Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have heard this interesting discussion by two Senators I like a great deal. I cannot add to the experience the distinguished Senator from California had as

mayor of San Francisco and, in fact, in her work as a national leader in efforts to prevent AIDS.

I say also to my good friend from Kansas that I remember being in Uganda at a time when they were first becoming aware of the fact they had an AIDS problem. I was sitting with President Museveni when he got his first real briefing, by USAID officials, of the calamity of AIDS in his country. At that time he switched from opposing the use of condoms as an acceptable way to protect against AIDS to supporting it.

It is one of the reasons Uganda is a model for Africa today. Of course they support abstinence. So does the Senator from California. Of course they support fidelity. So does the Senator from California. But also in Uganda they know that does not always work. And they also support the use of condoms.

I commend the Senator from California for her amendment. This amendment addresses one of the serious flaws in a bill that has much else to recommend it.

This bill, assuming the President requests the funds to implement it, will be a major step forward in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

I have pressed for significantly more funding to combat AIDS ever since I first traveled to Africa in 1990 and saw the ravages of AIDS in Uganda, South Africa, and Kenya.

We have had amendments brought up here within the past year to appropriate emergency funds to combat AIDS, that were opposed by the White House. Now the majority party has its own bill, a House bill and they want us to pass it without amendment. I understand that. But this is the Senate, not the House.

The amendment of the Senator from California would clarify several matters.

First, we all support programs to promote abstinence among young people who are not yet sexually active. We support that and her amendment reaffirms that.

We also support programs to promote fidelity, because multiple partners is a major cause of HIV transmission. The Senator's amendment promotes fidelity.

But in many instances, and especially for women and girls in countries like Uganda, Cambodia, India, or South Africa, abstinence is not a realistic option. And fidelity may be an option for women, but it makes no difference because they have no control over their male partners. And that also goes for married women.

In many developing countries, women and girls have no say over when or even with whom they have sexual relations. And for them, a condom is their only protection against HIV. It is a matter of life and death.

That is true in Uganda, where I have been. We have heard a lot said about how Uganda's rate of HIV infection was reduced because of abstinence. That is not the whole story. In fact it is a distortion. Promoting abstinence has been very important there, but it has been no more important than other interventions, like promoting the use of condoms.

Senator Feinstein's amendment supports abstinence. It supports fidelity. And it supports the use of condoms. Like the Uganda model, her amendment does not give one approach any more weight than the other.

Most importantly, it does not mandate a certain amount of funds for any one approach.

Whether 33 percent or 13 percent or 3 percent of the funds we make available for AIDS prevention are used to promote abstinence is a public health decision that should be made not by Congress, but by experts working in the field.

The same goes for the amount spent on condoms. It is not for us to decide that. It varies depending on the country and the target population.

Among younger populations abstinence may be the best approach. Among others it may be irrelevant and condoms may be the only practical protection. That is consistent with Uganda's experience. It is consistent with the experience of exports everywhere who are working to stop the spread of AIDS. And it is consistent with what President Bush himself has said.

It is also important to mandate that abstinence, fidelity, and condoms are only three of the necessary approaches to AIDS prevention.

There is also counseling. There is voluntary testing. There is treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. These are all essential to any AIDS prevention strategy. Again, this has been true in Uganda, and in many other countries.

So let us not earmark one approach--abstinence--when it is only one of several necessary approaches. Senator Feinstein's amendment leaves it to the Administration, and to the experts who implement these programs, to decide. That is the only sensible and workable approach.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we want to get this bill off to the President so he will have it when he goes abroad. I agree with that, although I don't think that was a reason for opposing the amendments that were offered tonight. We could have passed those amendments, gone to conference with the House, and sent this bill to the President in plenty of time. But that was not what the majority wanted. They wanted to rubber stamp the House bill, despite its defects which were obvious to everyone.

Let's be realistic about what is going on here.

This is an authorization bill. It does not actually appropriate one dime. The President will be taking a promise when he goes abroad, nothing more. In fact, his budget request for 2004 does not include the amount authorized in this bill that people have been talking about. Not only that, while this bill authorizes $1 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the President's 2004 budget includes only $200 million for the Global Fund, a $150 million cut from last year.

And not only does this bill not appropriate any money, his 2004 budget would cut many other global health programs. It would cut funding for child survival and maternal health by 12 percent. It would cut funding for programs to protect vulnerable children by 63 percent. It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases--diseases which kill millions of children each year, by 32 percent. I wonder how many Senators know this.

So I hope that soon after the President signs this bill he will send us a budget amendment for the rest of the $3 billion authorized here that is missing from his 2004 budget request.

I hope he also asks for the funds to replace the cuts his budget makes in other global health programs. Because those cuts are going to mean fewer children will be vaccinated against measles and polio, and fewer pregnant women will have access to medical care. Each year, over half a million women die needlessly from pregnancy related causes. There are real consequences to cutting these programs.

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I will withhold my amendment.

Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the problem of junk commercial e-mail, commonly known as ``spam.'' It is increasingly apparent that spam is more than a just a nuisance: It has become a serious and growing problem that threatens to undermine the vast potential of the Internet.

America's businesses and America's homes are flooded with millions of unwanted, unsolicited e-mails each day. A recent study by Ferris Research estimates that spam costs U.S. firms $8.9 billion annually in lost productivity and the need to purchase ever more powerful servers and additional bandwidth to try to stay ahead of the spammers; to configure and run spam filters; and to provide helpdesk support for spam recipients. The costs of spam are significant to individuals as well, including time spent identifying and deleting spam, inadvertently opening spam, installing and maintaining anti-spam filters, tracking down legitimate messages mistakenly deleted by spam filters, deleting spam that is not caught by filters, and paying for Internet Service Providers' blocking efforts.

In my home state of Vermont, one legislator recently found that two- thirds of the 96 e-mails in his inbox were spam. And this occurred after the legislature had installed new spam-blocking software on its computer system that seemed to be catching 80 percent of the spam. The Assistant Attorney General in Vermont was forced to suggest to computer users the following means to avoid these unsolicited commercial e- mails: ``It's very bad to reply, even to say don't send anymore. It tells the spammer they have a live address. The best thing you can do is just keep deleting them. If it gets really bad, you may have to change your address.'' This experience is echoed nationwide. The FTC's recent spam forum underscored the magnitude and complexity of the problem.

Twenty-nine States now have anti-spam laws, but the globe-hopping nature of e-mail makes these laws difficult to enforce. Technology will undoubtedly play a key role in fighting spam, but a technological solution to the problem is not likely in the foreseeable future. ISPs block billions of unwanted e-mails each day, but spammers are winning the battle.

In addition, given the speed with which spammers adapt to anti-spam technologies, the development and dissemination of such technologies is not cheap. Why should businesses and individuals be forced to invest large amounts of time and money in buying, installing, troubleshooting and maintaining new generations of anti-spam technologies?

The problems posed by junk e-mail are real, with substantial consequences for Internet users and service providers alike. I am working with other members of the Judiciary Committee, on both sides of the aisle, to arrive at an appropriate solution.

I have often said that Congress must exercise great caution when regulating in cyberspace. Any legislative solution to spam must tread carefully to ensure that we do not impede or stifle the free flow of information on the Internet. The United States is the birthplace of the Internet, and the whole world watches whenever we decide to regulate it. Whenever we choose to intervene in the Internet with government action, we must act carefully, prudently, and knowledgeably, keeping in mind the implications of what we do and how we do it. And we must not forget that spam, like more traditional forms of commercial speech, is protected by the First Amendment.

At the same time, we must not allow spam to result in the ``virtual death''

of the Internet, as one Vermont newspaper put it.

The Internet is a valuable asset to our nation, to our economy, and to the lives of Americans, and we should act prudently to secure its continued viability and vitality.

Mr. President, I have been disappointed that the Republican leadership has not found time to proceed to the nomination of Judge Consuelo Callahan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is another of the judicial nominees that Senate Democrats have strongly supported and whose consideration we had expedited through the Judiciary Committee last week.

We still do not know who on the Republican side delayed consideration of the consensus nomination of Judge Prado for a month. I thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for its support of that nomination as well as this nomination and for working with the Senate to bringing fair evaluation of these nominees and for adding their voice to the discussion of these lifetime appointments.

Just as Senate Democrats cleared the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit without delay, so, too, the nomination of this Hispanic nominee to another circuit court was cleared on the Democratic side last week. All Democratic Senators serving on the Judiciary Committee voted to report her nomination favorably. All Democratic Senators indicated that they were eager to proceed with her nomination and, after a reasonable period of debate, we voted on her nomination. I am confident this nomination will be confirmed by an extraordinary majority--maybe unanimously.

It is most unfortunate that so many partisans in this administration and on the other side of the aisle insist on bogging down consensus matters and consensus nominees in order to focus exclusively on the most divisive and controversial of this President's nominees as he continues his efforts to pack the courts. Democratic Senators have worked very hard to cooperate with this administration in order to fill judicial vacancies. What the other side seeks to obscure is our effort, our fairness and the progress we have been able to achieve without much help from the other side or the administration.

The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, we inherited 110 judicial vacancies. Over the next 17 months, despite constant criticism from the administration, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of President Bush's nominees, including several who were divisive and controversial, several who had mixed peer review ratings from the ABA and at least one who had been rated not qualified. Despite the additional 40 vacancies that arose, we reduced judicial vacancies to 60, a level below that termed ``full employment'' by Senator Hatch. Since the beginning of this year, in spite of the Republican's fixation on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the number of judicial vacancies has been reduced to 47 and is the lowest it has been in 13 years. That is lower than at any time during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 47, in 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.4 percent, the lowest it has been in the last two decades. With some cooperation from the administration think of the additional progress we could be making.

Earlier this month, we were able to obtain Senate consideration of the nomination of Judge Prado, and another distinguished Hispanic nominee who was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last month--Judge Cecilia Altonaga to be a Federal judge in Florida. We expedited consideration of that nominee at the request of Senator Graham of Florida. I am told that she is the first Cuban-American woman to be confirmed to the Federal bench. Indeed, Democrats in the Senate have worked to expedite fair consideration of every Latino nominee this President has made to the Federal trial courts in addition to the nominations of Judge Prado and Judge Callahan.

Today, I urge the leadership to allow us to consider the nomination of Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike the divisive nomination of Carolyn Kuhl to the same court, both home-State Senators support the nomination of Judge Callahan. Rather than disregarding time-honored rules and Senate practices, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to help us fill more judicial vacancies more quickly by bringing those nominations that have bipartisan support, like Judge Callahan, to the front of the line for committee hearings and floor votes.

As I have noted throughout the last 2 years, the Senate is able to move expeditiously when we have consensus, mainstream nominees to consider. In a recent column, David Broder noted that he asked Alberto Gonzales if there was a lesson in Judge Prado's easy approval, but that Mr. Gonzales missed the point. In Mr. Broder's mind: ``The lesson seems obvious. Conservatives can be confirmed for the courts when they are well known in their communities and a broad range of their constituents have reason to think them fair-minded.'' Judge Consuelo Callahan is another such nominee.

To date the Senate has proceeded to confirm 124 of President Bush's nominees, 100 in the 17 months in which Democrats comprised the Senate majority. The lesson that less controversial nominees are considered and confirmed more easily was the lesson of the last 2 years, but that lesson has been lost on this White House and the current Senate leadership.

Unfortunately, far too many of this President's nominees raise serious concerns about whether they will be fair judges to all parties on all issues. Those types of nominees should not be rushed through the process. I regret the administration's refusal to work with us to end the impasse it has created in connection with the Estrada nomination. The partisan politics of division that the administration is practicing with respect to that nomination are not helpful and not respectful of the damage done to the Hispanic community by insisting on so divisive a nominee.

I invite the President to work with us and to nominate more mainstream individuals like Judge Prado and Judge Callahan whose proven records and bipartisan support make it easier for us to uphold our constitutional duty of advise and consent. I look forward to casting a vote in favor of her confirmation to the Circuit Court.

In connection with the unexplained Republican delay before consideration of the nomination of Judge Prado, some suggested that Judge Prado had been delayed because Democratic Senators were likely to vote for him and thereby undercut the Republican's shameless charge that opposition to

Miguel Estrada is based on his ethnicity.

We all know that the White House could have cooperated with the Senate by producing Mr. Estrada's work papers. This would have enabled the Senate to have voted on the Estrada nomination months ago. The request for his work papers was sent last May 15 and has been outstanding for a year. Rather than respond as every other administration has over the last 20 years and provide access to those papers, this White House has stonewalled. Rather than follow the policy of openness outlined by Attorney General Robert Jackson in the 1940s, this administration has stonewalled. And Republican Senators and other partisans could not wait to claim that the impasse created by the White House's change in policy and practice with respect to nominations was somehow attributable to Democrats being anti-Hispanic. The charge would be laughable if it were not so calculated to do political damage and to divide the Hispanic community. That is what Republican partisans hope is the result. That is wrong.

Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Estrada, the administration has made no effort to work with us to resolve the impasse. Instead, there has been a series of votes on cloture petitions in which the opposition has grown and from time to time the support has waned. Recently, there have been press reports indicating that Mr. Estrada asked the White House months ago to withdraw his nomination. I understand his frustration. If this administration is not going to follow the practice of every other administration and share with the Senate the government work papers of the nominee--the very practice this administration followed with an EPA nominee in 2001--then I can understand him not wanting to be used as a political pawn by the administration to score partisan, political points. That the administration has not acceded to his reported request but has plowed ahead to force a succession of unsuccessful cloture votes and to foment division in our Hispanic community for partisan gain is another example of how far this administration is willing to go to politicize the process at the expense of its own nominees.

Judge Callahan enjoys the full support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Not a single person or organization has submitted a letter of opposition or raised concerns about her. No controversy. No red flags. No basis for concern. No opposition. This explains why her nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous, bipartisan vote on an expedited basis.

During President Clinton's tenure, 10 of his more than 30 Latino nominees, including Judge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Christine Arguello to the circuit courts, were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by the Republican leadership.

Republicans delayed consideration of Judge Richard Paez for over 1,500 days, and 39 Republicans voted against him. The confirmations of Latina circuit nominees Rosemary Barkett and Sonia Sotomayor were also delayed by Republicans. Judge Barkett was targeted for delay and defeat by Republicans based on claims about her judicial philosophy, but those efforts were not successful. After significant delays and an unsuccessful Republican filibuster, 36 Republicans voted against the confirmation of Judge Barkett. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor, who had received the ABA's highest rating and had been appointed to district court by President George H.W. Bush, was targeted by Republicans for delay or defeat when she was nominated to the Second Circuit. She was eventually confirmed, although 29 Republicans voted against her.

The fact is that the Latino nominations that the Senate has received from this administration have been acted upon in a expeditious manner. They have overwhelmingly enjoyed bipartisan support. Under the Democratically-led Senate, we swiftly granted hearings for and eventually confirmed Judge Christina Armijo of New Mexico, Judge Phillip Martinez and Randy Crane of Texas, Judge Jose Martinez of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, and Judge Jose Linares of New Jersey to the district courts. This year, we also confirmed Judge James Otero of California, and we would have held his confirmation hearing last year if his ABA peer rating had been delivered to us in time for the scheduling of our last hearing. As I have noted, we also have recently confirmed Judge Cecilia Altonaga and Judge Edward Prado with unanimous Democratic support.

Judge Callahan's nomination has been delayed on the Senate executive calendar unnecessarily in my view. I recall all too vividly when anonymous Republican holds delayed Senate action on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Second Circuit for 7 months. It is time to act on this widely supported, uncontroversial Latina nominee. I urge the Senate leadership to bring her nomination up for a vote without delay.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I will not speak long.

In times of national stress there is an understandable impulse for the government to ask for more power. Sometimes more power is needed, but sometimes it is not.

After the September 11 attacks, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion and with unprecedented speed to craft and enact the USA PATRIOT Act, which enhanced the government's surveillance powers.

Now, as we consider S. 113--and we anticipate a possible sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act--it is vital for us first to examine and understand how Federal agencies are using the power that they already have. We must answer two questions: First, is that power being used effectively? Our citizens want not only to feel safer, but to be safer. They need results, not rhetoric.

Second, is that power being used appropriately, so that our liberties are not sacrificed, the openness of our society and our government are preserved, and our tax dollars are not squandered?

Unfortunately, the FBI and the Department of Justice have either been unwilling or unable to help us to answer these basic questions. Moreover, the information that we have gleaned on our own through our bipartisan oversight efforts has not inspired confidence.

In February, Chairman Grassley, Chairman Specter and I released a detailed report based on the oversight that the Judiciary Committee conducted in the 107th Congress. That report distilled our bipartisan findings and conclusions from numerous hearings, classified briefings and other oversight activities. Our oversight demonstrated the pressing need for reform of the FBI. In particular, it focused on the FBI's failures in implementing what is already in FISA.

The administration's response to our bipartisan oversight report has been to dismiss it as ``old news'' relating to problems that are all already fixed. In short, ``everything is fine'' at the FBI and they plan to do nothing to respond to the systemic criticisms in the Specter, Grassley, Leahy report. Predictably, however, Congress is asked yet again to expand the FISA statute.

The bill that we are considering, S.113, adopts a ``quick fix'' approach. With slick names like the ``Moussaoui fix,'' and the ``lone wolf'' bill, it is aimed at making Americans feel safer, but it does nothing to address the problems that actually plague our intelligence gatherers. It does nothing to fix the real problems that plagued the FBI before 9/11 and that continue at the FBI.

In private briefings, even FBI representatives have stated that they do not need this change in the law in order to protect against terrorism. They are getting all the warrants they want under the current law.

Sunset provisions, such as the one I helped add during the Judiciary Committee markup, allow us to adopt such measures as S. 113 on a temporary basis. The reporting requirement that is being added to the bill on the floor is another welcome improvement, which will help us to ascertain whether this surveillance tool is working properly or not. The reporting requirement is similar to those proposed in a bill I introduced with Senators Grassley and Specter--S. 436, the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act.

While there is little evidence that this bill is necessary, it does create significant problems. First, it tears FISA from one of its most basic moorings. FISA was intended to assist in gathering intelligence about foreign powers and their agents. The Kyl-Schumer proposal would simply read that requirement out of the law for a whole class of FISA cases.

As introduced, the bill essentially said that a ``person'' is now a ``foreign power,'' which makes little sense as a matter of logic or policy. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the bill's wording makes more sense, but the fundamental policy problem remains.

Second, in the rare case of a true ``lone wolf,'' our federal law enforcement agents already have potent tools at their disposal, including the title III wiretap, the rule 41 search warrant, and the grand jury subpoena. These provide ample means to combat isolated criminal acts, but with more accountability and judicial supervision than the FISA surveillance authorities.

Far from addressing a true problem, then, all that S.113 would do is encourage the use of the secret, unchecked FISA process for an entire class of cases that are more appropriately handled as criminal matters.

To the extent that some believe that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, I support the more measured and practical approach that Senator Feinstein developed, and that I was pleased to cosponsor. The Feinstein approach is to create a statutory presumption to assist the FBI in terrorism cases.

Using this approach, when the government shows probable cause to believe that a non-U.S. person is engaging in international terrorism, the FISA Court may presume that the person is also an agent of a foreign power. This permissive presumption would allow law enforcement some extra leeway in international terrorism cases, but without simply removing the foreign power nexus from a huge class of FISA matters altogether.

I commend Senator Feinstein for her work on this amendment. I believe it is a constructive and reasonable compromise. It would give the FBI what it claims to need as a practical matter, to ensure that it can use FISA against individuals like Zacarias Moussaoui, whose ties to a foreign power may be difficult to prove.

At the same time, the amendment would preserve some discretion on the part of the FISA court to determine that an individual should not be subject to surveillance because he is not, in fact, an agent of a foreign power. The FISA court should not become an automatic adjunct of the executive branch. That would destroy the checks and balances that keep us all free. Let's make sure they have the ability to act as a court.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to denounce, in the strongest terms, the recent deplorable actions by the regime of President Fidel Castro.

While the world focuses on the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the enormity of Saddam Hussein's atrocities are revealed, we must not ignore egregious violations of human rights taking place much closer to home.

I have long believed that the way to encourage democratic reform and respect for human rights in Cuba is not through isolation of this tiny island nation, but through the normalization of our relationship. I totally oppose the restrictions on the right of Americans to travel to Cuba.

But the recent crackdown against pro-democracy dissidents in Cuba is not only a reprehensible affront to human decency, it has threatened already strained relations between Cuba and the United States and between Cuba and the rest of the world.

My visit to Cuba in March 1999 reinforced my belief in the folly of our antiquated policy. I met with President Castro and a number of political activists. I saw firsthand the need for ending not only the embargo--which simply compounds the misery of Cuba's people and provides President Castro with a convenient excuse, but the repression and pervasive climate of fear perpetrated by that government.

On March 18, the Cuban government suddenly launched an attack against its political opponents. After storming their houses, seizing their computers, typewriters, fax machines and books, the government arrested 79 people, accusing them of subverting Cuba's government by conspiring with James Cason, the head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. They were charged with the vague crime of ``collaborating with a foreign power against their homeland.''

Less than 3 weeks later, the Cuban courts had tried, convicted and sentenced at least 75 of these people in a whirlwind process of closed- door trials lasting less than one day in improvised courts where undercover security agents who had infiltrated dissident groups surfaced as witnesses.

The punishments for conduct, that in most countries would not even be criminal, ranged from 6 to 28 years in prison.

Those arrested in this crackdown include leaders of independent labor unions and opposition political parties, independent journalists, librarians, and pro-democracy activists. More than half of the arrests were local organizers of the Varela Project reform effort.

The Varela Project collected more signatures than the constitutionally required 10,000 for a national referendum calling for electoral reforms, freedom of association, and amnesty for nonviolent political prisoners.

The Cuban government responded with a counter petition, decreeing the Cuban socialist system to be untouchable. While local organizers received some of the heavier sentences, Osvaldo Paya, head of the Varela Project, was not arrested. Mr. Paya said that the crackdown is ``an attempt to kill the chances of peaceful change in Cuba, but [dissidents] will continue seeking peaceful reforms.''

At a meeting this month of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the Swedish foreign minister warned that the crackdown in Cuba could harm its prospects for cooperation with the European Union.

On March 10, the European Commission opened its first diplomatic office in Havana. Cuba is applying for membership in the Cotonou Agreement--the economic assistance pact between the EU and African, Caribbean, and Pacific nations. Cubans would benefit significantly from the Cotonou Agreement, but Cuba's entry is now in jeopardy.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights also adopted a resolution to send a U.N. envoy to Cuba to investigate human rights abuses, but Cuban officials have apparently rejected this.

The Bush administration is reportedly considering punitive measures to restrict the flow of American dollars to Cuba by further limiting the number of Americans who may travel to Cuba on charter flights, and by reducing the monetary remittances that Cubans in the United States send back to their families in Cuba. Unfortunately, such measures would only hurt the wrong people.

If this were not bad enough, earlier this month, Cuban authorities detained three men who had hijacked a ferry crossing the Florida Straits on its way to the United States. Less than 24 hours later, these men were summarily executed by a firing squad. No one supports the act of hijacking, and people of good conscience disagree about the death penalty. But such an outrageous denial of due process should be universally condemned.

As one who strongly opposes the policy of the Bush administration and previous U.S. administrations of isolating Cuba, a policy which for more than 40 years has failed to achieve any of its goals. I want to add my voice to those who have denounced these recent events.

Human rights are universal. They are every much the rights of the Cuban people as they are the rights of people everywhere. When they are denied, we are all diminished. The United States cannot prevent the wholesale violation of human rights by the Cuban government or any government. But we can speak up.

We can say to them that this is unacceptable.

We can say do not trouble us with your farcial explanations and excuses.

And we can say, with confidence, that those whose rights are so blatantly denied today will one day show their oppressors the real meaning of ``revolution''--one that is based on the rights of man, not the brutality of one man.

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

Mr. President, we will soon be voting on the nomination of Judge Cecilia Altonaga to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. I believe that Judge Altonaga will be the first Cuban-American woman to sit on the Federal bench.

Judge Altonaga comes to us with bipartisan support after being unanimously approved by Florida's bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee. I commend Senators Graham and Nelson for insisting that a bipartisan selection commission be implemented in Florida. This shows how well it works.

We are moving down judicial vacancies. As we can see, starting in 1994, judicial vacancies increased actually

under Republican control of the Senate. It went from 63 up to 110. When Democrats took control and I became chairman, we cut that almost immediately from 110 to 60, with nominees of President Bush, notwithstanding all of President Clinton's nominees who had been blocked.

Circuit court nominees went from 16 vacancies under Republican Senate leadership up to 33. When I became chairman, we cut it immediately to 25. I note that because we did move to cut those vacancies--even though, in this case, it is Cuban-American women--there were many Hispanics and women nominated by President Clinton who were blocked or delayed by the Republican majority. We were told that unless every single Republican agreed, even if one disagreed, they would not get a hearing or a vote.

We had nominees such as Christine Arguello, Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Ricardo Morado who were never given hearings, including Judge Richard Paez, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Judge Hilda Tagle who were stalled for no good reason. Even though President Clinton's nominees had been blocked, we, the Democrats, when we took over, moved President Bush's nominees for the same spots.

I urge the White House to work with more Senators in forming selection commissions to ensure that we have nominees who are supported in their communities and come to the Senate with true, bipartisan support. Under this administration, we have seen the recommendations of such bipartisan panels rejected or stalled. Instead, the recommendations of these important bipartisan commissions should be honored and encouraged by expedited consideration before the committee and on the floor of the Senate.

Judge Altonaga is active in her community. She is a member of the Florida International University Law School Advisory Board, and belongs to the Dade County Bar Association, the Cuban American Bar Association, and the Florida Association of Women Lawyers. She has served as a member of the National Advisory Committee for Cultural Considerations in Domestic Violence Cases, the Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, and the First Family Law American Inns of Court.

During the 17 months I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I worked hard to ensure that women and minorities were considered for the federal bench, and I am proud of that record. Many Hispanics and women nominated by President Clinton were blocked or delayed by the Republican majority, and I did not want to see that repeated. Fine nominees such as Christine Arguello, Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno and Ricardo Morado were never given hearings. Others, including Judge Richard Paez, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Judge Hilda Tagle, were stalled for no good reason. I am proud that did not happen on my watch. I am glad to say that we quickly considered and confirmed nominees such as Christina Armijo to the District Court in New Mexico, Philip Martinez, to the District Court in Texas, Jose Martinez to the District Court in Florida, Alia Ludlum to the District Court in Texas, and Jose Linares to the District Court in New Jersey.

Also during the 17 months I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, three judicial nominees were confirmed to the District Courts of Florida. Timothy J. Corrigan was confirmed to the Middle District of Florida, and Jose E. Martinez and Kenneth A. Marra, were both confirmed to the Southern District of Florida.

I congratulate Judge Altonaga and her family on her confirmation.

Today the Senate is reducing the number of Federal judicial vacancies to the lowest level it has been in 13 years. The 110 vacancies I inherited in the summer of 2001 have been more than cut in half. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee we not only kept up with attrition but reduced those 110 vacancies to 60 with Judge Altonaga's confirmation and that of Patricia Minaldi we will have 47 vacancies for the entire federal judiciary. I thank all Senators for working with us. I thank the Democratic leadership for pressing for this vote on Judge Altonaga. I have spoken about her and urged this vote since she was reported by the Judiciary Committee almost 1 month ago.

Since July 2001 a number of Senators have worked very hard to repair the damage done during the years 1995 through the early part of 2001. We made significant progress. Unfortunately, our efforts have received little acknowledgement and the current administration continues down the strident path of confrontation and court packing rather than working with Senators of both parties to identify and nominate consensus, mainstream nominees.

While the Nation's unemployment rate rose last month to 6 percent, the vacancy rate on the federal judiciary has been lowered to 5.6 percent. While the number of private sector jobs lost since the beginning of the Bush administration is 2.7 million, almost 9 million Americans are now out of work, and unemployment has risen by more than 45 percent, Democrats in the Senate have cooperated in moving forward to confirm 123 of this President's judicial nominees, reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest level in years, and reduce federal judicial vacancies by almost 60 percent. Yet the Republican-led Senate remains obsessed with seeking to force through the most divisive of this President's controversial, ideologically-chosen nominees.

In just the last 2 years, 123 of the President's judicial nominees will have been confirmed. One hundred of those confirmations came during the 17 months of Democratic leadership of the Senate. No fair- minded observer could term that obstructionism. By contrast, during the six and one-half years during which Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton's nominations were being considered, they averaged only 38 confirmations a year. During the last two years of the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed only 73 Federal judges. Combining the 1996 and 1997 sessions, Republicans in the Senate allowed only 53 judges to be confirmed in two years, including only seven new judges to the circuit courts. One entire congressional session, the Republican-led Senate confirmed only 17 judges all year and none at all to the circuit courts. The Senate confirmed 72 judges nominated by President Bush last year alone under Democratic leadership.

The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, we inherited 110 judicial vacancies. These are the facts. Over the next 17 months, despite constant criticism from the administration, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of President Bush's nominees, including several who were divisive an controversial, several who had mixed peer review ratings from the ABA and at least one who had been rated not qualified. Despite the additional 40 vacancies that arose, we reduced judicial vacancies to 60, a level below that termed ``full employment'' on the federal judiciary by Senator Hatch.

Since the beginning of this year, in spite of the fixation of the Republican majority on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the number of judicial vacancies is at 47. That is the lowest it has been in several years. That is lower than it ever was allowed to go at any time during the entire eight years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 47, in less than two years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.6 percent, the lowest it has been since 1990. With some cooperation from the administration think of the additional progress we could be making.

The President promised to be a uniter not a divider, but he has continued to send us judicial nominees that divide our Nation and, in the case of Miguel Estrada, he has even managed to divide Hispanics across the country. The nomination and confirmation process begins with the President, and I urge him to work with us to find a way forward to unite, instead of divide, the Nation on these issues.

Republican talking points will likely focus on the impasse on two of the most extreme of the President's nominations rather than 123 confirmations and the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years. They will ignore their own recent filibusters against President Clinton's executive and judicial nominees in so doing.

What is unprecedented about the Estrada matter is that the administration and Republican leadership have

shown no willingness to be reasonable and accommodate Democratic Senators' request for information traditionally shared with the Senate by past administrations. That we have endured numerous cloture votes is an indictment of Republican intransigence on this matter, nothing more. What is unprecedented is that there has been no effort on the Republican side to work this matter out, as these matters have always been worked out in the past. What is unprecedented is that the Republican insistence to schedule cloture vote after cloture vote without first resolving the underlying problem caused by the administration's inflexibility.

What is unprecedented about the Owen nomination is that it was made at all. Judge Owen had a fair hearing and was given fair consideration for the Judicial Committee last year. We proceeded is spite of the fact that the Republican majority had refused to proceed with any of President Clinton's Fifth Circuit nominees during his last 4-year term. Never before in our history has a President renominated for the same vacancy someone voted down by the Judiciary Committee.

From 1995 through the summer of 2001, the Republican majority averaged only 38 confirmations a year with only seven to the Courts of Appeals. That explains why Federal judicial vacancies rose from 63 to 110 on the Republican watch and circuit vacancies more than doubled from 16 to 33. Of course, during those years there were no Republican- led hearings calling for prompt action or fair consideration of President Clinton's moderate judicial nominees. To the contrary, Senator Ashcroft held hearings designed to justify the slowdown. Senator Ashcroft and others perfected the practice of using anonymous holds both in committee and on the floor so that judicial nominees were stalled for months and years without consideration. Scores of nominees never received hearings, at least 10 who received hearings never received committee consideration and those who were ultimately considered often were delayed months and years.

Beginning in July 2001, Democrats started bringing accountability and openness to the process. In the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority we held more hearings on more judicial nominees, held more Committee votes and more Senate votes than before. We were able virtually to double the pace and productivity of the process. We did away with the secrecy of the ``blue slip'' and the anonymous hold. We considered President Bush's nominees fairly, responsibly and in those 17 months confirmed 100 of this President's nominees. We reversed the destructive trends with respect to the number of vacancies and length of time that nominees had to wait to be considered. While we could not consider all nominations simultaneously, we considered more, more quickly than in the preceding years. The Democratic majority inherited 110 judicial vacancies including a record 33 to the circuit courts. By December 2002, we were able through hard work to outpace the 40 additional vacancies that had arisen and reduce the remaining vacancies to 60, including 25 to the circuit courts. We have continued to cooperate and today the remaining vacancies number 47, including 20 on the circuit courts. This is the lowest vacancy number and lowest vacancy rate in 13 years.

Senator Hatch used to say, when President Clinton was nominating moderates to more than 100 vacancies, that there was no vacancies crisis. He used to say that he considered 67 vacancies to be ``full employment'' on the Federal judiciary. Today we are well short of 100 vacancies and well beyond what he used to term ``full employment'' with 47 vacancies. Today I expect the Senate to consider and confirm both Judge Cecilia Altonaga, who will be the first Cuban-American woman to serve on the Federal judiciary, and Patricia Minaldi, and thereby bring the remaining vacancies down to 47. The Committee continues to report nominations to fill additional vacancies, as well as, with another hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

This is not to say that our work is done. Last week, with the help and hard work of the Senate Leadership we were able to make additional progress. Last Wednesday, Majority Leader Frist used that word ``progress'' to describe how we have been able to resolve complications caused by the manner in which these nominations were forced through the Judiciary Committee. Last Thursday, I thanked the majority leader and the Democratic leader and others for their efforts in this regard and for working with us to bring the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to a vote without further, unnecessary delay.

Yesterday, the Senate debated and voted on the nomination of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit. She is the fourth nominee of President Bush to be confirmed to the Sixth Circuit in less than 2 years. During the entire second term of President Clinton, the Republican majority would not hold hearings or consider a single one of President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit--not Judge Helene White, not Kathleen McCree Lewis, not Professor Kent Markus. Nonetheless, while I was chair of the Judiciary Committee we proceeded to consider and confirm two conservative nominees of President Bush to the Sixth Circuit and this year the Senate has proceeded to confirm two more.

The work of the Senate would be more productive if this administration were more interested in filling vacancies with qualified, consensus nominees rather than packing the federal courts with activist judges. The nominations and confirmation process begins with the President. Far from being someone who has sought consensus and to unite us on judicial nominees, this President has used judicial nominees as a partisan weapon and sought sharply to tilt the courts ideologically. That is unfortunate. Some of us have urged another course, a course of cooperation and conciliation, but that is not the path this administration has chosen. Yet, in spite of the historically low level of cooperation from the White House, the Senate has already confirmed 123 of President Bush's judicial nominees, including some of the most divisive and controversial sent by any President.

Last week, the Senate proceeded to a vote on the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit. He received the fewest number of favorable votes of any nominee in almost 20 years with 52. He is the third controversial judicial nominee of this President against whom more than 40 negative votes were cast, yet those three nominees were not stalled and not subjected to a filibuster.

Our Senate leadership, both Republican and Democratic, have worked to correct some of the problems that arose from some of the earlier hearings and actions of this committee. Last week, we were able to hold a hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to the District of Columbia Circuit. We are all working hard to complete committee consideration of that nomination at the earliest opportunity. Thus, a number of additional, controversial nominations are in the process of being considered and will be considered by the Senate in due course.

My point is to underscore that we have made and are making real progress from the thoroughgoing obstruction from 1996 until 2001. While ``the glass is not full,'' it is more full than empty and more has been achieved than some want to acknowledge. One hundred and twenty-three lifetime confirmations in less than 2 years is better than any 2-year period from 1995 through 2000. We have reduced judicial vacancies to 47, which is the lowest number and lowest vacancy percentage in 13 years. During the entire eight-year term of President Clinton it was never allowed by Republicans to get that low. We have made tremendous progress. These achievements have not been easy.

The administration has chosen confrontation with the Congress, with the Senate and with this Committee. We are now proceeding at three to four times the pace Republicans maintained in reviewing President Clinton's judicial nominees. We have reached the point where this Committee and the Senate are often moving too fast on some nominations and we risk becoming a racing conveyor belt that rubber stamps rather than examines these lifetime appointments. Democrats have worked hard to repair the damage to the confirmation process and achieved significant results. Republicans seem merely results oriented and interested in ideological domination of the federal courts.

As Republicans turn their guns on the propriety of the filibuster in connection with judicial nominations, I

trust the Republican majority will not overlook the precedent on this question. Republicans not only joined in the filibuster of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, they joined in the filibuster of Stephen Breyer to the First Circuit, Judge Rosemary Barkett to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the Third Circuit, and Judge Richard Paez and Judge Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit. The truth is that filibusters on nominations and legislative matters and extended debate on judicial nominations, including circuit court nominations, have become more and more common on the initiative of Republicans working against Democratic nominees. Now that a Republican President, intent on packing the courts with ideologues, has seen two nominees delayed by filibusters, and even though the other 123 judges he nominated have been confirmed, partisans want to change the rules to make it easier for this President to get his way.

Of course, when they are in the majority Republicans have more successfully defeated nominees by refusing to proceed on them and have not publicly explained their actions, preferring to act in secret under the cloak of anonymity. From 1995 through 2001, when Republicans previously controlled the Senate majority, Republican efforts to defeat President Clinton's judicial nominees most often took place through inaction and anonymous holds for which no Republican Senator could be held accountable. Republicans held up almost 80 judicial nominees who were not acted upon during the Congress in which President Clinton first nominated them and eventually defeated more than 50 judicial nominees without a recorded Senate vote of any kind, just by refusing to proceed with hearings and Committee votes. These are just the sorts of stealth tactics Democrats have rejected.

Beyond judicial nominees, Republicans also filibustered the nomination of Executive Branch nominees. They successfully filibustered the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to become Surgeon General of the United States in spite of two cloture votes in 1995. Dr. David Satcher's subsequent nomination to be Surgeon General also required cloture, but he was successfully confirmed.

Other Executive Branch nominees who were filibustered by Republicans included Walter Dellinger's nomination to be Assistant Attorney General. Two cloture petitions were required to be filed on that nomination and both were rejected by Republicans. We were able finally to obtain a confirmation vote for Professor Walter Dellinger after significant efforts and he was confirmed to be Assistant Attorney General with 34 votes against him. He was never confirmed to his position as Solicitor General because Republicans had made clear their opposition to him. In addition, in 1993, Republicans objected to a number of State Department nominations and even the nomination of Janet Napolitano to serve as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, resulting in more cloture petitions. In 1994, Republicans successfully filibustered the nomination of Sam Brown to be an Ambassador. After three cloture motions were filed, his nomination was returned to President Clinton without Senate action. Also in 1994, two cloture motions were required to get a vote on the nomination of Derek Shearer to be an ambassador. And it likewise took two cloture motions to get a vote on the nomination of Ricki Tigert to chair the FDIC. So when Republican Senators now talk about the Senate Executive Calendar and Presidential nominees, they must be reminded that they recently filibustered many, many qualified nominees.

Filibusters should be and are rare. That there are two this year is a direct result of the strategy of confrontation sought by the White House and Senate Republicans. The administration holds the key to ending the Estrada impasse, as it has for the last year. It should cooperate with the Senate and provide access to his work papers, following the example set by all previous Republican and Democratic administrations. The renomination of Judge Owen was most ill-advised and unprecedented. Her nomination had already been rejected after fair hearings and thorough debate and a Committee vote last year. Some apparently want to rewrite the rules so that this President can have every nominee confirmed, no matter how divisive and controversial, by the Republican Senate majority.

Recently, I heard a respected Republican and senior advisor to the majority leader describe cloture as ``the fulcrum on which you balance the rights of the individual and the rights of the institution.'' He explained how important the rights of the minority party are in the Senate and how Senate rules are deliberately constructed to reflect that and protect the minority. That Republicans are now intent on rewriting longstanding Senate rules shows just how partisan and ends- oriented they have become.

The President promised to be a uniter not a divider, but he has continued to send us judicial nominees that divide our Nation. He has even managed to divide Hispanics across the country with the nomination of Mr. Estrada. He has managed to outrage disabled individuals by his nomination of Jeffery Sutton. The nomination and confirmation process begins with the President. I, again, urge him to work with us to identify and nominate qualified, consensus, mainstream nominees who all Americans can be confident will be fair and impartial and to abandon his ideological court-packing scheme.

Mr. President, am I correct that at 2:30 p.m. the vote is to take place?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my respected colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, a bill designed to improve the health of our Nation's schoolchildren. I am also pleased to have the support of Senators Bingaman, Dodd and Jeffords, who have worked with me in past Congresses on this bill. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks many more Senators will join us in this important effort.

We have an obesity crisis in America. Too many children are gaining too much weight. Advertisements for soda and candy bombard them from television, vending machines, and grocery store aisles. Schools, however, should be a healthy refuge from the outside world, where kids can learn to make the right choices when it comes to their diets. Nutrition education needs to be a critical component of every child's school day. But with all of the funds that Congress rightly appropriates each year for nutrition education and healthy school lunches and meals, our Nation's efforts are severely undermined when children have to walk through a gauntlet of vending machines offering unhealthy choices on the way to the cafeteria.

Under current regulations, schools may not offer soda, hard candies or other foods of minimal nutritional value in the cafeteria during lunch or breakfast. Unfortunately, some private companies have offered schools signing bonuses to openly flout this restriction, at times lining the halls to the cafeterias with foods that provide absolutely no nutritional value. In February 2001, the Washington Post reported that a school in Maryland had signed a contract with a soda company that contained a clause forbidding the school from enforcing the Federal ban on soda machines in schools. The clause read ``If the Board of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines are turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be suspended.'' In other words, the schools could only get commissions from the vending machines if they broke the law.

We can not sell our children's health to the highest bidder on a sodas contract. That is why our bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to more effectively restrict the sale of soft drinks and other foods of minimal nutritional value in schools that participate in the Federal school lunch program. We would give the Secretary authority to regulate these foods throughout the school grounds, until the end of the school lunch period. Our bill also mandates that the Secretary use the best science available to determine which foods provide no nutritional value. My bill will ensure that students are not substituting empty calorie sodas and snacks for their nutritious federally subsidized school meals.

According to a report issued by the Center for Science and the Public Interest, 20 years ago boys consumed more than twice as much milk as soda; now boys and girls drink twice as much soda as milk. This is a huge problem, particularly for girls--the teenage years are critical for building up a woman's lifetime supply of calcium. Girls who substitute soda for milk are at a greater risk for developing osteoporosis later in life. We must provide our kids with better options. I have no problem with vending machines themselves, but let's get vending machines that sell fresh milk, fruits and vegetables into our schools.

Senator Lugar and I have successfully worked together on many important issues relating to child nutrition and agriculture in the past. I am extremely pleased that we can work together again to create healthier schools and healthier children.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Better Nutrition for Schoolchildren Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my respected colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, a bill designed to improve the health of our Nation's schoolchildren. I am also pleased to have the support of Senators Bingaman, Dodd and Jeffords, who have worked with me in past Congresses on this bill. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks many more Senators will join us in this important effort.

We have an obesity crisis in America. Too many children are gaining too much weight. Advertisements for soda and candy bombard them from television, vending machines, and grocery store aisles. Schools, however, should be a healthy refuge from the outside world, where kids can learn to make the right choices when it comes to their diets. Nutrition education needs to be a critical component of every child's school day. But with all of the funds that Congress rightly appropriates each year for nutrition education and healthy school lunches and meals, our Nation's efforts are severely undermined when children have to walk through a gauntlet of vending machines offering unhealthy choices on the way to the cafeteria.

Under current regulations, schools may not offer soda, hard candies or other foods of minimal nutritional value in the cafeteria during lunch or breakfast. Unfortunately, some private companies have offered schools signing bonuses to openly flout this restriction, at times lining the halls to the cafeterias with foods that provide absolutely no nutritional value. In February 2001, the Washington Post reported that a school in Maryland had signed a contract with a soda company that contained a clause forbidding the school from enforcing the Federal ban on soda machines in schools. The clause read ``If the Board of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines are turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be suspended.'' In other words, the schools could only get commissions from the vending machines if they broke the law.

We can not sell our children's health to the highest bidder on a sodas contract. That is why our bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to more effectively restrict the sale of soft drinks and other foods of minimal nutritional value in schools that participate in the Federal school lunch program. We would give the Secretary authority to regulate these foods throughout the school grounds, until the end of the school lunch period. Our bill also mandates that the Secretary use the best science available to determine which foods provide no nutritional value. My bill will ensure that students are not substituting empty calorie sodas and snacks for their nutritious federally subsidized school meals.

According to a report issued by the Center for Science and the Public Interest, 20 years ago boys consumed more than twice as much milk as soda; now boys and girls drink twice as much soda as milk. This is a huge problem, particularly for girls--the teenage years are critical for building up a woman's lifetime supply of calcium. Girls who substitute soda for milk are at a greater risk for developing osteoporosis later in life. We must provide our kids with better options. I have no problem with vending machines themselves, but let's get vending machines that sell fresh milk, fruits and vegetables into our schools.

Senator Lugar and I have successfully worked together on many important issues relating to child nutrition and agriculture in the past. I am extremely pleased that we can work together again to create healthier schools and healthier children.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Better Nutrition for Schoolchildren Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, today we consider another controversial and divisive judicial nomination, that of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just last week we debated and voted on the controversial nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit. The vote on his confirmation received the fewest positive votes in almost 20 years. Only 52 Senators voted in favor of his confirmation and appointment to the Sixth Circuit. This number demonstrates the serious opposition many conscientious Senators have to some of the extreme nominations this administration has been insisting be confirmed in its continuing effort to take ideological control of the Federal courts.

The nomination of Deborah Cook to be Judge Sutton's colleague on the Sixth Circuit also presents many serious problems. I believe that it is important to make the record clear that her nomination has a unique procedural posture, especially in light of the recent history of Republican obstruction of President Clinton's nominations to that important court. These procedural controversies are in addition to significant substantive concerns raised by Justice Cook's record as an activist State judge. Similar to Justice Priscilla Owen, Deborah Cook's judicial record is replete with evidence of results-oriented reasoning.

Similar to Priscilla Owen, Justice Cook has demonstrated herself to be an activist judge. Justice Cook sits on a court that is numerically dominated by Republicans. Given the partisan politicization of the judiciary by Republicans over the last several years, one might expect that Justice Cook would be part of the Ohio Supreme Court's majority in all but rare instances and that the two Democratic judges might be the most frequent dissenters. However, Justice Cook is the most active dissenter on the Republican-dominated Ohio Supreme Court. She is the most extreme of her colleagues and demonstrates an inability to reach consensus with seemingly like-minded judges. I fear that if confirmed, her inability to reach a consensus would further polarize the Sixth Circuit, as well.

Justice Cook's dissents distort precedent, misinterpret legislative intent and demonstrate results-oriented reasoning in an effort to suppress workers' rights. She has repeatedly voted to protect corporations that have harmed or lied to employees. One example is Bunger v. Lawson, where a convenience store employee who had been robbed at gunpoint was denied psychological trauma remedies, while the employer had failed to install basic safety features such as a working phone and door locks. Similar to Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Cook's own Republican colleagues have criticized her extremist opinions. The court in Bunger called Justice Cook's interpretation of the law ``nonsensical,'' and said that it, ``leads to an untenable position that is unfair to employees.'' Taking the position adopted by Justice Cook in her dissent would be, as the majority clearly stated, ``an absurd interpretation that seems borrowed from the pages of Catch-22.''

Similarly, Justice Cook sought to deny workers compensation benefits to another employee in a case called Russell v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. In Russell, Justice Cook's dissent ignored the plain language of the statute and the relevant precedent regarding workers compensation benefits. The Court's opinion stated that Justice Cook's dissent:

lacks statutory support for its position [and she] has been

unable to cite even the slightest dictum from any case to

support its view . . . . [the] dissent's argument, which has

not been raised by the commission, the bureau, the claimant's

employer, or any of their supporting amici, is entirely

without merit. Russell at 1073-74.

I ask my colleagues, is this the type of judge who should be given a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench?

As a former prosecutor, I am also troubled by Justice Cook's opinions that repeatedly seek to disregard jury findings in powerful discrimination cases. Anyone who has ever tried a case to verdict before a jury knows how much time and effort goes into the lengthy process. For this reason, jury verdicts should be given the utmost respect on appeal. In Byrnes v. LCI Communications, Justice Cook voted with a 3-judge plurality to overturn a $7.1 million jury verdict for employees in an age discrimination case despite powerful evidence of statements made by the employer about the relative merits of having a younger staff. Evidence in the plaintiffs' favor in this case included blatant statements from the employer that he wanted ``to bring in young, aggressive staff managers and change out the old folks,'' and that ``some of the older folks there could no longer contribute.'' In Byrnes, the jury also heard testimony that the employer said a certain worker was, ``too old to grasp the concepts that he was looking for,'' and that he did not, ``want old marathoners in my sales organization . . . I want young sprinters.'' These statements are directly relevant to a jury's determination whether the employer engaged in age discrimination. Yet, Justice Cook demonstrated her lack of respect for the jury's role in our system of justice by voting to overturn the jury's determination. Unfortunately, this case is not an isolated incident. Justice Cook also voted to overturn jury verdicts in other discrimination cases such as Gliner v. St. Gobain Norton Industries and Perez v. Falls Financial Incorporated.

In addition to her apparent bias against workers' rights, Justice Cook opposes the rights of consumers and victims even in the most compelling cases. For example, in Sutowski v. Eli Lilly, Justice Cook wrote for a divided majority that denied plaintiffs the ability to claim damage to their reproductive systems due to in utero exposure to DES, a drug known to cause cancer and reproductive disorders. She denied these victims the ability to rely on the market-share theory in their complaints against the manufacturers even though the market-share theory was virtually invented for DES cases where hundreds of companies manufactured the drug but the victims could have no idea by whose drug they were affected. Her colleagues in dissent severely criticized Justice Cook's opinion stating that she ``selectively quoted,'' from a prior Ohio case:

. . . to create the impression that the General Assembly is

the only appropriate body to recognize the market-share

liability theory in DES litigation. The majority then uses

that misguided impression as a platform for launching into a

tortured analysis of Ohio's Products Liability Act. It is

here that the majority's shell game becomes most deceptive.

In another case, Williams v. Aetna Finance, Justice Cook dissented from the majority's affirmation of the trial courts' holding that an arbitration clause was unconscionable in a case involving a scheme to defraud elderly African American home owners into home improvement loans at exorbitant rates.

These are just a few examples of the hundreds of cases that Justice Cook has decided as a State court judge. They provide a picture of a judge with a proclivity for stretching the boundaries of precedent to rule against victims and workers in favor of corporations. On the substance of her record as a judge, I have concluded that Deborah Cook is a conservative activist who is hostile to consumers, victims, workers and civil rights. The prospect of elevating this activist judge to a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench has generated a significant amount of controversy. We have received letters of opposition from many national organizations that represent labor and consumers, as well as local citizens groups and law professors who oppose her nomination to the Sixth Circuit.

Justice Cook's nomination was forced out of the Judiciary Committee over the objection of the Democratic Senators and in violation of our longstanding Committee rules. The Democratic members of the Committee sought additional time to debate her nomination. Such requests have always before been honored on the Judiciary Committee, which for 24 years had a rule providing protection for minority rights to debate. Rule IV requires the votes of 10 Senators to bring a matter to a vote and one of those votes to end debate must be cast by a member of the minority. In their determination to bring this controversial nominee to the floor in February, Republicans unilaterally overruled the Committee rules by not allowing a vote to end debate

over the objection of Democratic Senators. Along with several other Senators, I voted ``present'' in protest of this violation of our rules and rights.

Over the last several weeks our Republican and Democratic Senate leadership has discussed the violation of Senators' rights that occurred on February 27. I thank them for their attention to these matters and for working with us to address our concerns.

In addition, there is the serious matter of the mistreatment of previous nominations to the Sixth Circuit by the Republican majority. Deborah Cook is nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court to which President Clinton had an impossible time getting his nominees considered. For years, the Sixth Circuit has been one of the prime targets of Republicans intent on ideological court packing. During President Clinton's entire second term, not a single nominee to the Sixth Circuit was allowed a hearing or a vote by the Republican majority. Three highly qualified, moderate nominees to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Helene White, Kathleen McCree Lewis and Professor Kent Markus, were all denied hearings and votes in the years 1997 through 2001. Republicans today fail to acknowledge that the vacancies that have plagued the Sixth Circuit in recent years are the result of their tactics to prevent any action on any of President Clinton's nominees.

Judge Helene White of the Michigan Court of Appeals was nominated in January 1997 and did not receive a hearing on her nomination during the more than 1,500 days before her nomination was withdrawn by President Bush in March 2001. Judge White's nomination may have set an unfortunate but unforgettable record. Her nomination was pending without a hearing for more than four years. She was one of almost 80 Clinton judicial nominees who did not get a hearing during the Congress in which first nominated. Unfortunately, she was also denied a hearing after being renominated a number of times over the next four years, including in January 2001.

Likewise, Kathleen McCree Lewis, a distinguished African American lawyer from a prestigious Michigan law firm was also never accorded a hearing on her 1999 nomination to the Sixth Circuit. This daughter of a former Sixth Circuit judge and Solicitor General of the United States was never accorded a hearing or vote by the Republican majority. Her nomination was withdrawn by President Bush in March 2001 without ever having been considered.

Professor Kent Markus was another outstanding nominee to a vacancy on the Sixth Circuit. He had served at the Department of Justice and was nominated by President Clinton in 1999, but never received a hearing before his nomination was returned to President Clinton without action in December 2000. While Professor Markus' nomination was pending, his confirmation was supported by individuals of every political stripe, including 14 past presidents of the Ohio State Bar Association and more than 80 Ohio law school deans and professors.

As Professor Markus testified last year, he was told by Republicans that some on the other side of the aisle held these seats open for years for a Republican President to fill, instead of proceeding fairly on the consensus nominees then pending before the Senate. The Republican majority was unwilling to move forward, knowing that retirements and attrition would create four additional seats that would arise naturally for the next President. That is how the Sixth Circuit was left with eight vacancies, half of its authorized strength, in 2001.

Had Republicans not blocked President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit, if the three Democratic nominees had been confirmed and President Bush appointed the judges to the other vacancies on the Sixth Circuit, that court would be almost evenly balanced between judges appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents. That is what Republican obstruction was designed to prevent--balance. The same is true of a number of other circuits, with Republicans benefiting from their obstructionist practices of the preceding six and a half years. This, combined with President Bush's refusal to consult with Democratic Senators about these matters, is particularly troubling.

Long before some of the recent voices of concern were raised about the vacancies on the Sixth Circuit, Democratic Senators in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 implored the Republican majority to give President Clinton's distinguished and moderate Sixth Circuit nominees hearings. Those requests, made not just for the sake of the nominees but for the sake of the public's business before the court, were ignored. Numerous articles and editorials urged the Republican leadership to act on those nominations. The growing vacancies on the Sixth Circuit were ignored by the Republican majority.

The former Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit, Judge Gilbert Merritt, wrote to the Judiciary Committee Chairman years ago to ask that the nominees get hearings and that the vacancies be filled. The Chief Judge predicted that by the time the next President was inaugurated, there would be at least six vacancies on the Court of Appeals. In fact, there were soon eight. Despite all these pleas, no hearing on a single Sixth Circuit nominee was held in the last three full years of the Clinton Administration. Not one. The situation was exacerbated further as two additional vacancies arose. And regrettably, despite my best efforts, this White House has rejected all suggestions to redress the legitimate concerns of Senators in that circuit that qualified, moderate nominees were blocked by Republicans Senators during the previous administration. Instead, the White House forwarded several extreme nominees to fill the seats that their party held hostage while leading the Senate during the prior administration.

When I scheduled the April 2001 hearing on the nomination of Judge Gibbons to the Sixth Circuit, it was the first hearing on a Sixth Circuit nomination in almost 5 years, even though three outstanding, fair-minded individuals were nominated to the Sixth Circuit by President Clinton and pending before the Committee for anywhere from one year to over 4 years. Despite the partisan treatment of President Clinton's nominees, I went forward. The conservative Judge Gibbons was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2002, by a vote of 95 to 0. We did not stop there, but proceeded to hold a hearing on a second Sixth Circuit nominee, Professor John Marshall Rogers, just a few short months later in June. This conservative was likewise confirmed last year.

Thus, the Democratically-led Senate proceeded to hold hearings, give Committee consideration and confirm two of President Bush's conservative nominees to the Sixth Circuit last year. With the confirmations of Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of Tennessee and Professor John Marshall Rogers of Kentucky, Democrats confirmed the only two new judges to the Sixth Circuit in the previous 5 years.

Under the current Republican leadership, our Committee raced to hold Justice Cook's hearing at the same time as two other controversial circuit court nominees, including Jeffrey Sutton. This triple hearing resulted in a marathon sitting lasting almost 12 hours. Most of the questioning focused on Jeffrey Sutton and relatively little time was dedicated to Justice Cook. Many Democrats serving on the Judiciary Committee requested an additional hearing for Justice Cook and Mr. Roberts. That request was denied for Justice Cook. We invited Justice Cook and Mr. Roberts to meet with us. That request was denied. Then Republicans overrode our longstanding Committee rules in order to report those nominations without proper consideration before the Judiciary Committee.

This nomination is one of a long line of divisive and controversial nominations on which this Administration and the Republican majority in the Senate insist. They are taking full advantage of their power after having unfairly refused to consider President Clinton's well qualified, moderate nominees and now insisting that the administration's ideological court packing scheme be put into effect. The ideological takeover of the Sixth Circuit is all but complete with the confirmation of Judge Gibbons, Professor Rogers, Mr. Sutton and now Justice Cook.

Mr. President, I yield the remaining time.

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

Mr. President, for some reason the Republican leadership is forcing what may be the fifth vote on a cloture motion on this divisive and controversial nomination.

I mention that because none of these cloture motions would have been needed if the administration had simply cooperated with the Senate as did prior administrations, Democratic and Republican. I have been here with six different administrations. The previous five always, no matter who was President, no matter who was in the majority in the Senate, always showed cooperation on judicial nominations as, I believe, has every President in the last century. Not this one.

I mention that because we are having this vote yet nothing has changed since the last cloture vote. No effort has been forthcoming by the administration to accommodate Senators' requests for access to the executive branch documents requested last May, almost a year ago. Everybody says Mr. Estrada is perfectly willing to come up and answer Senators' questions but not to answer the only questions the Senators really want to ask him.

Remember, this man was appointed based on what the administration knows of his writings while employed in the government. They have access to these writings. They say, in effect: Trust us. I am a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan's position: Trust but verify. I would like him to verify what was in these writings. We have not had access to them. If we did, we wouldn't be needing all these cloture votes.

Since the beginning of this year, despite the fixation on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the number of judicial vacancies is 49. That is the lowest it has been in many years. That is lower than at any time during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110, when I became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to 49. We did this in less than 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.7 percent, the lowest it has been in a decade. If we could get even a modicum of cooperation from the administration, think of the additional progress we could be making.

The Nation's unemployment rate rose last month to 6 percent, but the vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary dipped to 5.7 percent. While the number of private sector jobs lost since the beginning of this administration is 2.7 million, and while almost 9 million Americans are now out of work, and unemployment has risen by more than 45 percent during this administration, Democrats in the Senate have cooperated, moving forward to confirm 121 of the President's judicial nominees to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest level in more than a decade and to reduce Federal judicial vacancies by more than 60 percent.

Apparently, the majority in the Senate remains obsessed in seeking to force through the most divisive of this President's controversial, ideologically chosen nominees. While they have pushed the Nation's unemployment rate up to 6 percent, they have focused their energies on dropping the vacancy rate of the Federal judiciary to below that.

I think it is unfortunate that the White House and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have insisted on this confrontation rather than working with us to provide the needed information so we could proceed on the Estrada nomination. Some seem to prefer political game playing, seeking to pack the courts with ideologues and leveling baseless charges of bigotry at those who may disagree with them, rather than working with us on this nomination by providing information and proceeding to a fair vote.

We have spent day after day on this nomination that will not go any further until the nominee is given permission to provide answers to us regarding the same questions that were obviously asked by the administration. What was it he wrote that made the administration want to appoint him to the second highest court in the land?

On one level, I admire their efforts to get this high-paying lifetime job for this nominee. Maybe they should talk about the 9 million Americans who do not have any lifetime job, who now don't have any job; or the 2.7 million Americans who have lost their jobs since this administration came into office. Maybe we should be debating that. Maybe we should be working to put them back to work. Apparently, the administration believes it is more important to have this one job.

In that regard, just as any employer would want to know why they should hire a particular person, we in the Senate have a right to ask what is it in this man's record that made the administration want to appoint him to the second highest court in the land. But they don't want us to see what it was on which they based their decision. Maybe they believe the Senate is irrelevant.

That is not the way I read the advise and consent clause. Let us see what brought them to their conclusion, and then let us go forward. Let's actually take those steps that would unite us rather than divide us, and then maybe the administration will be able to turn to the lives of the millions upon millions of Americans who are out of work--the highest unemployment rate in a decade.

To reiterate, today the Republican leadership in the Senate is forcing what may be the fifth vote on a cloture motion on this divisive and controversial nomination. None of these motions would have been needed if the administration had cooperated with the Senate as have prior administrations, Democratic and Republican. Nothing has changed from the last cloture vote. No effort has been forthcoming by the administration to accommodate Senators' requests for access to the executive branch documents requested last May, almost 1 year ago. The White House continues to obstruct any progress toward resolving this matter

by its unprecedented refusal to turn over documents requested to determine whether or not Miguel Estrada should sit on the second highest court in the land, for life. Mr. Estrada's nomination is apparently being sacrificed by the administration for its own partisan, political purposes.

I do want to thank the Democratic leadership in the Senate for working with us and helping press for a vote on the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the Fifth Circuit last week. We had been seeking that vote for several weeks, since his nomination was favorably reported with the support of every Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. Last Thursday, the Republican leadership at last agreed to schedule that nomination for Senate consideration. Judge Prado's nomination was confirmed 97 to zero. This nomination is another example of how quickly the Senate is able to proceed on consensus, mainstream nominees. Judge Prado has 19 years of experience as a U.S. District Court judge. Our review of his actions on the bench showed him to have a solid record of fairness and evenhandedness. No supervisor or colleague of Judge Prado has questioned his willingness to interpret the law fairly. Judge Prado enjoyed the full support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Not a single person or organization submitted a letter of opposition or raised concerns about Judge Prado.

Judge Prado is now the second nominee of this President to be confirmed by the Senate to the Fifth Circuit after years during which President Clinton's nominees were denied hearings and consideration by a Republican Senate majority. Although Republicans had refused to proceed on three of President Clinton's nominees to that court--two from Texas and one from Louisiana--during his entire second term, Democrats proceeded with hearings and committee votes on all three of President Bush's nominees. Judge Prado is the fourth nominee of this administration to receive a hearing and consideration.

Still stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar is the nomination of Judge Cecilia Altonaga to be a Federal judge in Florida. Senator Graham requested that the Judiciary Committee expedite the consideration of her nomination, and we did. All Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee supported this nomination. She will be the first Cuban- American woman to be confirmed to the Federal bench, whenever the Republican majority is willing to proceed on her nomination. In my view, the Senate's time would be better spent this evening voting on this nomination than another unsuccessful cloture vote on the Estrada nomination. Unfortunately, that is not how the Republican leadership has chosen to proceed.

The administration remains intent on packing the Federal circuit courts and on insisting that the Senate rubberstamp its nominees without fulfilling this body's constitutional advise and consent role in this most important process. The White House could have long ago helped solve the impasse on the Estrada nomination by honoring the Senate's role in the appointment process and providing the Senate with access to Mr. Estrada's legal work. Past administrations have provided such legal memoranda in connection with the nominations of Robert Bork, William Rehnquist, Brad Reynolds, Stephen Trott and Ben Civiletti, and even this administration did so with a nominee to the Environmental Protection Agency. In my statement in connection with an earlier cloture petition, I outlined additional precedent for sharing the requested materials with the Senate, as did Senator Kennedy. I am disappointed that the White House refuses to end this problem and, instead, continues to politicize the process.

We understand that the President's nominees will be Republicans. We understand they will be conservative. We understand that they will have positions with which we disagree. I have voted for hundreds of nominees who were conservative Republicans.

In just the last 2 years, 121 of the President's judicial nominees have been confirmed. One hundred of those confirmations came during the 17 months of Democratic leadership of the Senate. No fair-minded observer could term that obstructionism. By contrast, during the 6\1/2\ years during which Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton's nominations were being considered, they averaged only 38 confirmations a year. During the last two years of the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed only 73 Federal judges--the Senate confirmed 72 judges nominated by President Bush last year alone. Combining the 1996 and 1997 sessions, Republicans in the Senate allowed only 53 judges to be confirmed in 2 years, including only seven new judges to the Circuit Courts.

It is a shame that the White House refuses to work together with us to do even more to help the Federal judiciary. This week, we have already had a debate and vote on yet another controversial circuit court nominee, Deborah Cook, for the Sixth Circuit, and now a cloture vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, when we inherited 110 judicial vacancies, there was a dire need to fill judicial vacancies. Over the next 17 months, despite constant criticism from the administration, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of President Bush's nominees, including several who were divisive and controversial, several who had mixed peer review ratings from the ABA, and at least one who had been rated not qualified. Despite the additional 40 vacancies that arose, we reduced judicial vacancies to 60, a level below that termed ``full employment'' by Senator Hatch. Since the beginning of this year, in spite of the fixation of the Republican majority on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the number of judicial vacancies is at 49. That is the lowest it has been in 7 years. That is lower than at any time during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 49, in less than 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.7 percent, the lowest it has been in a decade. With some cooperation from this administration, think of the additional progress we could be making.

While the Nation's unemployment rate rose last month to 6 percent, the vacancy rate on the Federal judiciary dipped to 5.7 percent. While the number of private sector jobs lost since the beginning of the Bush administration is 2.7 million, almost 9 million Americans are now out of work, and unemployment has risen by more than 45 percent, Democrats in the Senate have cooperated in moving forward to confirm 121 of this President's judicial nominees, to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest level in more than a decade, and to reduce Federal judicial vacancies by almost 60 percent. Yet the Republican-led Senate remains obsessed with seeking to force through the most divisive of this President's controversial, ideologically-chosen nominees.

It is unfortunate that the White House and some Republicans have insisted on this confrontation rather than working with us to provide the needed information so that we could proceed on the Estrada nomination. Some on the Republican side seem to prefer political game playing, seeking to pack our courts with ideologues and leveling baseless charges of bigotry, rather than to work with us to resolve the impasse over this nomination by providing information and proceeding to a fair vote.

I was disappointed that Senator Bennett's straightforward colloquy with Senator Reid and me on February 14, which pointed to a solution, was never allowed by hard-liners on the other side to yield results. I am disappointed that all my efforts and those of Senator Daschle and Senator Reid have been rejected by the White House. The letter that Senator Daschle sent to the President on February 11 pointed the way to resolving this matter reasonably and fairly. Republicans would apparently rather engage in partisan politics.

Republican talking points will undoubtedly claim that this is ``unprecedented.'' They will ignore their own recent filibusters against President Clinton's executive and judicial nominees in so doing. The only thing unprecedented about this matter is that the administration and Republican leadership have shown no willingness to be

reasonable and accommodate Democratic Senators' request for information traditionally shared with the Senate by past administrations. That this is the fifth cloture vote on this matter is an indictment of Republican intransigence on this matter, nothing more. What is unprecedented is that there has been no effort on the Republican side to work this matter out as these matters have always been worked out in the past. What is unprecedented is the Republican insistence to schedule cloture vote after cloture vote without first resolving the underlying problem caused by the administration's inflexibility.

I urge the White House and Senate Republicans to end the political warfare and join with us in good faith to make sure the information that is needed to review this nomination is provided so that the Senate may conclude its consideration of this nomination. I urge the White House, as I have for more than 2 years, to work with us and, quoting from today's New York Times editorial:

The answer is not to try to twist the rules or demonize

Democrats. It is for the White House to consult with the

Senate and agree on nominees that senators from both parties

can in good conscience confirm.

The President promised to be a uniter not a divider, but he has continued to send us judicial nominees that divide our nation and, in this case, he has even managed to divide Hispanics across the country. The nomination and confirmation process begins with the President, and I urge him to work with us to find a way forward to unite, instead of divide, the Nation as well as the Senate on these issues.

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

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

Mr. President, if I have any remaining time, I yield it.

Mr. President, over the past few months the International Criminal Court, ICC, has taken important steps towards becoming an effective forum to hold accountable those accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. By all accounts, the countries participating in these negotiations did an excellent job of selecting qualified jurists and, perhaps most importantly, a responsible and experienced prosecutor.

But an important voice is missing from these negotiations. That voice is the United States, a country which was founded on the principles of the rule of law, human rights, and democratic freedoms.

Perhaps more than at any other time, the past few months have highlighted the folly of the Bush administration's policy towards the

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my Child Nutrition Initiatives Act of 2003. This legislation consists of a number of proposals that I believe will significantly improve the nutrition benefits available to our Nation's children through Federal child nutrition programs.

I am hoping that this legislation will serve as a starting point in the Senate's debate over how to improve child nutrition programs this year. It is not meant to be a comprehensive proposal for reauthorization, nor does it represent all of the potential improvements that could be made to the programs that I will be supporting in the Agriculture Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran and with Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, as well as the rest of the Committee to craft a comprehensive bill.

The Committee has already held two hearings on child nutrition legislation, where we heard from a wide variety of nutritionists, school food service operators and others interested in these programs. They presented us with a wide variety of ideas, some of them appearing in my bill, which underlined the immense impact of these programs to the nutritional health and well-being of all of our children and grandchildren. Undersecretary Bost also testified, and he too offered an array of proposals for improving these programs. I look forward to more detailed proposals from the Department of Agriculture on how we can better serve the children in these programs.

I was encouraged to hear that the Administration is interested in providing much-needed financial help for schools choosing to improve their nutritional environment. We know that many school food service directors and employees want to offer healthier, more appetizing options to the children they serve, yet the cost of providing attractive fresh fruits and vegetables, or milk in child-friendly plastic containers kept chilled in a cooler, is often prohibitive. Increased per-meal reimbursements will encourage school cafeterias to spend more on the foods that are healthiest for kids. With these funds, schools will be able to make the salad bar and the milk cooler just as attractive to school children as less nutritious foods.

Healthier food in the school cafeteria does little good if children do not understand the benefits of eating apples over high-fat junk food. For years, the Nutrition Education and Training, NET, program provided critical support for state and local efforts to increase and improve nutrition education in classrooms. It is in the classrooms where the most effective and innovative nutrition education is happening, and NET offered teachers the resources they needed to develop a nutritional curriculum for their students. Unfortunately, this program has not been funded in the last few years. My bill would reinstate funding for the NET program, and encourage strong nutrition education at the local level.

It is amazing how many kids do not know where the food that they eat comes from. It's also amazing how far some farm products travel to get to the cafeteria table. My bill includes a farm-to-cafeteria program that will provide one-time grants to connect farms with their local school system. These grants would be used to buy equipment and pay for other costs to provide the freshest farm products available to our children. Projects funded by the farm-to-cafeteria program would also give children first-hand experience about how food is produced. This new program would also provide economic benefits for small, local firms by keeping food dollars within the community.

My support for these new farm-to-cafeteria projects comes in part from the amazing successes demonstrated by the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Years ago, I helped create this program, which provides vouchers to WIC families good for fruits and vegetables at their local farmers market. The effects of this program have been stunning. In Vermont, recipients and farmers are raving about this program, which provides fresh, local, and healthy food to those who need it most. There has also been an unexpected educational component to this program, with many recipients reporting that the farmers who sell them the food have also helped them learn how to best prepare it. This is a win-win situation. My bill will secure steady and predictable funding for the Farmers Market Nutrition Program.

Every State receives a small amount of funds to administer and ensure the integrity of all Federal child nutrition programs. Though these funds are distributed based on usage of the programs, there has been an all-State minimum to ensure that all States still have enough funds to meet the basic administrative requirements mandated by law. This minimum, however, has not been raised since 1981, despite inflation and expansion of the responsibilities of the states. My bill updates the minimum funding level to reflect inflation since 1981 and also indexes it for inflation into the future.

I am pleased that my bill has the support of the American School Food Service Association, the National Association for Farmers Market Nutrition Programs, the National Milk Producers Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the Community Food Service Coalition.

Opponents of my bill will undoubtedly point to the cost of these programs, stating ``there is no money for such programs.'' Well, I answer them

with one word: priorities. Our Nation is faced with a growing health crisis. Children are growing up and growing out. They eat more, eat less nutritious foods and exercise less. It is a health epidemic that plagues them throughout life. By acting now, we can increase the quality of life for these children and save in healthcare costs down the line. For example, a study for the American School Food Service Association and the National Dairy Council found that by improving the quality, and therefore consumption, of milk in our school lunch programs, we could save between $800 million to $1.1 billion in health care costs every year.

I joined with a number of fellow senators in requesting that Congress provide a modest increase of $1 billion per year in the Budget Resolution so that we on the authorizing committees might make some long-awaited and essential improvements to the child nutrition programs. I am disappointed that increased funds were not provided. The Senate sent a clear message to America's children: we would rather give a several hundred billion dollar tax cut to a small minority of health adults than protect our children, through $1 billion in programming, from a health crisis.

The Federal Government reaches well over 25 million children each year with these programs. We have a tremendous opportunity to be proactive--to teach kids about food and give them nutritious options. We have a growing health crisis on our hands as our children grow wider because of unhealthy diets and less exercise. We must get serious about finding solutions to the problem. Or we can wait, and allow a system already doing its very best, working at maximum capacity, to deteriorate. I am for acting now and I hope the Senate is too.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my Child Nutrition Initiatives Act of 2003. This legislation consists of a number of proposals that I believe will significantly improve the nutrition benefits available to our Nation's children through Federal child nutrition programs.

I am hoping that this legislation will serve as a starting point in the Senate's debate over how to improve child nutrition programs this year. It is not meant to be a comprehensive proposal for reauthorization, nor does it represent all of the potential improvements that could be made to the programs that I will be supporting in the Agriculture Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran and with Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, as well as the rest of the Committee to craft a comprehensive bill.

The Committee has already held two hearings on child nutrition legislation, where we heard from a wide variety of nutritionists, school food service operators and others interested in these programs. They presented us with a wide variety of ideas, some of them appearing in my bill, which underlined the immense impact of these programs to the nutritional health and well-being of all of our children and grandchildren. Undersecretary Bost also testified, and he too offered an array of proposals for improving these programs. I look forward to more detailed proposals from the Department of Agriculture on how we can better serve the children in these programs.

I was encouraged to hear that the Administration is interested in providing much-needed financial help for schools choosing to improve their nutritional environment. We know that many school food service directors and employees want to offer healthier, more appetizing options to the children they serve, yet the cost of providing attractive fresh fruits and vegetables, or milk in child-friendly plastic containers kept chilled in a cooler, is often prohibitive. Increased per-meal reimbursements will encourage school cafeterias to spend more on the foods that are healthiest for kids. With these funds, schools will be able to make the salad bar and the milk cooler just as attractive to school children as less nutritious foods.

Healthier food in the school cafeteria does little good if children do not understand the benefits of eating apples over high-fat junk food. For years, the Nutrition Education and Training, NET, program provided critical support for state and local efforts to increase and improve nutrition education in classrooms. It is in the classrooms where the most effective and innovative nutrition education is happening, and NET offered teachers the resources they needed to develop a nutritional curriculum for their students. Unfortunately, this program has not been funded in the last few years. My bill would reinstate funding for the NET program, and encourage strong nutrition education at the local level.

It is amazing how many kids do not know where the food that they eat comes from. It's also amazing how far some farm products travel to get to the cafeteria table. My bill includes a farm-to-cafeteria program that will provide one-time grants to connect farms with their local school system. These grants would be used to buy equipment and pay for other costs to provide the freshest farm products available to our children. Projects funded by the farm-to-cafeteria program would also give children first-hand experience about how food is produced. This new program would also provide economic benefits for small, local firms by keeping food dollars within the community.

My support for these new farm-to-cafeteria projects comes in part from the amazing successes demonstrated by the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Years ago, I helped create this program, which provides vouchers to WIC families good for fruits and vegetables at their local farmers market. The effects of this program have been stunning. In Vermont, recipients and farmers are raving about this program, which provides fresh, local, and healthy food to those who need it most. There has also been an unexpected educational component to this program, with many recipients reporting that the farmers who sell them the food have also helped them learn how to best prepare it. This is a win-win situation. My bill will secure steady and predictable funding for the Farmers Market Nutrition Program.

Every State receives a small amount of funds to administer and ensure the integrity of all Federal child nutrition programs. Though these funds are distributed based on usage of the programs, there has been an all-State minimum to ensure that all States still have enough funds to meet the basic administrative requirements mandated by law. This minimum, however, has not been raised since 1981, despite inflation and expansion of the responsibilities of the states. My bill updates the minimum funding level to reflect inflation since 1981 and also indexes it for inflation into the future.

I am pleased that my bill has the support of the American School Food Service Association, the National Association for Farmers Market Nutrition Programs, the National Milk Producers Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the Community Food Service Coalition.

Opponents of my bill will undoubtedly point to the cost of these programs, stating ``there is no money for such programs.'' Well, I answer them

with one word: priorities. Our Nation is faced with a growing health crisis. Children are growing up and growing out. They eat more, eat less nutritious foods and exercise less. It is a health epidemic that plagues them throughout life. By acting now, we can increase the quality of life for these children and save in healthcare costs down the line. For example, a study for the American School Food Service Association and the National Dairy Council found that by improving the quality, and therefore consumption, of milk in our school lunch programs, we could save between $800 million to $1.1 billion in health care costs every year.

I joined with a number of fellow senators in requesting that Congress provide a modest increase of $1 billion per year in the Budget Resolution so that we on the authorizing committees might make some long-awaited and essential improvements to the child nutrition programs. I am disappointed that increased funds were not provided. The Senate sent a clear message to America's children: we would rather give a several hundred billion dollar tax cut to a small minority of health adults than protect our children, through $1 billion in programming, from a health crisis.

The Federal Government reaches well over 25 million children each year with these programs. We have a tremendous opportunity to be proactive--to teach kids about food and give them nutritious options. We have a growing health crisis on our hands as our children grow wider because of unhealthy diets and less exercise. We must get serious about finding solutions to the problem. Or we can wait, and allow a system already doing its very best, working at maximum capacity, to deteriorate. I am for acting now and I hope the Senate is too.

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

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

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Madam President, I regret we have to be here today, but we are here because the President has picked another fight with the Senate by renominating a divisive and controversial activist to another circuit court. That is regrettable. The Republican leadership in the Senate is forcing this confrontation at this time, and it is neither necessary nor constructive. I am sorry the White

House has chosen to make these matters into partisan political fights, rather than working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to fill judicial vacancies with qualified consensus nominees.

I have been here with six Presidents. Five of them, from both parties, would work with members on both sides of the aisle for consensus nominees. This is the first President who has not. Despite what is really a historic low level of cooperation from the White House--and it is the lowest level of cooperation from any White House I have ever had experience with in my 30 years in the Senate--we have already confirmed 120 of President Bush's judicial nominees. We have confirmed 120. We have rejected 2 out of 120. That is not a bad record. Some of them we voted for, including some of the most divisive and controversial nominees sent up by any President. So 120 passed, 2 are being held up. I don't know where that shows an obstructionist Senate. This week the Senate debated and voted on the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit. This was a divisive one, and I think the fact that it is so divisive is shown by the fact he got the fewest number of favorable votes of any confirmation in almost 20 years-- barely a majority. He got 52. That is the lowest number of votes any judge has had in about 20 years. That reflects the fact we have reached the point in the queue where many of these nominations divide the American people and the Senate far more than they unite us. I urge the President to be a uniter, not a divider. This is the third controversial judicial nominee of this President against whom more than 40 negative votes were cast.

Our Senate Democratic leadership is working hard to correct some of the problems that arose with some of the earlier hearings and actions of the Judiciary Committee this year. Just yesterday, we were able to hold a hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to the District of Columbia Circuit. He was put in almost as an afterthought. There was a massive day of hearings, and he was not able to get a full hearing. This was done by the Republican leadership. I appreciate the fact they recognized that was wrong and they had another hearing yesterday. We are all working hard to complete committee consideration of that nomination at the earliest opportunity.

The distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he will put off that nomination today for a hearing sometime next week, and we will have a vote on him.

I am optimistic our leadership will be able to work out a procedure for Senate consideration of the nomination of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit. So a number of controversial nominations are being considered. I point out there are other nominations, such as that of Judge Edward Prado of Texas, a distinguished Hispanic jurist. Every Democratic Senator said they are willing to go forward with a vote on him. He has been held up on the Republican side. I don't know if we are going to be blamed for holding up this judge or not. We have all agreed we are ready to go forward with a short time agreement and a vote. He will be confirmed. He is not being held up on the Democratic side, but by the Republican side, even though he is one of President Bush's nominees.

There is also Judge Cecilia Altonaga, on whom we have been seeking consideration for some time. I hope the Republican leadership will let them go forward.

We are making progress. The glass is not full, but it is more full than empty. More has been achieved than some want to acknowledge. There have been 120 lifetime confirmations in less than 2 years. That is better than in any 2-year period from 1995 through the year 2000. Why do I mention that time? Because the Republicans were in charge and President Clinton was the President. We have done better in less than 2 years than in any 2-year period when they were in charge. This time, 17 months of that was under Democratic control, where we set a record with the number of Senatorial confirmations of Presidential nominations.

We have reduced judicial vacancies to 48, which is the lowest percentage in more than 12 years. During the entire 8-year term of President Clinton, the Republicans never allowed the vacancy rate to get this low. We have made tremendous progress.

The Republicans continue their drumbeat of political recriminations. We ought to talk about how far we have come with the 110 vacancies Democrats inherited from the Republican majority in the summer of 2001. We have cut those vacancies in half.

Under the Republican majority, circuit vacancies more than doubled and overall vacancies increased significantly. Despite the fact that more than 40 additional vacancies have arisen since the summer of 2001, we have cut those vacancies by more than in half, from 110 to 48. If we had a little bit of cooperation from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and from the other side of the aisle, we could achieve so much more.

This is a nomination that should not have been made in the first place and never should have been remade in the second place. It was rejected by the Judiciary Committee last year after a fair hearing and extensive and thoughtful substantive consideration. I think the White House would rather play politics with judicial nominations than solve problems. This unprecedented renomination of a person voted down by the Senate Judiciary Committee is proof of that.

I thank the Democratic leader, the assistant leader, and my Democratic colleagues who have spoken so eloquently and passionately to these matters. Particularly the statements of Senators Mikulski, Murray, Cantwell, and Stabenow yesterday were outstanding.

This nomination is extreme. This nominee has shown herself to be a judicial activist and extremist even on the very conservative Texas Supreme Court where her conservative colleagues have criticized her judgements as activist. They have done it not once, not twice but again and again.

The nomination process starts with the President. It is high time for the White House to stop the partisanship and campaign rhetoric. Work with us not to divide us but to unite us, and work with us to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Federal judiciary, something that Presidents have cherished for over 200 years, so that all the American people, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, rich, poor, White, Black, plaintiff or defendant, can go into every Federal courtroom across the country and know that they will receive a fair hearing and justice under the law; that they will come into the one place that is supposed to be impartial, the one place that is supposed to be nonpolitical, the one place that is supposed to look only at the litigants and the law, and so they will not go instead into a politicized, partisan Federal judiciary. That would be a mistake that would hurt us all and that is what we are trying to avoid now.

How much time is remaining on this side?

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished senior Senator from New York.

Madam President, how much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?

I yield back our time.