Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an outstanding citizen of Mississippi. On March 5, 2003, Governor Ronnie Musgrove signed a proclamation declaring March 19, 2003 to be

officially known as Wally Conerly Day in the State of Mississippi.

Dr. A. Wallace Conerly recently retired from the positions of Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs and Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

I have worked closely with Dr. Conerly since he was appointed Dean of the School of Medicine, and I am both proud and grateful that Mississippians can claim Dr. Conerly as one of our own.

While I could spend hours going over Dr. Conerly's record of service and accomplishments in detail, I would like to take a few moments to touch on some of the highlights that are most impressive to me. Dr. Conerly has served as a faculty member of the University of Mississippi Medical Center for the past 30 years. He assumed an appointment as Assistant Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs in 1981 before being appointed as Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs and Dean of the School of Medicine in 1994.

As the chief executive officer of the State's only academic health sciences center, he leads an institution that employs more than 7200 people and has an annual budget of more than $610 million. He is also the chief architect of the Medical Center's ongoing expansion program, the largest in the history of Mississippi higher education. Phase I, completed in 1999 and totaling $211 million, included a new children's hospital, a new women and infant's hospital, a building for the School of Health-Related Professions, an addition to the School of Nursing, a student union, two parking garages and an imaging center. A second $124 million construction phase is currently underway and includes a critical care hospital, a new adult hospital, a classroom addition, a children's hospital addition, and an expansion to the Arthur C. Guyton Research Complex. It has been my honor to work with Dr. Conerly in support of this ambitious endeavor.

Dr. Conerly has served not only the medical community of Mississippi honorably, but also the United States Air Force. For his service, he was the recipient of the United States Air Force Flight Surgeon of the Year Award in 1962 and the United States Air Force Commendation Medal in 1963. He was honorably discharged in 1966 at the rank of major.

As you might imagine, Dr. Conerly is also active in the Jackson community. He has served on the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross, Mississippi Chapter, and the Capital Area United Way. He has been President of the Rotary Club of Jackson and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the University Club. In 2001 the Mississippi Division of the Multiple Sclerosis Society honored Dr. Conerly and the Medical Center with its 2001 Hope Award, an award given annually for outstanding community contributions. He also received Millsaps College's ``Alumnus of the Year'' award in 2002, and he and his wife were recognized as the 2002 People of Vision by Preserve Sight Mississippi.

As I am sure you can see, Dr. Conerly has distinguished himself both personally and professionally, and he has been a valued asset to Mississippi. His record of service is not only a testament to his professional skill, but also to the quality of his personal character. He is most deserving of having this day named in honor of him, and I felt it was appropriate that I share this brief record of his contributions to Mississippi with all of you here today.

Mr. President, I know a vote was scheduled and many wish to speak, but I ask unanimous consent the vote may be delayed so I may speak at this time. I feel compelled to ask for that time so I may speak about our friend, Lloyd Ogilvie.

The first time I heard Lloyd Ogilvie speak, it was in a prayer, and I remember looking up because I thought I had just heard what God's voice must sound like. What a magnificent voice he has. What a magnificent prayer he always prayed. But as Benjamin Franklin said:

Well done is better than well said.

In spite of the magnificent messages he has delivered on this floor, his prayers, and our private counsel sessions with him, what he has done has been even more valuable; the way he has come to us all in times of great celebration and times of stress and times of despair. In the good times and the bad times he has been there for me and for many of us--all of us, at one time or another. In spite of all the good things he said, what he has done will be what will stay with us the longest.

Each morning I get up, the first thing I read is ``One Quiet Moment,'' a passage from the Bible and a brief prayer that Lloyd Ogilvie prepared for all of us. It begins my days in the right way. Many nights, just before I go to sleep, I pray for Lloyd and Mary Jane, I pray for their safety, and for their future.

He has been a magnificent influence on this body and on me personally.

This morning I looked up the definition of ``chaplain,'' and it is not enough to describe what he did. He wasn't just a person who was a counselor to this institution and our whole family. I looked up ``pastor''--maybe that was the right word. That wasn't sufficient either because he was more than just a pastor to a flock in a narrow area.

No, he has been a spiritual counselor in the broadest sense. The Bible says, in Proverbs:

Where there is no vision the people perish.

That, of course, refers to the way we really should think about the vision. I think it is true for a country, a country that seeks democracy and freedom and liberty. But it also is true in the broader sense. Lloyd has given us a vision of what life is really about. Thank you, Lloyd John Ogilvie. Well done--ay.

Let me take this opportunity, first, to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the Senate for the outstanding work that is being done by Senator Hatch as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That is a tough job. It always has been. It seems to be getting tougher with every passing Congress. I know from personal experience during my tenure as the Republican Leader, both in the majority and the minority, of the diligent work and good work that has been done by Senator Hatch to move judicial nominations through the process.

Quite often, it was very difficult in the committee and on the floor. There have been accusations that, perhaps, he had unfairly delayed judges in the past. But I can tell you this: My knowledge was, and memory is, that he worked very hard to move a lot of judges, several of whom were highly controversial but were eventually confirmed anyway.

Yes, at the end of the last term some judicial nominees of the Clinton administration were not completed, but if you compare the number that were left over to similar situations in the past, it was a smaller number. When you look at the number of judges that have been confirmed under the stewardship and leadership of Senator Hatch, it has to be a record in terms of overall numbers compared with previous chairmen and previous administrations.

I will talk more about specifics, but while Senator Hatch is here I wanted to recognize the untiring and patient and effective efforts of the Senator from Utah on this very worthwhile effort.

I am happy to yield.

If the Senator will allow me to interject, I remember the Senator from Utah received some criticism from this side of the aisle, and so did I, as we tried to move some of these judges through the process. We may have voted against them, which I did in at least a couple of instances, but I thought they deserved a vote. And we made sure that those votes took place.

I again thank Senator Hatch for the effort. I remember even last year at one point I think we had approximately 70 judges on the calendar, a large number, and there was disagreement about how to proceed. There was an indication we would have to have a recorded vote on every one of them, even though many of them could be moved on a voice vote with no problem. It looked like we were not going to be able to move them, but Senator Daschle and I kept talking about them and kept working on it, and we began to move them in blocks. We finished the process and we had moved, I think, almost all of them, if not all of them. That was an example of how there can be cooperation in this very important area of confirmation of judges.

I am happy to yield.

I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts when I have finished my remarks.

Let me talk briefly about the situation we find ourselves in, specifically, the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge.

I made a brief speech about a month ago saying I thought this was a highly qualified candidate, one who had lived the American dream, having been born in Honduras, coming here when he was 17, and highlighting the phenomenal life he has lived. I thought it was a matter we would do pro forma. I assumed we would have some debate and some disagreement, but since he is a great nominee, I thought he would be confirmed a month ago or more. But here we are still.

I will not go back and recount all of his qualifications. All the Senators know, and most of America knows now, Miguel Estrada is certainly qualified to be a circuit court of appeals judge. He is qualified by education. He went to some of the best schools in America where he was Phi Beta Kappa, a Magna Cum Laude graduate, editor of the Harvard Law Review at that citadel of great conservative legal thinking. Now, he is accused of being conservative; a committed conservative, despite his broad background. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review, if you will. So by education he is qualified.

There are some points and comments from the Federalist Papers, a couple of considerations, that you should look into when you consider a judge. One is whether or not they are fit in the area of character. This is a man that has lived an exemplary life. There is no allegation of impropriety, no allegation of ethical misconduct. None whatsoever. So by education, by character, by ethics, and by experience he is an incredible nominee.

Some say he has not been a lower court judge. That is not always the criteria. We have a lot of people who have gone to the circuit court of appeals, even the Supreme Court, without having earlier been a judge in another court. But he has been involved by working with the Federal judiciary, and by serving as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. I have only been able to witness one case where I sat in the audience and listened to the snail darter case before

the Supreme Court. Listening to the arguments in that one case was enough for me. I left and never returned. But surely, clearly, everyone in this body knows this man is qualified to be a judge on the circuit court of appeals.

So what is the problem? What are they saying?

There is the suggestion that maybe he has a certain philosophy or a certain ideology, and that is a disqualification. If that were a disqualification, there are many judges I voted on during the Clinton years and at other points during my service in this chamber whom I would have voted against. I voted for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though I didn't agree with her philosophy and knew I probably wouldn't agree with a lot of her decisions, but she was qualified. She was the President's choice.

I think the burden is on the Senate to show why we should not confirm a nominee if they are qualified, have the proper experience, and don't have ethical problems. She met those criteria. I voted for her.

What is the problem here? Some Senators want more questions asked? Alright, that is a legitimate point. It is part of the advice and consent role of the Senate. Let's hear what the nominees have to say.

He had a long hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Every question in the world that could be thought of was asked of this nominee. He was asked hypothetical cases to which I personally would not respond. I thought that on a lot of things he was asked, he was very careful in how he responded. You don't want to prejudice your decision. You don't want to pass judgment on a Supreme Court decision on which your future decisions as a judge may be based. The number one factor for the Senate to keep in mind on this point, however, is that he has offered to meet with any Senator personally who wants to meet with him.

Secondly, Senators on both sides have been told if you want to ask more questions, then submit the questions, and he will answer the questions.

Finally, even a day or so ago, Senator Frist--against some advice that perhaps this pattern should not be started--said Mr. Estrada would be willing to go back to the Judiciary Committee so that interested Senators could ask him some more questions, with an understanding he would get a vote. Unfortunately, that offer was turned down, too. They say they want to ask him more questions, but when they are given a chance to meet with the nominee or a chance to ask more questions, they don't ask them. When we say he is willing to go back for another hearing under these circumstances--no, they don't want that either. What do they say they want? They want internal memos from the time that he was working as an Assistant to the Solicitor General.

I believe that maybe something can be worked out on that. But you cannot set that precedent. Let me tell you why. If all these internal memos are made public in this instance, I guarantee future young attorneys in the Solicitor's Office, they will not be giving honest advice. No, no, they will pull their punches because they will know, anything I say in this written document may someday be used against me being confirmed as a Federal judge or in some other way. So this is not an insignificant request.

Should we try to find a way to work it out? I think so. But then I have been accused in the past of trying to get things done.

If everybody wants to make a statement around here to make their constituency happy, great. This is the way to do it. The People for the American Way and other liberal organizations--if Estrada is blocked-- they will be happy. These political reasons are why many Senators on the other side of the aisle are opposing Mr. Estrada, but I want to point out that there are some notable exceptions, and I hope there will be more.

But on our side, we are able to say: This is an Hispanic nominee, and our core constituency groups are going to be happy. Republicans are happy, with us duking it out for this nominee to be on the Circuit Court of Appeals. Many will say that they are taking a stand, which is great.

How great is it when he is not confirmed? That is the goal here. I am not interested in blaming somebody or appeasing someone on our side. This man is qualified. We have vacancies on this court that should be filled. It is irresponsible for us not to find a way to work this out and get this nominee on the court.

So I say a pox on everybody's house if we are just trying to find a way to score political points with this man's life on hold while we do this thing that we are doing here. I really do think we are setting a dangerous precedent here, one we did not set in the past. We have not filibustered Federal judicial nominees. It is clearly not in the Constitution. I think advice and consent means 51 votes, not two- thirds; not 60--51.

You might say the Constitution doesn't make that clear. In the Constitution, article II, section 2, when the Framers of the Constitution were writing this out, when they intended supermajority votes, they said so. It clearly says in article II, section 2: To make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. They specify two-thirds. When they said advice and consent, I believe they intended and expected, unless there were serious problems, that these nominees to the Federal judiciary would be confirmed with a vote, an up-or-down vote of 51.

I think what we are doing here is questionable constitutionally. We have never done this on a district or circuit court nominee before. Now we are about to do it.

Let me tell you what is scary. It may not be just about nominee Estrada. Next it is going to be Priscilla Owen. They are going to filibuster Priscilla Owen, a qualified woman who is a brilliant Supreme Court Justice in the State of Texas. I am sure they will extend it to other nominees, as well--maybe Sutton, maybe Cook, maybe Pickering. Is this a pattern?

Who in this room, and outside this room, believes that this tit-for- tat will not continue? Do they think that once we, Heaven forbid, ever have another Democrat President, that Republicans are not going to return the favor? We are going to filibuster them.

We have to stop this. I think we, the leaders, the Republicans, the Democrats, past and present, have to assume responsibility for how this has continued to escalate.

Did we do some things during the Clinton years with judges that we should not have done? Yes. But did we take up the cause and try to do the right thing on many occasions? Yes. That is why I am here today, because I do believe I have been a part of the solution and part of the problem in the past. I acknowledge it. But when I was the Majority Leader, I called up nominations that were controversial.

I remember on one occasion we did have a threatened filibuster and a cloture vote which was defeated. I made a speech standing right there saying: My colleagues, we don't want to do this. This was a judge nominated by President Clinton, but really it was a judge whom Orrin Hatch recommended. His name was Brian Theodore Stewart. Unfortunately, though, cloture was defeated. So we started talking about that, and cooler heads prevailed. Shortly thereafter, we confirmed this judge. That was the only time we came close, during the past 7 years, to having a filibuster on a judge. We got right up to it, but we didn't do it, because we knew we couldn't do it and that it was wrong. So, fortunately we backed away from it.

In terms of what was done in the past, again, I resisted filibusters. I didn't want to have filibusters, even though I voted against Judges Paez and Berzon on their up-or-down confirmation votes. But Senator Hatch and I took a lot of grief. We said, no, they have come out of committee, they deserve an up-or-down vote. They got the vote, and they were confirmed. They each got an up-or-down vote, not a filibuster. Some people thought they should have been filibustered. I didn't think they should have been, and they weren't.

My colleagues, I ask us here today: Where do we go from here? What is next?

The argument can be made that you filibuster a lot of different ways. You don't let them out of committee; I know about that approach. The last Congress, I know two judges who were defeated on a straight party- line vote in the Judiciary Committee. They were not allowed to come to the floor to have a vote, and I believe the Constitution requires they should come here

and have a vote, not be killed by 11 Senators in the Judiciary Committee, or 10, or whatever the number may be.

So, I accept part of the blame. I acknowledge that Republicans have not always handled judges in the right way. But I ask the question again, what next? We are going to kill them in committee? We are going to kill them by filibuster? This is wrong, my colleagues. We should not do this.

We are starting down a trail that is unfair, and it is going to come back to haunt this institution, haunt both parties, and damage the lives of innocent men and women.

I urge my colleagues, find a way to move this judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada. He deserves better. He should be confirmed.

Some people say: Wait, if we don't stop him now, he may be on the Supreme Court. Well let's test him. Let's confirm him. Let's see how he does. We might be surprised. We might even be disappointed. I have been surprised at times. I voted for a couple of Supreme Court Justices and wished I could take the vote back because when they got there, they were not what I thought they were going to be. Men and women can do surprising things when they become Federal judges for life.

So I just felt a need to come down and recall some of the things that have happened, admit some of the mistakes, try to sober this institution up. This is a great institution that does pay attention to precedents. It does, sometimes, start in the wrong direction, but most of the time we pull ourselves back from the brink; we find a way to get it done. I hope and I certainly feel down deep we are going to find a way to not set this precedent and not defeat this qualified nominee with a filibuster.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 19, 2003, in room SR 301, Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct an oversight hearing on the operations of the Secretary of the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol.

For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Madam President, I rise in support of the ratification of the Moscow Treaty. I would like to begin by thanking Senators Lugar and Biden who have done very good work in this instance, and I believe they are going to provide very dynamic leadership on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. These Senators have been working in this area for many years.

I remember specifically the work of the distinguished Senator from Indiana after the dissolution of the Soviet Union as we had Russia and other countries grow out of that. We had the Nunn-Lugar legislation. Quite frankly, some of us were a little leery of how that program would work and whether it was the right thing to do. But looking back on that time in history, there is no question but that was a really dynamic leadership effort that needed to be made. It has been helpful. It has not been perfect, of course. But I think it has helped our relationship with Russia, and I think it has also helped to control the escape of and the misuse of some of those nuclear weapon capabilities. I want to recognize Senator Lugar's past leadership in this area and thank him for working to get this Moscow Treaty ready.

I had occasion last year to go to Russia, to St. Petersburg and Moscow, with a delegation of Senators to meet with foreign policy leaders, defense leaders, members from the Duma, members of the Russian Federation Council, and the chairman of the foreign relations committee there in the Federation Council. It was very interesting and very informative.

I believe there is a growing opportunity for the United States to have a close working relationship with Russia. It has to be one of truths. It has to be one that covers the entire sphere of not only trusting each other when it comes to arms and treaties but also the economy and trade, foreign policy, and international issues such as the one we are working on right now.

We see today that the vote of Russia and what they do at the Security Council is going to be important as we prepare to deal with the situation in Iraq. So we need to have a growing relationship and friendship with this important country.

I think this treaty is a good one. It is one that certainly is timely.

Russia's transformation to a market economy still faces a number of challenges, obviously--its interests, and the people there. Also, the United States is working to get through problems. There are still problems we are trying to deal with. But our strategic relationship with Russia provides a strong foundation of cooperation on issues regarding nuclear weapons reduction and security.

Since 1992, the United States has spent over $3 billion in Cooperative Threat Reduction Program funds to help Russia dismantle nuclear weapons and ensure the security of its nuclear weapons, weapons-grade fissile material, and other weapons of mass destruction. This has been a very big program. It is one that I think has been very important.

In 1998, both countries agreed to share information upon detection of a ballistic missile launch anywhere in the world and to reduce each country's stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium. As Russia and the United States continue to reduce the stockpile, we must stay vigilant in our collective effort to ensure that weapons-grade nuclear materials stay under lock and key. It is easy to say, but it is not a question of just turning the lock. There has to be an ongoing effort, there has to be verification, and there has to be a lot of cooperation.

The Moscow treaty builds upon the spirit of cooperation between the United States and Russia. It serves the interests of both nations and both peoples, and makes the world a safer place. The treaty is just one element of a growing relationship between the U.S. and Russia that includes several new opportunities for cooperation including trade, energy, and economic development.

There has been some concern, noted by the opposition, that the Moscow Treaty is not substantive enough--that it is only 3 pages long--much shorter than the several hundred pages of the START treaty--that is doesn't deal with actual warheads. First, we need to recognize that the Moscow Treaty does not take the place of the START treaty. The Moscow Treaty is separate from the START treaty--the START treaty is still in full force and effect.

Perhaps more important than laying out comprehensive steps of reduction, these important three pages of the Moscow Treaty fundamentally approach Russia as a friend, not as an adversary. I believe that is a relationship that is going to grow and become more and more important in the years ahead.

This is a historic achievement. With the document we will be voting on in the next day or two, both the United States and Russia will be making a commitment to reduce the quantity of operationally deployed warheads. Undeniably, it is in the best interests of both of our countries to destroy as many warheads as possible. Both sides continue to be challenged by warhead destruction in any given year because it is a very complex process. It is not a matter of just using a bulldozer.

However, we must also not allow the complexity of the process to prevent us from our commitment to progress in this warhead reduction. Although not intended to be a detailed roadmap to accomplish that reduction, the Moscow Treaty lays out a high-level framework that is both workable and flexible.

I am greatly encouraged by the level of developing cooperation between the United States and Russia that is embodied in this treaty. I am encouraged by the prospect now of having exchanges between leaders of the Duma and the Federation Council and leaders of the House and the Senate. I think it is important that we have those ongoing relationships. Under the leadership of Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, I believe we will see that continue to develop.

By bringing forth the ratification of this treaty, I think it makes good sense for our Nation. It is important for the future security of the world, and I think it will help our friendship grow so that we will have not an adversary, as we had for so many years, but a friend in Russia.

I wanted to come to the floor and endorse this treaty. I think it is an important signal of our feelings, and it is very important in a timely sense also.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on

Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 9:15 a.m. in room 301 of the Russell Office Building, to mark up an original resolution authorizing expenditures by committees of the Senate for the period March 1, 2003, through February 28, 2005.

For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Madam President, today the Committee on Rules and Administration approved the following rules for the committee. I ask that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for making that

request. I believe I can make my remarks in that time.

Mr. President, I take this occasion to speak on behalf of this nominee. I think he certainly deserves to be confirmed by the Senate, in a normal vote which would require a majority of the Senators, and that this matter not be subject to a protracted debate, which could, in fact, turn it into a filibuster.

I wish to speak first in support of this specific nominee, but then also as one who has viewed the judicial nominations and the debate that has taken place over the past 7 years.

There has been a lot of interesting discussion. It is amazing that when the majority changes, the debate seems to shift sides, both ways. Some of the arguments we are hearing now we were criticized for making in the past. But I do not want to get into statistics or what may have happened with this judge or that judge.

At the beginning, I want to talk about this nominee, this outstanding man who has lived the American dream in an incredible way. I am pleased and honored to be able to come to the floor and express my support for Miguel Estrada to be a U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

I think he is highly qualified to be a Federal judge. Beyond that, however, his American success story exemplifies what the American dream is really all about. It is about hard-working immigrants who moved to the United States and searched for a better life. It is people, such as Mr. Estrada, who have made our country stronger by contributing to our society with their strong work ethic and desire to achieve. Others have made those points, but I want to be on record talking about them myself.

First, Miguel Estrada was born and raised in Honduras, and immigrated to the United States at age 17, speaking little English at the time. He quickly learned English, however, and excelled in academics, graduating with a bachelor's degree magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College. Then he went on to earn his J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. I might add, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, a high honor and great achievement.

He had valuable opportunities to learn the intricacies of the Federal appeals court system by clerking for a Second Circuit court of appeals judge--who was a Carter appointee--and serving as a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

He has built a distinguished record as an attorney in private practice, as a Federal prosecutor in New York, and as an Assistant to the Solicitor General under both President Clinton and President George H.W. Bush.

Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including a death penalty case in which he represented a death row inmate pro bono. The point was made that maybe he had not done any pro bono work for Hispanics specifically, but when you do pro bono work, you do not always check that kind of background. You do this work on behalf of a client who would not be represented if you were not willing to serve without pay on behalf of this individual.

It is rare to see an attorney or judge with such an outstanding record even at the time of retirement. The experience this young man has had is incredible in terms of his background, his education, the variety of the experience he has with the judiciary and with the application of law--and even before the Supreme Court, both as a clerk and also in appearances he has made. So, clearly in terms of experience and education, Miguel Estrada is highly qualified.

I find it very curious and exacerbating, quite frankly, that some Members of the Senate are questioning whether or not he is qualified. After all, he was rated unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association, a rating that has been considered--I believe Senator Hatch and others have described it as the ``gold standard'' for the Democrats as to whether or not a man or woman should be qualified to serve on the Federal judiciary. So certainly to get a unanimously well-qualified rating from the ABA should make a tremendous difference here as to this nominee.

He does have the support of a lot of people in the Hispanic community. In fact, I know Hispanics all across America are asking the question: What is the problem here?

This is a well-qualified man who is Hispanic and has the educational background and experience. Why are they still opposing him? Is it because he is brilliant? I suspect maybe that is part of the problem. Is it because he has a conservative philosophy of strict construction and interpretation of the Constitution? Maybe that is part of it, too. Is it because he is Hispanic? I don't understand the basis for the opposition.

The only thing I heard is that maybe he hasn't revealed enough of what he might do in a hypothetical case or the argument just being made, or that he would not name a decision with which he disagreed. It is a catch-22. If you begin to speculate or if you begin to identify a particular case, then you are attacked because you identified that particular case.

We have a right and an obligation to ask any question we want to ask. Judicial nominees have a right to have their own private views, but they also, as he has done, have to speak up and say they will support the law as it exists. They should state that they will support the rulings of the Supreme Court. He has done that.

No, there is something more going on. It probably has something to do with the debate that just took place, with speculation or suspicion as to what his position privately may be on Roe v. Wade. That is partially what is going on here.

We have argued back and forth over the years about what should be the basis for our votes. I talked to my senior colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, who served on the committee and is a senior Member of this body, about what should be the basis of these votes. Generally speaking, the nominee is selected by the President of the United States, who won an election. A lot of people understand one of the most important things a President does is to select the men and women who will go on our Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. They make that selection. If that man or woman is qualified by temperament, by education, and by experience, and unless there is some ethical limitation or something of that nature, generally speaking you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt and vote for them.

That is why I stood here in the Senate and explained why I would vote for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I knew I wouldn't agree with a lot of her decisions. I didn't agree with her philosophy. But she didn't have a conflict of interest. She didn't have an ethical problem. She was qualified. I voted for her, even though philosophically I had problems with the nomination. There were others where that situation applied, where I wound up voting for them even though I would not agree with the decisions that they would make. That is the way we should do it.

Other times I spoke against nominees and I voted against them, even though as the Majority Leader, I had the responsibility sometimes to call them up. I remember two very controversial judges nominated to the Federal bench, Paez and Berzon from California. Senator Hatch and I were criticized because we, in fact, moved them through the process. They wound up coming before the Senate and were voted on. I voted against them both, but I helped move the process forward. I stated my problems with them and voted against them. I wouldn't dare, however, try to filibuster them because I had some concerns about how they would rule in the Federal judiciary positions for which they had been nominated.

If a decision is made to prolong debate and turn it into a filibuster and we wind up having to have votes on a cloture petition, we will be on the verge of setting a very dangerous precedent, one that has not happened, in fact, in 35 years or so.

I remember a couple of years ago there was a nominee supported, as a matter of fact, during the Clinton years by Senator Hatch, I believe it was. We started having the movement toward a filibuster. I think we maybe even had a cloture vote. I remember the discussion across the aisle. Both sides were saying: Wait a minute, do we want to set this precedent; do we want to do this? Does the Senate want to start voting on judges requiring 60

votes to get a confirmation? The Senate responsibly, wisely, backed away from that position.

I urge my colleagues, come to the floor, state your concerns. If you have additional questions, I guess there is still time to get some answers. But we need to have an up-or-down vote on this nominee this week. He has been pending since May 9, 2001, as have some other very qualified nominees for the Federal judiciary. How long is enough? How much time do you need to review the record and look at the credentials, the qualifications of a nominee?

It is actually embarrassing, the way the questions are being raised about this nominee, that we wouldn't give this nominee an overwhelming and perhaps unanimous confirmation to this position. Is it a fear that this brilliant, young Hispanic who has lived and taken advantage of the American dream might some day be recommended for the Supreme Court? Is that what is going on here? If it is, why don't we at least wait and worry about that when he gets nominated to the Supreme Court.

He is qualified. He will be an outstanding Federal judge. I urge my colleagues to stop using very weak arguments about how maybe he didn't answer detailed questions about what his rulings might be in a hypothetical case. That is not usually the basis we use for voting against a nominee.

I thank Senator Hatch for the job he has done on the committee. I am glad this process is beginning to break loose now for men and women, minorities, who have been pending for close to 2 years and who deserve to be considered by the Senate. I wholeheartedly endorse this nominee and look forward to seeing the leadership he will provide on this particular circuit court of appeals.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct its organization meetings and to conduct a hearing on those Senate Committees that have presented budgets above guidelines for the 108th Congress.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on FAA reauthorization.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11 at 10 a.m. to consider the president's proposed FY 2004 budget for the Department of the Interior.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, at 2:30 p.m. to consider the nomination of Joseph T. Kelliher to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Finance

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on Examination of Proposals for Economic Growth and Job Creation: Incentives for Consumption.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a Hearing on the Future of Iraq.

Agenda

Witnesses:

Panel 1: The Honorable Marc I. Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC., The Honorable Douglas J. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense, Washington, DC.

Panel 2: Colonel Scott R. Feil (Ret.), Executive Director, Role of American Military Power, Arlington, VA. General Anthony Zinni, (Ret.), Former Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command, Washington, DC., Professor Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair for Strategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a joint hearing on Patient Access Crisis: The Role of Medical Litigation during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-106.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``Patient Access Crisis: The Role of the Medical Litigation'' on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 in Dirksen Room 106 at 2:30 p.m.

Witness List

Laurie Peel, Raleigh, NC, Linda McDougal, Woodville, Wisconsin, Leanne Dyess, Vicksburg, MS, Jay Angoff, Of Counsel, Roger G. Brown & Associates, Jefferson City, MO, Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance, Austin, TX, Shelby Wilbourn, MD, Physician, on behalf of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Belfast, ME, Lawrence E. Smarr, President, Physician Insurers Association of America, Rockville,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 10 a.m. to hold an open hearing and 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the U.S. Post Office in Bailey, MS, as it celebrates its 100th year of existence. The Bailey Post Office began its service in December of the year 1902, when John A. Bailey was appointed as the first local postmaster by Henry C. Payne, the Postmaster General of the United States. The Bailey Post Office was opened in the already existing structure of the Bailey Grocery and has been serving the Bailey community ever since.

Since its inception in 1902, the Bailey Post Office has reliably served the people of the city of Bailey and the surrounding area and currently has two mail routes that cover 700 families in the Bailey community. Such longevity can be attributed to the character and work ethic that Bailey Post Office employees have exhibited over the years, but more than that, it is a tribute to the small town values present in a place such as Bailey. The fact that Leon Bailey, the grandson of the first ever Postmaster General in Bailey, still lives in Bailey speaks volumes about the tightly knit community the people of Bailey enjoy. During the recent centennial celebration, more than 300 members of the community gathered to commemorate the occasion.

Such a sense of community is rare in today's world, and as such it should be commended. That is why I felt the need to pay tribute to the current and past workers of the Bailey Post Office as well as the current and past members of the community.

Mr. President, I take this time to express my grief, as well as the grief of all Mississippians, over the loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Mississippians feel a strong bond to both the space program and the crew of the Columbia. One reason for this bond is NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center. The Stennis Space Center, which is located in Hancock County, MS, tests every space shuttle's main engine before it is installed for a launch. Also, the Stennis Space Center's remote sensing experts are currently assisting NASA in locating debris from the Columbia.

Another reason Mississippians feel closely connected to the Columbia tragedy is that Robert and Barbara Anderson, the parents of LTC Michael Anderson, were both born in Mississippi. While Mr. and Mrs. Anderson now live in Spokane, WA, they still have family members who reside in Madison County, MS. While these ties to the space program and the crew of the Columbia provide Mississippians with a source of great honor and pride, now that tragedy has struck, these ties make the loss of the seven Columbia astronauts that much more personal.

The loss of the Columbia crew was truly a national tragedy. While the United States has been blessed with many outstanding natural resources, no one will ever convince me that our most valuable resource is anything other than the outstanding individuals this country produces. Our NASA astronauts are outstanding individuals who represent the best of the best.

While I am sure that many here are familiar with the type of outstanding personal achievement that is required to become an astronaut, I would like to take a moment to give a brief synopsis of the accomplishments of the seven crew members of the Columbia shuttle.

COL Rick Husband, commander. Rick Husband, 45, was a test pilot in the U.S. Air Force. He received a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from Texas Tech University in 1980 and a master of science degree in mechanical engineering from California State University-Fresno in 1990. Husband had already completed a space mission as the pilot of STS-96 in 1999, on which the first docking with the International Space Station was performed. Rick Husband leaves a wife and two children behind.

CDR William C. McCool, pilot. William C. McCool, 41, served as a commander in the U.S. Navy and was also a former test pilot. In 1983, McCool received a bachelor of science degree in applied science from the U.S. Naval Academy, where he graduated second in his class. He later received a master of science degree in computer science from the University of Maryland in 1985 and a master of science degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in 1992. This was William McCool's first space flight. He leaves behind a wife and three children.

LTC Michael P. Anderson, payload commander. Michael Anderson, 43, was a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, where he served as an instructor pilot and tactical officer. Anderson received a bachelor of science degree in physics/astronomy from University of Washington in 1981 and a master of science degree in physics from Creighton University in 1990. Selected by NASA in December of 1994, Anderson flew on STS-89 in 1998 and has logged over 211 hours in space. Anderson leaves behind a wife and two daughters.

CAPT David M. Brown, mission specialist 1. David Brown, 46, was a captain in the U.S. Navy and served as a naval aviator and flight surgeon. Brown received a bachelor of science degree in biology from the College of William and Mary in 1978 and a doctorate in medicine from Eastern Virginia Medical School in 1982. This was Brown's first space flight.

Dr. Kalpana Chawla, mission specialist 2. Kalpana Chawla was an aerospace engineer and an FAA certified flight instructor. She received a bachelor of science degree in aeronautical engineering from India's Punjab Engineering College in 1982, a master of science degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Texas-Arlington in 1984, and a doctorate in aerospace engineering from the University of Colorado-Boulder in 1988. Chawla was the prime robotic arm operator on STS-87 in 1997 and had logged more than 376 hours in space prior to the Columbia flight. Chawla was the first Indian-born woman in space and leaves a husband behind.

CDR Laurel Blair Salton Clark, mission specialist 4. Laurel Clark, 41, was a commander in the U.S. Navy and a naval flight surgeon. She received a bachelor of science degree in zoology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1983 and a doctorate in medicine from the same school in 1987. The Columbia flight was Clark's first space flight. She leaves behind a husband and an 8-year-old son.

COL Ilan Ramon, payload specialist 1. Ilan Ramon, 48, was a colonel in the Israeli Air Force. Ramon received a bachelor of science degree in electronics and computer engineering from the University of Tel Aviv in 1987. He served as a fighter pilot during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s and was a veteran of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, as well as the 1982 war in Lebanon. The Columbia flight was Ramon's first, and with it he became the first Israeli in space. He leaves behind a wife and four children.

As you can see, this group of individuals would stand out in any company, and it is right that the country should mourn their loss. And as the country mourns, it is especially important that we remember the friends and family of the lost astronauts. If just their accomplishments and dedication to their countries can cause whole nations to mourn, I can only imagine the grief of those who knew them personally and lost not only a national hero, but a friend, or spouse, or parent. I can only hope the knowledge that the thoughts and prayers of entire Nations are with them will provide some small comfort.

While our Nation grieves deeply for these men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of their countries, we take solace in the fact that we will benefit immeasurably for years to come from their dedication and hard work. The crew of the Columbia surely represented the best of this world. They entered space not just as members of one nationality, race, or religion, but as fellow human beings. The crew members risked and ultimately sacrificed their lives, not for personal gain, but for the advancement of science and the betterment of humankind. It is for these reasons that I want to say thank you to COL Rick Husband, CDR William C. McCool, LTC Michael P. Anderson, CAPT David M. Brown, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, CDR Laurel Blair Salton Clark, COL Ilan Ramon, and all their friends and family who have shared in their sacrifice.

Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with the realities of today's marketplace.

The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges.

The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short- term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt.

Last year, we witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason to believe that TVA has been involved in any

such practices, I believe we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to examine the financing and disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure that their investment is being protected. I note that TVA has utilized short-term financing facilities and derivative securities as hedging and interest rate management techniques. We need to better understand the risks and rewards associated with these strategies.

The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this Congressional mandate.

I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the economic health of several States in the southeastern United States, including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States. It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal.

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

Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with the realities of today's marketplace.

The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges.

The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short- term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt.

Last year, we witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason to believe that TVA has been involved in any

such practices, I believe we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to examine the financing and disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure that their investment is being protected. I note that TVA has utilized short-term financing facilities and derivative securities as hedging and interest rate management techniques. We need to better understand the risks and rewards associated with these strategies.

The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this Congressional mandate.

I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the economic health of several States in the southeastern United States, including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States. It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal.

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