, 2003, I placed into the record excerpts from 45 editorials and 34 op-eds in support of the position of Democratic Senators on the nomination of Mr. Miguel Estrada's nomination to the Court of the Appeals for D.C. Circuit, because Republicans had been asserting that there were only a few editorials or op-eds in support of our concerns. Here are some excerpts

from 14 additional editorials or op-eds expressing concerns about Mr. Estrada's nomination, bringing the total to nearly 100. This controversial nomination clearly divided, rather than united, the American people. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record excerpts of 11 recent editorials and 3 op-eds, as well as the New York Times piece entitled ``Straight Talk on Judicial Nominees.''

I ask unanimous consent to print the following correspondence from Jorge C. Rangel which I earlier referenced.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for not more than 6 minutes.

Mr. President, we remember the victims of the attack on this country 2 years ago today. Last year, Congress held a special session in New York on this day. As part of those proceedings, the poet laureate of the United States, Billy Collins, read a poem written for the occasion entitled ``The Names.'' He dedicated it to the victims of September 11 and to their survivors. I believe it appropriate to reread that poem again here today:

The Names

Yesterday, I lay awake in the palm of the night.

A fine rain stole in, unhelped by any breeze,

And when I saw the silver glaze on the windows,

I started with A, with Ackerman, as it happened,

Then Baxter and Calabro,

Davis and Eberling, names falling into place

As droplets fell through the dark.

Names printed on the ceiling of the night.

Names slipping around a water bend.

Twenty-six willows on the banks of a stream.

In the morning, I walked out barefoot

Among thousands of flowers

Heavy with dew like the eyes of tears,

And each had a name--

Fiori inscribed on a yellow petal

Then Gonzalez and Han, Ishikawa and Jenkins.

Names written in the air

And stitched into the cloth of the day.

A name under a photograph taped to a mailbox.

Monogram on a torn shirt.

I see you spelled out on storefront windows

And on the bright unfurled awnings of this city,

I say the syllables as I turn a corner--

Kelly and Lee,

Medina, Nardella, and O'Connor.

When I peer into the woods,

I see a thick tangle where letters are hidden

As in a puzzle concocted for children.

Parker and Quigley in the twigs of an ash,

Rizzo, Schubert, Torres, and Upton.

Secrets in the boughs of an ancient maple.

Names written in the pale sky.

Names rising in the updraft amid buildings.

Names silent in stone

Or cried out behind a door.

Names blown over the earth and out to sea.

In the evenings--weakening light, the last swallows.

A boy on a lake lifts his oars.

A woman by a window puts a match to a candle,

And the names are outlined on the rose clouds--

Vanacore and Wallace,

(let X stand, if it can, for the ones unfound)

Then Young and Ziminsky, the final jolt of Z.

Names etched on the head of a pin.

One name spanning a bridge, another undergoing a tunnel.

A blue name needled into the skin.

Names of citizens, workers, mothers and fathers,

The bright-eyed daughter, the quick son.

Alphabet of names in green rows in a field.

Names in the small tracks of birds.

Names lifted from a hat

Or balanced on the tip of the tongue.

Names wheeled into the dim warehouse of memory.

So many names, there is barely room on the walls of the

heart.

Our thoughts and prayers are first and foremost with all those who sacrificed their lives on September 11 2 years ago.

Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, and I commend my friend from Illinois who has been so passionate, and so relentless, in seeking additional funding to combat

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``September 11 Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act of 2003'' to extend the pending deadline of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund to December 31, 2004. I thank Senators Durbin, Schumer, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton, Corzine, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation.

Along with Senator Daschle, Representative Gephardt and others, I worked hard to create the Victims Fund over the objections of some in the administration and Congress. We insisted that it be included in the legislation to bail out the airlines passed in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attacks on American soil. The current deadline for applying for compensation from the Victims Fund is rapidly approaching, but it has become apparent that many families need more time. Thus far, just under a third of eligible families have applied to the Fund for compensation--only about 1,282 death claims and 1,050 injury claims have been filed so far by victim families, according to the Department of Justice.

Ken Feinberg, the Special Master for the Fund, is doing his best to get victims families to understand their rights. Recently, he has even taken out extensive advertisements in a number of newspapers and created a series of informational meetings and claim assistance sites to assist victims' families to file for compensation with the Victims Fund instead of filing a lawsuit against the airlines industry. I commend him for his efforts.

It appears that only a few relatives of victims of September 11 are opting out of eligibility for the fund by filing a lawsuit against the airlines industry. While some families are likely weighing that decision, the number of disqualifying lawsuits is low--69 as of last month--and only three of those were in the last three months, according to The New York Times.

Instead, victims support groups have told me that they receive calls daily from individuals who understand that the deadline is approaching but cannot face the emotional pain of preparing a claim. Mr. Feinberg has also commented that many victims are still too paralyzed by their grief to confront the logistical burden and emotional pain of filing a death claim.

In light of this painful reality, I believe it is appropriate to extend the deadline for filing applications to the Victims Fund to December 31, 2004--an extension of just over a year. This extension would give grieving families additional time to mourn those who were lost and to overcome the emotional challenges of filing paperwork with the Victims Fund. In recent days, I have been in contact with several September 11 victims support groups, all of which agreed that such an extension would provide some relief during these dark days for victims' families as they endure the grieving process.

As the anniversary of the tragedy of September 11 approaches, victims' families have many burdens. They do not need this arbitrary deadline confronting them between September 11 and the year-end holidays. This is something we can do now for victims of September 11. I urge my colleagues to support the ``September 11 Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act of 2003.''

Madam President, today, we vote to confirm Steven Colloton to a lifetime appointment on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Colloton comes to us with bipartisan support from both his home-state Senators, for whom I have great respect. Steven Colloton currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. While I continue to remain concerned that, at 40 years old, Mr. Colloton received a partial not qualified rating from the ABA, he has a good academic record and has a record of public service in the state of Iowa.

I note that Mr. Colloton is the ninth confirmed circuit court judge who is a member of the Federalist Society and the third former member of Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr's office to be confirmed to a Federal judgeship. I would like to take this opportunity to express my hope that Mr. Colloton acts as a fair and impartial judge, despite his active role in conservative political causes and groups. It was very troubling that another former Starr prosecutor confirmed to the Federal bench overlooked years of precedent to rule in favor of Vice President Cheney and against the American people's interest in open access to who was advising the administration on energy policy, a special concern in the aftermath of the blackouts in the Northeast this August.

Mr. Colloton's confirmation process stands in stark contrast to what occurred with judicial nominees during the Clinton administration. His confirmation process has been expeditious and smooth. In contrast, an earlier nominee to the Eighth Circuit from Iowa, Bonnie Campbell, never even received a vote before the Judiciary Committee following the hearing on her nomination. Ms. Campbell was a former attorney general of Iowa, a former head of the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, and a nominee who also had the support of both of her home-state Senators including a senior Republican Senator. Neither the nominee nor the Judiciary Committee members were ever told why the Republican majority refused to accord her nomination a Committee vote and, when given the chance to do right by her, President Bush instead decided to withdraw her nomination.

Another contrast exemplified by Mr. Colloton's confirmation process is the pace of confirming circuit court judges. Steven Colloton will be the 28th circuit court judge confirmed since President Bush has taken office. Again, this stands in strong contrast to what occurred during President Clinton's second term in office. More than 3 years passed in President Clinton's second term before the 28th circuit court judge was confirmed. And, we have already confirmed more circuit court nominees of this President, since July of 2001, than were confirmed at this time in the third year of President Reagan's first term, President George H.W. Bush's term, or either of President Clinton's terms.

Finally, I point out that with Mr. Colloton's confirmation, there will be as many active George W. Bush appointees on the bench as there are active George Herbert Walker Bush appointees. The President's father served 4 full years. This President has served less than three and already has made as much impact on the Federal courts across the country.

I congratulate Steven Colloton, his family, and the Senators from Iowa on his confirmation.

Madam President, to reiterate this will be the 28th circuit court judge confirmed since President Bush has taken office. For those who are wondering, that is more circuit court nominees confirmed than in the third year of President Reagan's first term or President George H. Bush's term or either of President Clinton's terms. We have done far better, I might say, for President George Bush than we have his three predecessors.

I will also note a contrast. Mr. Colloton's nomination moved very quickly, as contrasted to President Clinton's nominee for the same seat, Bonnie Campbell, who was never given a vote before the Judiciary Committee. Even though she had been a former attorney general of Iowa, she was the former head of the Department of Justice's Office of Violence Against Women, and she had the support of

both of her home State Senators, she was never given a vote.

I will support Steven Colloton.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion about judicial nominees recently. One issue is on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

I mention that because at the time when President Clinton nominated highly qualified people to go there, my friends on the other side said the workload was such that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals didn't need extra judges. So they were never given a hearing, never given a vote. One of those nominees is now the dean of the Harvard Law School. In fact, the chief judge, as I recall, a Reagan appointee, said they definitely didn't need more judges; they didn't have the workload. He took that position consistently throughout President Clinton's term.

Now we have a new President. The workload has gone down in that court. But we have several people suddenly nominated for the seats that just a few months ago were unneeded, we were told, by all the Republican leadership. We were told by the Republican leadership on this very political court that we didn't need anybody. Suddenly we need somebody.

The interesting thing about that is the Washington Post, which has been very supportive--more supportive than most newspapers in the country--of President Bush's judicial nominees, no matter who they are, took a different position. Even that paper, which has basically given in many ways--and it is their right--a blank check to the administration, wrote an editorial this morning called ``Fueling the Fire.'' They basically ask what I have: What is the sudden change?

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

Because we have discussed at great length an issue involving one of the judiciary nominees, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Council of Churches addressed to President Bush regarding the debate on Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor be printed in the Record.

I see the very distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, the most senior member of this body, on the Senate floor. I know he wishes to speak. As soon as he is prepared, I will, of course, yield the floor.

Last night we were able to move five of President Bush's judges, to get them confirmed in a matter of about 20 or 30 minutes. I thank those who worked with me to make that possible. Senator Lott from the other side of the aisle was very helpful in moving those forward. Senator McConnell was very helpful in moving those nominees forward, as well as a number of Senators on this side of the aisle. Senator Harry Reid, Senator Tom Daschle worked with me, along with Senator Lott and Senator McConnell, to move them. So we were able to move them, actually, in a matter of 20 or 30 minutes.

I mention that because there was a consensus on these nominees. They were not sent up here to divide us but, rather, they were the rare ones who were sent to unite us.

I mention that because we have now confirmed 145 judges for President Bush. We stopped three. This stands in tremendous contrast to the time of President Clinton, when the Republican leadership stopped 60 of President Clinton's nominees.

For very good reasons, because of their ideology, their obvious intent to politicize the courts, we have stopped three. So we have confirmed 145 and stopped three. Those who are worried that we have politicized this, I would point out, we have stopped three. When President Clinton was there, they stopped 60, usually because one Republican, one, would object. So they were not allowed to have a hearing or vote.

I see my friend from West Virginia, and I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his usual courtesy.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marc Wheat, who is leaving the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs after 2

years of outstanding service. As a Senior Advisor for Senate Affairs, Marc Wheat worked closely with my staff on the Foreign Operation Subcommittee on a range of important and controversial issues--from Plan Colombia to reconstruction in Afghanistan to Iraq.

To be sure, my staff tells me that Marc was a tireless and forceful advocate for the State Department's position on these, as well as other issues. But, they also emphasize that he was always honest and forthright, responding promptly and fully to the committee's requests for information. Perhaps what comes through the most is what a decent and genuine person Marc is. That was obvious to me when I met him after a committee hearing with Secretary Powell.

The State Department's loss is a gain for the House of Representatives. Marc is leaving his job at the State Department to be the Staff Director of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. I know Marc will be a great asset to Chairman Souder in his new position. This is the latest move in a distinguished career for Marc, which includes service as a Counsel on the House Commerce Committee and Legislative Assistant to Congressman Hastert.

I know my staff will miss working with Marc, and I wish him the best of luck in his new job.

Madam President, I alerted the distinguished Senate floor manager on this matter.

I send a resolution to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin. The resolution says that in any proceeding of a committee considering a nomination made by the President to the U.S. Senate, it shall not be in order to ask any question of the nominee relating to the religious affiliation of the nominee.

With that, Madam President, I send a resolution to the desk to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide that it is not in order in a committee to ask questions regarding a Presidential nominee's religious affiliation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration; that the resolution be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, how much time is remaining to the Senator from Vermont?

I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois who, incidentally, gave one of the finest speeches I ever heard last night on the Senate floor.

Madam President, I would like to speak about the meeting earlier this week with the Interfaith Alliance where they--Catholics, Protestants, and Jews--condemned the activities of having any Member of the Senate ask somebody their religion in a Senate meeting.

A few days ago we heard from a distinguished group of members of the clergy from a variety of churches and synagogues who serve as members of the Interfaith Alliance. The Alliance is a national, grassroots, non-partisan, faith-based organization of 150,000 members who come from over 65 religious traditions. These men and women of faith promote the positive and healing role of religion in public life, and challenges all who seek to manipulate or otherwise abuse religion for sectarian or partisan political purposes. They came to the United States Capitol to denounce the despicable charges made against Senators, and to urge, as many of us have, that this involvement of religion in the confirmation process come to an end. I would like to enter into the record the statements of some of the participants in the event where the Alliance's members came together for that purpose.

Specifically, I would like to have printed in the Record the remarks of Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, the President of the Interfaith Alliance, the remarks of Rabbi Jack Moline, the Vice-chair of the Alliance, and the remarks of the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, the Immediate Past President of the Alliance. These statements are moving and persuasive and important. I would hope that my Republican colleagues would read them and take them to heart.

The demagoguery, divisive and partisan politics being so cynically used by supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to stop.

I ask unanimous consent to have those remarks by clergy printed in the Record.

Mr. President, while I recognize the Nation needs a sound and balanced national energy plan emphasizing a clean, reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy policy, unfortunately this bill fails to do that. In my home State of Vermont we are proud of an environmental ethic that supports the increased use of clean and sustainable energy. Vermonters have a long history of taking good care of our natural resources, which has served our economy and ecosystems well. It is important to strike a balance when working to resolve environmental and energy problems. That is why I will continue to strongly support programs such as Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

While the Senate has been debating the energy bill on-and-off for the past few months, the debate has been fairly limited compared with the debate on the energy bill during the 107th Congress. During the 107th Congress, when the Democrats were in the majority, we debated the bill for 24 days over an 11-week span. During that time, the Senate adopted 126 amendments and rejected 18 others. At no time during the consideration of that bill, did the Senate try to limit debate by entering into a unanimous consent agreement to limit amendments. In comparison, we have had very limited debate on this bill and avoided critical issues.

Many of my colleagues offered common sense amendments that would have greatly improved the bill. This includes conservation measures offered by Senate Durbin that would have required cars, SUVs, minivans and cross-over utility vehicles to achieve a new fuel standard of 40 mpg by 2015 and would require pickup trucks and vans to achieve a CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg by 2015. Senators Cantwell and Bingaman offered several amendments to the electricity title to improve consumer protections. Senators Feinstein and Schumer offered amendments to reduce the impact of ethanol mandates on consumers in the Northeast. I am disappointed that all of these amendments failed.

Further, it should be noted this bill is fiscally irresponsible. Senators Wyden and Sununu proposed an amendment that would have struck from the energy bill a provision to make available Federal subsidies for nuclear power plants. This amendment was not against nuclear power but an amendment for Congress to be fiscally responsible to the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, this amendment failed earlier in the summer. Now the American public will have to subsidize an estimated $14-$16 billion for a source of energy that leaves many citizens concerned over their safety. Lastly, many other amendments that attempted to hold the administration accountable to environmental laws were rejected by my colleagues that will result in further degradation to the American public's natural resources.

If these amendments had passed, they would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil imports, maintain air quality protections, and conserve energy. Instead this bill forces the American people to pay for the construction of new nuclear power plants and increased oil and gas drilling.

The Senate had a real opportunity to put together a sensible energy policy that shifted the focus from nuclear power and offshore drilling to a clean, renewable, and affordable energy plan. Unfortunately, we failed to so this, and that is why I cannot support S. 14.

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Free Trade Agreements with Chile and Singapore because the benefits of the intellectual property and anti-piracy provisions in these agreements outweigh the valid concerns that have been raised about the inclusion of immigration provisions.

At the outset, let me begin by expressing my disappointment that the administration short-circuited the proper consideration process for these implementing bills through its decision to transmit them to Congress 2 days before the Judiciary Committee's scheduled debate, and before responding to written questions from this committee's members. To be fair, the administration did eventually respond to these questions. Of course, as the responses themselves pointed out, ``the implementing bill cannot be modified after its introduction.''

The administration apparently views the Judiciary Committee simply as an obstacle to be overcome as quickly as possible, and not as a source for possible improvements to its legislative proposals. As a result of the administration's undue haste--and the Judiciary Committee's failure to begin consideration of these measures early enough to guarantee that it could have meaningful input--we were deprived of the opportunity to propose changes in the implementing legislation. Instead, we were required to conduct an up-or-down vote on final passage of these implementing bills only 2 days after their introduction.

I share the concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, and Sessions that the U.S. Trade Representative should not be in the business of amending domestic immigration laws, as these treaties do. The decision to include immigration provisions was not only unauthorized by Congress but also unnecessary to achieve the administration's stated goals. Congress has already created the H-1B program, which allows foreign workers with specialized skills to work in the United States. That program was established after a lengthy process of public hearings, debate, and negotiation. If the administration feels that program needs to be changed, or a new visa category created, it should have sought to do so through the ordinary legislative process.

This matter is of particular concern because these agreements are widely viewed as the template for future trade agreements, many of which are being negotiated as we speak. I hope that the administration has gotten the message from members on both sides of the aisle and both chambers that Congress does not intend to delegate its power over our immigration system to the executive branch. I for one believe that we should do more than express our concerns and hope that they are heeded. As a result, I have introduced the Congressional Responsibility for Immigration Act, a bill to prevent the use of fast-track procedures for trade agreements that include immigration provisions.

On the whole, however, I support these agreements because they recognize that intellectual property, and our response to international piracy in particular, is an integral part of any trade structure. The United States is the world's leading creator and exporter of intellectual property. That means we are also the world's leading target for piracy of copyrighted works. New technology has made piracy cheap and easy, and everything from music to films to books is susceptible to this kind of theft. At the same time, the advent of new technologies means that international distribution of copyrighted works is increasingly viable, and necessary, if the U.S. intellectual property industry is to continue to thrive.

These agreements go a long way to harmonize the intellectual property laws of Singapore and Chile with those of the United States. They make IP systems in each country more transparent, uniform and predictable. This is a significant benefit to U.S. industries that depend on transparency and predictability in order to be able to protect their rights in these countries. The agreements also call on the countries to recognize and uphold the rights of authors to control the electronic dissemination of their works, and to protect the encryption technology that safeguards such electronic dissemination. This too is important, because more and more intellectual property is being distributed electronically. If intellectual property holders cannot securely distribute their works in electronic form, a major source of revenue is lost, and American creativity is hampered.

Intellectual property is increasingly an international business, one that needs an international approach to many of its problems. Despite my concerns about the immigration provisions in these agreements, I will support their passage because they improve

international cooperation on intellectual property issues.

I object.

Reserving the right to object, could the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, my good friend, repeat that? I am not sure I understood.

So the first vote would count for three.

I have no objection.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I have not heard any request from any of the members of the Judiciary Committee, chairmen or otherwise, on this. I have heard a number of members on the other side of the Judiciary Committee attack people on this side for not allowing judges to go through. This will make 145 of President Bush's judges going through. I was concerned because we have done so many by voice vote that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been so critical of this side for not allowing judges to go through. They may not have realized they were going through because we have voice-voted so many.

Because my good friend from Mississippi has asked me this as a personal matter, I have no objection to the request of the majority leader.