Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Ed Rimback during consideration of this resolution.

I ask that the Senator from Oklahoma yield me some time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding me 10 minutes.

Before I start my prepared remarks, I wish to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, for a great job. This is the first year he has taken on the responsibilities of the Budget Committee. It is a tough environment today. With this tough economic environment and being on the brink of war, he has brought a budget bill that holds down spending, cuts taxes, and actually has a plan in which we can eliminate deficit spending over a 10-year period. In today's environment, I think that is phenomenal work.

As a member of the Budget Committee, it has been a pleasure for me to work with him because he has made a commitment to work with members on the Budget Committee to try to put together a reasonable proposal. It is important we get a budget passed in this Congress, this session. Last year we experienced the problem of what happens when we do not pass a budget from the Senate, and we see the free-for-all that happens in spending.

I think we are in a spending spree. There have been some speakers earlier today who tried to blame the current economic problems we are having on this President. I have to remind the Members of this body that the economy was starting to show a downturn the first few months that the President was in office. He did not have any effect on that economic downturn that was coming. In fact, what this President did was he proposed a tax cut. It ended up being a temporary tax cut because it was opposed by the other side, but it was a 10-year tax cut. It was put in place and the argument was made, well, here we are, we are just doing something that is going to benefit the wealthy.

If we look at the figures of who pays the individual income taxes in this country, the top 50 percent of the income producers of this country pay nearly all of the taxes. There is only about 4 percent of the taxes that are paid by the lower 50 percent of the income producers in this country. The other 50 percent pays 96 percent of the taxes. So how can there be a tax cut policy without addressing the needs of those producers who we have in this country?

The naysayers criticize the temporary tax cut, but about October of last year we began to hear some of them admit, yes, the tax cut, even though it was temporary in the spring of 2001, it did help the economy. It helped buoy up the economy. Even an editorial last October in the Washington Post, which is no friend of those of us who want to continue to cut taxes, had to admit that it was the temporary tax cut that helped buoy up the economy.

We are looking at an economy today that is struggling. I had a town meeting this last weekend in my home State of Colorado, the largest county in the State of Colorado in Denver, and we talked about the economy. I talked with them about just having gone through a spending spree--a spending spree, I might add, that started before this President stepped in to office. I said, if we look over the past 4 years or so of spending, it has been the largest amount of spending that we have incurred in any 4 years, excluding World War II. If spending is what it is going to take to stimulate this economy, why have we not seen the economy improve today? At that point nobody wanted to increase spending at that town meeting.

I asked, well, why don't we just do nothing? I mean, some Members of the Senate are saying let's do nothing, leave the current laws as they are and let it ride. I asked, do you think a do-nothing proposal is what we need to help today's economy? Nobody agreed to that.

So what is left? What is left is we need to cut taxes because if we look as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the amount of taxes that are being paid today by Americans is among the highest it has ever been in history. It is not the highest. We peaked down a little bit. Several years ago it was the highest, but we are still among the highest as far as a percentage of gross domestic product. That is very significant because the gross domestic product has been growing in the last decade or so at phenomenal rates. So it is a huge burden.

I commend the President for coming forward with a tax cut that would actually increase jobs in this economy. I am looking at some figures that have been supplied to me about the job growth in this country, and there have been a number of studies that have been put out. Some of them say that 60 percent of what the President is providing in tax cuts will actually spill over to create more job growth and that is going to be reflected in growth in revenue to the Federal Treasury, and as a result of that, the fiscal notes that we have in the Congress are not as severe as some may believe because we are not taking into account the real world of what happens when we actually do a tax cut, how that stimulates the economy.

Now we looked at some individual States where they have done some analysis. This is not the one that says it is 60 percent; it is not the lowest one, which is 40 percent. I might add, the 40-percent economic analysis on number of jobs was made by President Clinton's former assistants in OMB, Office of Management and Budget. The figures are around 57 percent that they came up with, and so we see a growth in jobs in all the States.

Take my State of Colorado, in 2004 we see 16,200 new jobs created because of the economic stimulus plan that is put forward by the President. We go down and look at, for example, Oklahoma, where the chairman of the Budget Committee is from, 11,600 jobs. We can look at Texas, the State of the Presiding Officer, we are looking somewhere at 74,000 new jobs created in the State of Texas. Look at North Dakota, for example, a much smaller State but still there is a proven growth impact of 2,300 jobs. As a result of the President's proposal, economists have analyzed that they anticipate this job growth to occur.

The point can be made, well, we are having to spend money if we use the static analysis that we use in the Congress, but there is a return on that. That same study has indicated that for every dollar of investment, there is a $3.22 return.

I remember when I started my business I had to incur a debt to get things going, to create jobs, to be able to buy equipment and get moving. I considered that was a worthy investment. I think we are going to have to make an investment in today's future. I think we need to make that investment in terms of a tax cut, and I think we need to do something along what the President is suggesting we ought to be doing, that for each $1 in tax cuts we are going to get a $3.22 return over a 10-year period.

That brings me to the two amendments that are before us now. The first amendment we will vote on, where we are cutting out all the whole proposal basically other than what is going to be proposed by the other side of the aisle, which has a lot of severe restrictions on it. There are a couple of problems I have with that amendment. I think we pretty easily defined defense, but in homeland security, sure, we want to protect the homeland security in general terms. That means securing our borders and providing assistance to those people who will deal with emergencies in case of some kind of a terrorist attack, and that is police and firemen in this country. There are individuals who are trying to expand that definition of homeland security.

The point I make is that homeland security has not been well defined, and in some instances we may open up a hole for more spending than what we intend to do.

The other thing I point out that we have, I will take them at their word, $150 billion is what they want to use to stimulate the economy. It does not do much. If we took that $150 billion and put it out over 11 years, it is only .5 of an impact on the total amount of taxes collected over that period of time. That does not do much. We need to do more.

Mr. President, $150 billion is a drop in the bucket. We need to look, at a minimum, at what the President is looking at. Maybe we ought to do more. Time of war I don't think is the time to be pulling back on the economy. It is the time to try and stimulate the economy. When we stimulate the economy, we create job growth, we allow individuals and businesses to retain more of the money in their own pockets. They spend money on equipment, and that means we will begin to see this economy grow.

I will vote no on the two amendments. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank Senator Nickles for granting me the time, and I yield the floor.

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

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

I have a statement I would like to make when we get an opportunity during the debate.

Mr. President, I need time to get set up.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I thank the budget chairman for his consideration. He is doing a great job. This is the first year he has assumed responsibility as chairman of the Budget Committee. In that position, he has expressed a willingness to work with all members of the Budget Committee and work with Members of the Senate to get a budget out of the Senate. I commend him for that effort.

I think it was extremely disappointing not only to me but to the American people that last year we did not get a budget passed. That is the first thing that has to happen. If we want to see this process move forward in an orderly manner, we need to pass a budget.

I rise today to make a few comments relating to the budget resolution that is before us. This resolution, in my view, is one of the most important, only next to the legislation committing and supporting our Armed Forces, which is perhaps the most important the Congress will consider.

As my colleagues know, the budget resolution establishes the framework by which Congress will appropriate funds over the next year and it sets a model for the future. Further, this resolution will establish a series of important mechanisms for the enforcement of budget policy and outline important policy priorities to be ultimately determined by other Senate committees.

I serve on the Senate Budget Committee, and I will take this opportunity to comment on the pending resolution, as well as a number of important choices facing this body as we proceed with this debate.

I will make a few comments on the current climate. I have stated numerous times in recent years that continual increases in discretionary spending threaten the long-term fiscal stability of the Government and doom the taxpayer to greater long-term obligations. The slim window of historic surpluses we experienced in Washington from 1998 through 2001 sparked a rapid spending spree, unlike virtually any this Nation has ever experienced.

From the year 2000 to 2003, the Federal Government will have spent more than in any other 4-year period in the last 60 years, excluding the war years of World War II. When compared to the previous 4 years, 1996 to 1999, the Government has increased spending by a startling $782 billion, The 4-year cost per household of the Federal Government reaching $73,000. This reckless spending represents irresponsibility in the short term and far worse in the long term.

Today our Nation stands in the midst of a war on terror and on the brink of a costly engagement with the savage totalitarian Government of Iraq. These are conflicts that this country did not ask for but obligations we must meet. Today's international landscape demands nothing less than total commitment to our Armed Forces. I am pleased this budget resolution meets that commitment. I would go one step further and state clearly the defense of the homeland and the protection of American interests is the paramount responsibility of the Federal Government in this Republic.

By abandoning fiscal restraint and discretionary spending over the last 4 years, we have not only continued to bleed current and future taxpayers but created enormous fiscal obstacles to the prosecution of this Nation's defense.

I will speak briefly on defense and the war on terror. The budget resolution reported by the committee provides for $400 billion for defense in fiscal year 2004. That is meeting the President's request for the continued aggressive prosecution of our war against terror around the world. The full amount of the President's request for Homeland Security is also included, the new Department of Homeland Security, growing from $21.3 billion in 2003 to $27.1 billion in 2004. These dollars will go to the securing of our borders, the training and supply of first responders, bioterrorism preparedness, and increased interagency coordination. I can think of no greater priority in these troubled times.

In talking about the growth package and the tax cuts, perhaps the area of the budget which will face the greatest scrutiny this week will be the reconciliation instruction for the President's proposed growth package. This resolution provided for $698 billion from 2003 through 2013 for growth, job creation, and tax relief. I support the President's approach to this growth proposal: Mixing tax relief targeted to working families, encouraging investment by the small business sector--which, I might add, is the backbone of this economy in this country--and eliminating the double taxation of dividends.

A number of colleagues made clear they do not believe this package will stimulate the economy and insist the most stimulative effect would be through increased spending. This is not only an argument I fail to embrace, it is one I find dangerous in light of the incredible recent increases in spending that have proven ineffective in changing the economy.

Today, Federal revenues are down for the second consecutive year. That is an unprecedented decrease. The Nasdaq stands at one-quarter of its value just 3 years ago. To those who claim that the Federal Government can spend its way out of such conditions, stimulating growth by absorbing more of America's paycheck, I ask where the evidence is that this, indeed, works.

As I stated earlier, Congress has added $782 billion in spending over the last 4 years. In light of the sum of this regrettable spending spree, the President proposes a rather humble growth package over the course of the next 10 years. The amount provided in this resolution accommodates the acceleration of several key tax cuts already implemented into law such as the marriage penalty tax and the cut in marginal income tax rates. Further, there is room in this package to increase the child tax credit and increase small business expensing limits. These are very real ways to allow working Americans to keep more of their money, and to do so starting today. I trust they will know best what to do with these savings and can see only beneficial stimulus.

With regard to the dividend proposal, the resolution also accommodates the President's desire to cut one of the Tax Code's most egregious examples of double taxation, that tax placed on corporate dividends. It is unfortunate that

dividend taxation is an area where the United States is a world leader, taxing dividends at a rate higher than any nation in the world other than Japan. I would like to be clear on the nature of this tax. It is a tax on capital. It makes capital more expensive. It makes doing business more expensive. Capital can be used far better by those innovating and investing in the private sector rather than through expanding government largess.

The Wall Street Journal outlined the benefits of this proposal in a February 26 article. The Wall Street Journal reports that the dividend proposal would increase job creation by as many as 500,000 jobs per year over the next 5 years. That is an immediate and wonderful economic stimulus. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently testified before Congress in support of the elimination of the double taxation of dividends as ``a benefit to virtually everyone in the economy over the long run.''

Some in this body disagree with Mr. Greenspan and will attempt to wheel out their tired old incredible rhetoric by labeling this a tax cut for the rich. A half million more jobs is not a tax cut for the rich. I hope our dialog will be sophisticated enough to recognize this.

Let me talk a little bit about our domestic priorities. I am pleased to share President Bush's commitment to a number of domestic priorities reflected in this budget. As a long-time advocate of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, I am glad to see an investment of $400 billion over 10 years to strengthen Medicare. This unprecedented investment includes a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors, allowing equity and access to the latest and most beneficial drugs on the market. The $400 billion will also be available for the improvement and modernization of Medicare, catastrophic coverage, and assistance to low-income beneficiaries. The President has made clear this is not simply another step in the expansion of the Medicare Program but a call for reform and enhanced efficiency.

With the pending retirement of the baby boom generation, it is more important than ever that Medicare be built on a strong foundation and offer the most effective treatments possible. This budget follows in the bold footsteps of the No Child Left Behind Act, continuing the commitment made with that landmark legislation. This budget resolution offers the single largest ever financial support for education in America, going above and beyond the President's request. Title I grants to local education agencies will increase by $1 billion. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will see a $1 billion increase in part (B) grants to States, with additional funds available if a reauthorization bill is enacted that authorizes those additional funds.

Now to enforcing our budget discipline. Last September, the historic Budget Enforcement Act expired. This lapse, along with the inability of the Senate to pass a budget resolution and 11 of 13 appropriations bills, meant the loss of significant controls on Federal spending. The resolution before the Senate today seeks to correct this failure and restores some budget discipline to the process. The resolution contains enforceable, discretionary budget caps for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 consistent with the funding levels outlined by President Bush. This resolution also reinstates the 60-vote point of order against advanced appropriations as well as targeting nondefense emergency appropriations with a similar point of order. Perhaps the most important of all, the budget contains an extension of the pay-go point of order to limit unbudgeted mandatory spending increases over revenue decreases.

Budget discipline has long been an area of keen interest to me, and I have to say I appreciate Chairman Nickles' commitment to enforcement, although I hope we will continue to work toward establishing greater controls in spending.

Then a word about dynamic scoring: From a process standpoint, I am also very interested in expanding this discussion to include dynamic scoring. As my colleagues are aware, the Congressional Budget Office, various committees, and the administration generally rely on what is referred to as static scoring. That is, that legislation and revenue decreases are scored in terms of costs to the Federal Government, without factoring in the yield to the Government of the economic stimulus generated by that policy change.

There are a number of States that have implemented dynamic scoring, including the State of California; and 40 States incorporate the principles of dynamic scoring in their budget calculation because they understand that it truly reflects what happens in the real world. That is why I am such an advocate of dynamic scoring, a process which I think reflects what will happen in the real world as a consequence of our budget.

Earlier, I spoke of the dynamic benefit of the elimination of double taxation of dividends by quoting the Wall Street Journal and Chairman Greenspan. Mr. Greenspan, the Journal, the Heritage Foundation, and others have vociferously asserted that this proposal will lead to more jobs and, thus, the generation of more wage hours and taxes paid. Even the Clinton administration Director of OMB agrees there is some stimulus effect. Despite this highly credible choir of proponents, I cannot as yet, to date, propose a dynamic scoring for this proposal produced by this Congress because it doesn't reflect what happens in the real world. The proposed growth package is a perfect example of the need for dynamic scoring to be incorporated into this process.

Is it so ridiculous to think that we could calculate the impact this package would have on job creation, increases in disposable income and savings, and even a return on Federal revenues due to economic activity?

Let me go to the chart to reemphasize my point. I have here a chart which reflects what will happen to additional job creation with the President's stimulus package.

The blue part of the bars on this chart reflects what would happen to our economy if we did not change the law at all, if we stayed just the way we are. On top of that, you will see the orange part of the bar, which reflects additional jobs that would be created with the President's economic growth package. An important part of that package is eliminating the double taxation on dividends.

So, after 2004, 2005, as we move on out to 2008, we see that there is a substantial increase in the number of additional jobs.

It is nice to talk about additional jobs. What does it do as far as money in Americans' pockets, in order to help the economy grow? The next chart shows the additional disposable income. This is the total amount of disposable income that would be available to Americans as we create these jobs through the President's job stimulus package, his economic stimulus package.

The blue line again reflects what would happen if we did not change any of the current law. The orange part of those bars reflects the additional growth that would happen as a result of us passing the President's stimulus package. I think this is significant additional disposable income. That means Americans will have more money in their pockets to spend, businesses would have more money in their checkbooks in order to buy new equipment and create jobs. It is a job stimulus package that we need today. We don't need it 3 years from now; we need it today, and I do hope we can move ahead.

Using the dynamic scoring model generated by the Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis, we can see the President's proposal generates a significant amount of growth in the economy and, in fact, gets far more bang for the buck than any increase in spending or Government handout. Current baseline projections for total employment forecast an unemployment rate of 5.4 percent in 2004. Incorporating the dynamic scoring method of measurement, we can see that would lower the rate to 4.9 percent, or an addition of 997,000 jobs to the economy.

In my home State of Colorado, more than 16,000 more jobs would be created in 2004 alone. I have a piece of paper here with me that reflects the amount of job growth we can expect in each State individually. For example, we can go to Alabama, the State of Senator Sessions. We heard his comments. There is a growth in 2004 of 15,100 jobs. Over the 5-year period, it is going to be an average growth of 13,840 jobs per

year, based on the President's economic growth plan. If we look at the President's stimulus package, what effect will it have?

We can look to Kentucky, for example. The Presiding Officer understands Kentucky. With the President's growth package we can expect, in 2004, 13,900 new jobs with an average over the years up to 2008 of 12,720 new jobs each year.

I have how this will impact each individual State as we move through the years. It is important that we pass the President's job stimulus plan.

I have been in Washington long enough to know better than to take job forecasts and predictions as gospel, but I also know that any policy that can potentially increase employment by almost a million jobs in 1 year simply must be considered.

I believe it is expected we at least try. There are individuals who say we should not do anything on economic growth and stimulus. I think that is the wrong approach. I think the American people expect some action to happen out of the Senate.

There are those who say maybe we ought to just do increased spending. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are promoting an economic growth stimulus package that puts emphasis on more spending. My response to that is, if spending is the answer, with all the spending that has happened in the last 4 years, why isn't our economy growing?

I think we have one thing we could do, that we should try at least, in order to stimulate that economy. I think we need to cut taxes. We need to cut taxes to stimulate the part of the economy that is most adversely affected, and that is the business sector of our economy, the small business sector--the double taxation of dividends. I have had one accountant tell me if we eliminate the double taxation on dividends, they are going to be recommending changes in the way that small business is organized and how they can do it in a way that will save money and bring money into the small business sector.

I believe we must do more than just complain and criticize but come up with a plan of action. I see no plan of action from my colleagues opposing this proposal. Americans deserve to hear alternative plans and not just suggestions of negativity without action.

I will bring my comments to a conclusion by simply stating I think this is a good budget proposal that is before us. I think it accounts for the President's economic stimulus package. Considering the condition of the Nation today, we need to pass an economic stimulus package. It addresses the immediate needs of defending this country as we are on the brink of moving into conflict. I think it is a reasonable budget. So standing here on the floor of the Senate, I express my support and hope the Members of the Senate will pass this budget because we need to have a budget this year.

Having concluded my remarks, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, since 1995 Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie has provided exceptional spiritual leadership to the Senate family. Serving as chaplain for 8 years, Dr. Ogilvie daily guided and counseled Members and staff with encouragement, support, and wisdom.

I will miss Dr. Ogilvie. Lloyd Ogilvie has led the Senate family and Nation through difficult situations, including the shooting deaths of Capitol Hill police officers J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson; the impeachment of our President; the deaths of three Senate Members, Paul Wellstone, John Chafee, and Paul Coverdell; the tragic terrorist attack on 9/11; the attack of anthrax on the Senate; and the current possibility of war.

His leadership and counsel have stayed Senate Members, spouses, and staff. I thank Dr. Ogilvie for his daily prayers. He offered us spiritual leadership through his weekly Bible study for Senators, and always made himself available--at any time of the day--as a source of prayer and counsel. Chaplain Ogilvie also hosted a weekly Bible study for Senate spouses.

Chaplain Ogilvie also made himself available to staff. He welcomed staff to his office, responded to electronic mail from staff, and taught an inspirational study every Friday for Senate staff. Dr. Ogilvie also made an effort to stimulate relationship with the Washington community. He made information available to staff about opportunities to serve Washington-based charities, and he made the Senate aware of Senate and community groups to help Senate staff strengthen their lives morally and spiritually. Dr. Ogilvie also offered himself to minister and speak to the local Washington community.

While serving in the Senate, I have been encouraged and blessed by Chaplain Ogilvie and I am pleased the Senate chose him as our Chaplain. His friendship and counsel have served the Senate well and Washington will miss his presence.

My wife Joan and I give you and Mary Jane our warmest thoughts and our prayers as you return home to California. We will continue to pray for you and your family. We thank you for your service and ministry to us and wish you and your family God's best.

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

Mr. President, I understand that the remaining time is Republican time. I am going to go ahead and start making some comments. We are doing some checking. Maybe I will ask unanimous consent to get some time for my colleague from Oregon. In the meantime, I will go ahead and start my comments.

I thank the Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to add my thoughts to this body's consideration of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, otherwise known as the Moscow Treaty. My understanding is that this afternoon it will be brought before the Senate. We are at a pivotal moment in our country's history. In many ways, the Senate's advise and consent to this treaty will mark the end of an era of hostility and the beginning of an age of cooperation.

It is more than a document; it is a signal to the world that the United States and Russia have moved beyond a relationship of conflict and brinkmanship to a relationship of mutual respect and shared values.

We all remember the super-power rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lasted over 45 years. I believe it is important for this debate to recall the tension and hostility that accompanies that time so that we may fully appreciate what this treaty symbolizes for the future of U.S.-Russian relations.

In 1947, a little-known foreign service officer named George Kennan under the pseudonym `X' wrote an essay that was published in Foreign Affairs journal that was to define our approach to the Soviet Union for the next fifty years. In his essay, he described the Soviet ideology as the belief in the ``basic badness of capitalism, in the inevitability of its destruction, in the obligation of the proletariat to assist in that destruction and to take power into its own hands.''

This ideological bent would manifest itself, Mr. Kennan predicted, in an ``innate antagonism'' between the Soviet Union and Western world. He said that we should expect secretiveness, a lack of frankness, duplicity, a wary suspiciousness, and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. Mr. Kennan warned us that the Soviet government might sign documents that might indicate a deviation from this ideology, but that we should regard such actions as a ``tactical maneuver permissible in dealing with the enemy (who is without honor) and should be taken in the spirit of caveat emptor''. As we discovered in the decades following, Mr. Kennan was right.

The Soviet Union did indeed devote itself to exporting its ideology around the world. Its foreign policy was marked by antagonistic rhetoric and provocative actions. It signed arms control agreements and then violated them. The Soviet Union invaded its neighbors, launched proxy wars, and encouraged revolution and instability. It repeatedly proved capable of exploiting weakness and political divisions. And it was successful at taking advantage of geopolitical realities. As a result, Angola, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Granada, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Greece, and Turkey all become Cold War battlegrounds.

For the most part, the United States followed Mr. Kennan's advice. We strove to contain Soviet expansionist tendencies. We forced back Soviet advances. We were firm. We were patient. And, in 1991, with the fall of the Soviet Union, our patience paid off.

It is important that we recognize that the Russia of today is nothing like the Soviet Union of yesterday. Under the leadership of President Putin, economic and political reforms are being enacted. Russia is no longer bound by a defunct ideology. The country has stepped away from its past and has worked with sincerity to help resolve many of the challenges facing the international community.

Russia has also sought to improve its relationship with the Western world. It went eventually along with inclusion of the Baltic states into the NATO Alliance, despite harboring deep concerns. Russia accepted our withdrawal from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. After September 11, Russia assisted the United States in the war against terrorism by sharing intelligence information and raising no objection to the stationing of U.S. troops in the former Soviet states in Central Asia. Once inconceivable, it is now possible to imagine Russia joining the World Trade Organization and even NATO in the near future.

Another sign of improved relations between the U.S. and Russia is the treaty currently before us. The Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions is much different from arms control treaties agreed to during the Cold War. The text of treaty epitomizes this new relationship. Both parties pledge to:

Embark upon the path of new relations for a new century and

committed the goal of strengthening their relationship

through cooperation and friendship.

Believe that new global challenges and threats require the

building of a qualitatively new foundation for strategic

relations between the Parties.

Desire to establish a genuine partnership based on the

principles of mutual security, cooperation, trust, openness,

and predictability.

The Joint Declaration by Presidents Bush and Putin that accompanied the treaty further expounds upon this new relationship. Let me read a couple of pertinent sections from that declaration:

We are achieving a new strategic relationship. The era in

which the United States and Russia saw each other as an enemy

or strategic threat has ended. We are partners and we will

cooperate to advance stability, security, and economic

integration, and to jointly global challenges and to help

resolve regional conflicts.

We will respect the essential values of democracy, human

rights, free speech and free media,tolerance, the rule of

law, and economic opportunity.

We recognize that the security, prosperity, and future

hopes of our peoples rest on a benign security environment,

the advancement of political and economic freedoms, and

international cooperation.

What is most notable about the Moscow Treaty as submitted to this body is the absence of certain provisions that normally marked Cold War era arms control treaties. Those provisions were based on distrust and antagonism. Instead, this treaty utilizes confidence-building measures based on trust and friendship.

For instance, the treaty does not establish interim warhead reduction goals or provide a detailed schedule for the reductions. The absence of such goals or schedules gives both sides flexibility over the next nine years to reduce their warheads at a pace of their own choosing.

Another missing element is precise counting rules. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991 provided such complex counting rules that it frequently resulted in overcounting and undercounting. Minor disparities in deployed and ``counting'' forces are no longer a significant issue given the confidence building measures included in the treaty and our positive relationship with Russia.

It should be noted that the Moscow Treaty does continue the START I verification regime, which permits on site inspections and continuous monitoring. The Moscow treaty also creates a new Bilateral Implementation Commission that will be used to any raise concerns that might arise about treaty compliance and transparency. These measures, plus our own technical means, will provide the U.S. government with significant confidence that it can monitor Russia's activities.

The Moscow Treaty is similar to previous arms control agreements in one significant way: it does not require the dismantlement of warheads. Neither Russia nor the United States sought the dismantlement for two reasons. First, the dismantlement in the past has been considered inherently unverifiable. There is no established process for dismantling warheads that can provide assurance to each party.

Second, the U.S. intends to keep some warheads in ``ready reserve.'' Such a reserve is essential if we are to retain the capability to respond to changes in the security environment and quickly replace dysfunctional warheads.

I also think it is instructive to look at the process by which the Moscow Treaty was put together and how different these negotiations were from negotiations that occurred during the cold war. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked on the difference during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last July. Here is what he said:

. . . it's significant that while we consulted closely and

engaged in a process that had been open and transparent, we

did not engage in lengthy adversarial negotiations in which

U.S. and Russia would keep thousands of warheads that we

didn't need, as bargaining chips. We did not establish

standing negotiating teams in Geneva with armies of arms

control aficionados ready to do battle over every colon and

every comma. . . . An illustration of how far we have come is

the START treaty. . . . It is 700 pages long, and it took

nine years to negotiate. . . . The Moscow treaty . . . is

three pages long and it took five or six months to negotiate.

Let's take a few moments to review some of the Moscow treaty's provisions. The treaty requires the reduction of strategic nuclear warheads by each party to a level of 1,700-2,200 by the end of 2012. Each side currently has about 6,000 warheads. This treaty means a reduction of over 8,000 nuclear warheads.

The treaty allows both parties to restructure their offensive forces as each sees fit, within the prescribed numerical limit. This provision gives each flexibility to meet the deadline and permit each party to determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms.

The Treaty mandates that the parties will meet at least twice a year as part of a Bilateral Implementations Commission.

The Treaty allows each party, in exercising national sovereignty, the ability to withdraw from the treaty upon three months written notice.

As you can see, the treaty is simple, straight-forward, and gives each party maximum flexibility.

Last summer, the Senate Armed Services Committee held two important hearings on the national security implications of the treaty. Witnesses included: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers; Combatant Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, Admiral James Ellis; and Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy, Dr. Everet H. Beckner. The witnesses at the Committee hearings unanimously supported ratification of the Moscow Treaty. The Chairman of the Joint chiefs, General Myers said,

The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I all support

the Moscow Treaty. We believe it provides for the long-term

security interests of our nation. We also believe that it

preserves our flexibility in an uncretain strategic

environment.

Admiral Ellis added that,

This treaty allows me, as the Commander of the nation's

Strategic Forces, the latitude to structure our strategic

forces to better support the national security pillars of

assuring our allies, dissuading those who might wish us ill,

deterring potential adversaries and, if necessary, defending

the nation. . . . [I]n my judgment, this treaty provides me

the ability to prudently meet those national security needs

and to provide a range of deterrent options to the Secretary

and the President for their consideration should the need

arise. . . .

I believe it is important to recognize the flexibility that this treaty gives the United States. While the U.S. nuclear stockpile may contain a large number of warheads, we only have six types of warheads, and none of these have been tested in over a decade. The average age of warheads in the U.S. stockpile is approaching 20 years--and some warheads are much older. Despite the improved effectiveness of the stockpile stewardship program, problems in the stockpile do occur. Having the responsive reserve, as envisioned by the administration, enables us to address problems in the stockpile without compromising our national security interests. This treaty is simple, flexible, and makes sense. It is a signal that the hostility of the cold war has been buried and forgotten. It has been 12 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and clearly it is time to move one.

As we consider this treaty, we should also keep the future in mind. I share Secretary Rumsfeld's vision for future negotiations with Russia as he described it at July 26 Armed Services Committee hearing. He said,

We are working towards the day when the relationship

between our two countries is such that no arms control

treaties will be necessary. that's how normal countries deal

with each other. The United States and Britain both have

nuclear weapons, yet we do not spend hundreds of hours

negotiating the fine details of mutual reductions in our

offensive systems. We do not feel the need to preserve the

balance of terror between us. It would be a worthy goal for

our relationship with Russia to evolve along that path.

I could not agree more with the Defense Secretary's vision. Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries and therefore should not treat each other as such.

I understand that my good friend, Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has written to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressing his strong support for the Moscow treaty. I join him in that support. I believe the Senate should provide its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty with no further changes or additional conditions to the resolution of ratification.

Some of my colleagues may offer well-intentioned amendments that might attempt to add reservations, understandings, or declarations. I appreciate their desire to amend the treaty, but I think we should keep in mind that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved this treaty without amendment, and the resolution of ratification before us today has only tow modest conditions. The President has indicated his opposition to any amendment to the resolution. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to oppose all amendments. I believe it would be best for our nation security interests if this treaty remained unencumbered by items that will complicate the treaty and reduce our flexibility.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this important treaty. I look forward to a healthy debate on this issue. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my office encountered a loss this past weekend. My first military fellow, Lt. Col. Tim Coy, U.S. Air Force, lost his wife after a battle with cancer. Barbara Louise Coy, age 43, passed away in Woodbridge, VA, on Saturday, March 1, 2003. She was born on July 30, 1959, at Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, she graduated from Hampton High School, Hampton, VA. She accompanied Tim on his many military assignments to Nevada, Wyoming, California, Colorado, and Virginia. She leaves behind her husband of

25 years, Timothy W. Coy, her son, Brian T. Coy, and daughter, Laura M. Coy.

While Tim and his family were only with my office for a year in 1998, he is still like family in the office. And just how an office becomes a family, we all mourn with Tim and his during this difficult time. Our prayers and thoughts are with Tim, Brian, and Laura Coy.

Mr. President, I stand in support of Miguel Estrada, and the need for a vote on his nomination. I listened to the comments of my colleague from Nevada, and I ask myself, what is this debate really about? The debate is about whether a majority of Senators should have the opportunity to voice their opinion through a vote on Miguel Estrada. I, for one, feel like I have adequate information. There is more than a majority of Senators in this body who obviously feel they have adequate information to take a vote on Miguel Estrada.

This filibuster is unprecedented. We have never had a filibuster of this nature before on a circuit court judge up for consideration before this body. I think it is time we recognize that in the Constitution there is an advise and consent provision. Many of us feel the debate has reached the point where enough questions have been asked and now the full body of the Senate is ready to proceed to a vote.

When a judge starts through the nomination process, he is introduced to the Senate through resolution. The nomination goes to the committee. There is also a process where individual Senators can express their concerns through a blue slip process. Then there are hearings and votes in committee, and then the nomination comes to the floor for a vote.

Miguel Estrada has gone through this process. He has even received the highest recommendation from the American Bar Association. That is a body of peers, peers he has done business with on a regular basis, who understand his

record, who know him personally, and who appreciate and respect his professional competence to the point they are willing to give him the highest rating the American Bar Association will give to any nominee.

I think he has a great story. He came to this country with a limited English language ability at the age of 17. He could speak Spanish hardly any English at all. If you come here at 17 and don't know the language and you graduate from a university magna cum laude and then go and serve on the Harvard Law Review--it is simply an outstanding academic accomplishment.

This individual's accomplishments did not stop with graduation; they continued through his professional life. Not just anybody gets to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States. That is a select group of people. So as far as I am concerned, let's simplify this debate, as my colleague suggested. Let's have a vote. That is what we are talking about. Let's just bring up Miguel Estrada for a vote in the Senate. I think it is time. I think a lot of debate has been going on. There are some differences of opinion about things that can be argued about. But if we have a vote, each individual Senator has an opportunity to make up his or her mind as to how they feel, as to whether or not there is enough information, to make up their minds as to whether they think this is the quality of person they would like to have on the DC Court of Appeals.

The assistant Democratic leader suggested there are three ways to resolve this problem. He said we can pull the nomination, file cloture, or submit the nominee to additional questioning. I suggest another: To do what we do for most nominees; that is, have the debate, which we are having and have done, set a time certain for a vote, which the other side simply has refused to do, and then vote up or down. Unfortunately, they are not going to permit that to happen.

Last night I joined a majority of my colleagues to display our unity in support for Miguel Estrada, a display of support that is particularly important in the midst of this Democrat-led filibuster. But last night was more than just a display. It was an attempt to break the logjam, a good will invitation to carry out the Senate's duties as commanded by the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. My colleagues and I gathered here on the floor last night, ready to act. A majority of this body is willing to move forward on the nomination of Miguel Estrada by taking a simple up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking for, a simple up-or-down vote on a nominee who is more than qualified to assume the judgeship of the DC Circuit Court, the second most important court in the United States.

Hoping to proceed, my colleagues and I participated in a dialog with Chairman Hatch, a back-and-forth exchange of questions and answers. I admire, I have to say, the ability and knowledge of Chairman Hatch and his dedication to this cause, especially as it became apparent that we, once again, would be denied the opportunity to vote, held hostage by a game of entrenchment politics.

Every time I hear one of my colleagues address the nomination of Mr. Estrada, I cannot help but to be both impressed and shocked, impressed with the character and integrity, the intellect and principles of Mr. Estrada; and shocked that such a capable man, who has the opportunity to become the first Hispanic judge on the DC Circuit Court, cannot even receive a vote, a simple up-or-down vote.

The majority of my colleagues are ready to move forward on the nomination. We are ready to vote. I cannot cast judgment on those who oppose Mr. Estrada. If they want to vote no, that is their choice. I respect that. It is their right. I understand that. I voted against judges whom I believed were not fit to serve. But it is implausible to think he should be denied a vote entirely.

Newspapers, radio stations, television programs across the country are demanding that the stalemate end, and that the minority party allow the Senate to proceed and to break off a filibuster that could amount to a major shift in constitutional authority.

Last week I spent the Presidents Day recess traveling across the State of Colorado. In every community, big or small, concerned citizens shared their beliefs on the importance of this nomination and the need to provide a vote for Miguel Estrada. They were appalled that we were not moving forward, that their representative in the Senate would not have an opportunity to vote on a very important consideration for the judiciary. Perhaps some disagree on whether he should be confirmed, but they all agree there should be at least a vote, and they agree it should be done without shifting constitutional authority in a manner that imposes a supermajority requirement on all judicial nominations. I am afraid that is where we are headed.

Let me share with you a couple of editorials that ran in Colorado's two major newspapers, one published in the Denver Post, the other appearing in the Rocky Mountain News.

The Denver Post, a paper that endorsed Al Gore in 2000, and by no means an arm of the Republican party, demands that Estrada be given his day in court, that the Senate be provided a vote. The paper confirms the outstanding quality of the nominee, noting that he is a picture book example of an immigrant pursuing the American dream.

The Denver Post also recognizes his outstanding credentials, stating that while he may lack judicial experience, so, too, do a majority of those now sitting on the DC Circuit Court, some of whom were nominated by Presidents Carter and Clinton.

I have a statement here from the editorial in the Denver Post on the posterboard beside me.

The key point is that there should be a vote . . . a

filibuster should play no part in the process.

The Rocky Mountain News simply described the Democrats tactics as ``ugly,'' commenting on their attempt to thwart the Senate's majoritarian decisionmaking.

The editorial calls the filibuster:

. . . irresponsible, a hysteria being acted out to keep

Estrada from serving on the US Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia.

On the chart I have a quote from both papers highlighting the need to end the filibuster and to proceed to a vote.

The Denver Post:

The key point is that there should be a vote . . . a

filibuster should play no part in the process.

The Rocky Mountain News concludes that:

The Democrats have no excuse. Keeping others from voting

their consciences on this particular matter is simply out of

line.

Editorial boards across the country echo this very same sentiment. More than 60 major newspapers are calling for an end to the filibuster.

I would like to share with my colleagues here this afternoon a few of those. Let me name a few:

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; in California, Redding, and The Press Enterprise; The Hartford Courant; The Washington Post; in Florida, The Tampa Tribune and The Florida Times-Union; The Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Augusta Chronicle; the Chicago Tribune in Illinois, along with the Chicago Sun-Times, and Freeport Journal Standard; The Advocate in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; The Boston Herald; The Detroit News and Grand Rapids Press; in New Mexico the Albuquerque Journal; in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review Journal; the Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina; in North Dakota, the Grand Forks Herald; the Providence Journal in Rhode Island; in West Virginia, the Wheeling News Register/Intelligencer; and nationally, the Investor's Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal.

I would also like to refute one of the arguments being put forward by the Democrats against Mr. Estrada.

For 11 days we have heard statements that the nominee is not qualified to serve because he lacks judicial experience. This standard is simply ridiculous.

Had it applied to their own Democratic nominees, it would have prevented some of the most capable attorney's from being seated on the federal bench.

Under the experience litmus test, the late Justice Byron ``Whizzer'' White, a great Coloradan, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President John F. Kennedy, would never have been confirmed.

Nor would another great Coloradan, Judge Carlos Lucero, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, have been confirmed.

To consider a lack of judicial experience as the poison pill of the Estrada nomination while ignoring the confirmation of Democratic nominees Justice White and Judge Lucero, is a double standard of the highest order.

The majority of this body, a majority elected by the American people, is ready to proceed with the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

I have no doubt that the obstructionists have their own reason to vote against the nominee. But they have no reason to prevent a vote entirely.

I hope that my colleagues will realize the danger of the path they have chosen, and will end this course of obstruction.

While I believe a full and fair debate of Presidential nominees is of paramount importance, obstructing an up-or-down vote fails the public trust and is a disservice to our system of justice.

I know how I am going to vote. I am voting for a highly qualified individual. A nominee who the American Bar Association has stated is ``highly-qualified.'' That individual is Miguel Estrada, and he deserves a vote by the United States Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of the Honorable Stephen A. Cambone to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Mr. John Paul Woodley, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and Ambassador Linton F. Brooks to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator for Nuclear Security, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.

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 Thursday, February 27 at 10:00 a.m. to receive testimony regarding energy production on Federal Lands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hear testimony on Examining the Administration's Fiscal Year 2004 Health Care Priorities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a Hearing on American Public Diplomacy and Islam.

agenda

Witnesses

Panel 1: The Honorable Charlotte Beers, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Department of State, Washington, DC and the Honorable Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, Chairman, Board of Broadcasting Governors, Washington, DC;

Panel 2: Andrew Kohut, Director, The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Washington, DC; the Honorable Kenton Keith, Senior Vice President, Meridian International Center, Washington, DC; and Dr. R. S. Zaharna, School of Communication, American University, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 27, 2003 at 11 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nomination of Janet Hale to be Under Secretary for Management, Department of Homeland Security; the Honorable Clark Kent Ervin to be Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security; and Linda M. Springer to be Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 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 Thursday, February 27, 2003, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, at 3 p.m., to receive testimony regarding S. 246, a bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico; S. 32, a bill to establish institutes to conduct research on the prevention of, and restoration from, wildfires in forest and woodland ecosystems of the interior west; S. 203, a bill to open certain withdrawn land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, to locatable mineral development for bentonite mining; S. 278, a bill to make certain adjustments to the boundaries of the Mount Naomi Wilderness Area, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on U.S. involvement in aerospace research.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Federal Highway Administration's FY 2004 budget.

This meeting will be held in SD 406.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the two largest newspapers in Colorado--the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post-- have both called for the Democrat leadership not to filibuster this judicial nominee?

Is the Senator aware that the Denver Post, which endorsed Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election, wrote: ``To use a filibuster is to impose a new requirement that judges be confirmed by a supermajority''?

And is the Senator aware that the Rocky Mountain News wrote in an editorial: ``Keeping others from voting their conscience on this particular matter is simply out of line''?

I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding.

Mr. President, anybody who might have been watching the debate this evening has to come to the realization that we are in a filibuster. Personally, I am very concerned about the kind of precedent it is going to set for this body as we move forward in future years. I think that forcing 60 votes in order to get to a vote up or down on a judicial nominee is a very difficult position to put this body in. I am disappointed that we were not able to get a straight up-or-down vote this evening on Miguel Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

I realize that watching the Senate on television is probably not the most popular pastime for many Americans, but it should come as no surprise to any of my colleagues or students of Congress that the current debate and unprecedented filibuster over the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, President George W. Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit Court, has citizens from across the country tuning in and paying close attention. From California to Colorado to New York and beyond, Americans have closely watched the DC Circuit Court confirmation, because they realize that justice is not issued by an individual court or judge, but rather collectively, the integrity of the law depending on the ability of each court to function within the whole.

In the midst of the Democrat-led filibuster, the Senate finds its business completely disrupted, unable to proceed to other important issues such as prescription drugs and economic relief. The Constitution commands that Federal judges are to be appointed with the advice and consent of this body. Yet today, thanks to the obstructionist tactics of the Democratic leadership, we face a very real possibility of shifting this authority in a manner the Framers never intended, fundamentally altering the amount of votes required to confirm judicial nominations.

It is clear that the obstructionists are not interested in an up-or- down

vote on this nomination. Instead, they prefer to hold the majority and the American people hostage to an unacceptable game of entrenchment and politics. Their reasons to prolong debate may be enough to justify a vote against Miguel Estrada, but I am still waiting for a reason that is sufficient to deny a vote entirely.

Television programs, talk show radio, and newspaper editorials across the United States are demanding that the Democrats allow a vote on Miguel Estrada, that they proceed to a simple up-or-down vote.

The media is simply echoing the statement of an outraged public. They have rejected this tyranny of the minority, and their demand for a vote must be acknowledged. The call for a vote has reached the editorial pages of both major newspapers in Colorado. The Rocky Mountain News, in an editorial entitled ``Democrats Turn Ugly on Estrada,'' states the filibuster is irresponsible. Their editorial also undermines many of the various arguments that are being used to prolong the confirmation, saying the arguments that we do not know enough about Miguel Estrada is implausible because he has a well-known and rather amazing life story. Estrada immigrated to this country from Honduras, graduated with honors at Columbia College, and was editor of the Law Review at Harvard Law School. Then he was a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice and argued before the Supreme Court 15 times. He received the highest possible recommendation of the American Bar Association.

The editorial concludes:

The Democrats have no excuse . . . keeping others from

voting their consciences on this particular matter is simply

out of line.

I ask unanimous consent that the article by the Rocky Mountain News be printed in the Record.

The News is not the only newspaper to decry the treatment of the President's nominee. The Denver Post, which, by the way, endorsed Al Gore over George W. Bush for President, in an article captioned, ``Give Estrada His Day in Court,'' states those Senators who think Estrada is too conservative should vote no. Those who think he was unresponsive should vote no. The key point is there should be a vote. To do otherwise, to use a filibuster, is to impose a new requirement that judges be confirmed by a supermajority.

The paper agrees the Constitution never intended such a requirement and that an up-or-down vote is in order.

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

Another article that appeared in the Denver Post was written by Al Knight, which states that if the obstructionists succeed, there will only be two kinds of nominees in a Republican administration: Those who can be opposed because they have said something suspect about a touchy topic, and known conservatives who have not said anything inappropriate. The second category can be opposed, however, precisely because they have not furnished their opponents with a basis for opposing their nomination. The article concludes that the Estrada filibuster is a lamentable departure from the past.

I ask unanimous consent that the Al Knight article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, challenging times are at hand. While I believe a full and fair debate of Presidential nominees is of paramount importance, obstructing an up-or-down vote fails the public trust and is a disservice to our system of justice. The Senate must resist temptations to alter the basic tenets of the Constitution. Instead, the Senate must move forward with the business of the Nation and can start by voting on the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

Again, we ought to look at the chart and remind ourselves of the key point in the editorials. The Denver Post said: The key point is that there should be a vote. . . . A filibuster should play no part in the process.

The Rocky Mountain News says: The Democrats have no excuse for keeping others from voting their consciences on this particular matter. It is simply out of line.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I have heard some on the floor try and imply that somehow Mr. Estrada has a hot temper, a short fuse. First, I would have to say that seems inconsistent with the many letters from those who know him. That includes such people as his former colleagues in the Solicitor General's Office, Ron Klain and Seth Waxman, who all praised his personal demeanor. But beyond that, is the Senator as troubled as I am by the use of these code words that perpetuate stereotypes about Hispanics and makes you wonder if we are debating Ricky Ricardo or Miguel Estrada? I see high praise in a New York Post article that describes him as a great American success story.

I wonder if the Senator from Utah would respond to that question.

I need about 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to share an observation made by my colleague on this side of the aisle--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch from Utah--that, like him, I believe there is a double standard.

Last week, I came to the floor to urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit Court. Last week, I had my statement focused on the late Byron White, Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. During my comments, I pointed out that Justice White's judicial career began in a manner very similar to that of Miguel Estrada. Justice White was nominated by President John F. Kennedy when he was only 44 years old. He went on to serve his country for three decades, without having any judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court. And he did an exemplary job on the bench.

Yet opponents of Miguel Estrada have pointed to his lack of judicial experience as the ``poison pill'' to his nomination. This is an unacceptable double standard. This experience litmus test, as I call it, is nothing but an obstructionist argument that is intended to undermine the entire judicial nomination process. It is wreaking havoc with our constitutional duty to confirm the President's nominations.

To say that Mr. Estrada, one of the best appellate court lawyers in the country, should not be confirmed because he lacks prior judicial experience is simply ridiculous. Justice White, a great Coloradan, would never have been confirmed had he faced such a strenuous litmus test; nor would another great Coloradan, Carlos Lucero, have been confirmed had that test been applied to him.

Judge Lucero was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton on March 23, 1995, and was confirmed by the Senate on June 30, 1995. Three months is all it took. Like Justice White and Miguel Estrada, Judge Carlos Lucero had never served as a judge prior to joining the court. Regardless of this fact, within 3 months of his nomination, the Judiciary Committee, then under the leadership of Chairman Hatch, held a confirmation hearing for Mr. Lucero. At no point during the confirmation hearing--not even once--did a member of the committee discuss his lack of judicial experience; nor did they consider it to be an impediment to his nomination. Instead, the Judiciary Committee moved forward with the nomination in a Republican-controlled Senate.

Judge Lucero had served as a staff assistant to a U.S. Senator. He had served on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, clerked for Judge Doyle of the Colorado District of the U.S. District Court, and practiced law in the private sector prior to joining the Federal bench.

Let's look at Miguel Estrada. He was a graduate from Harvard Law School with high honors. We have a lot of his qualifications listed on the board behind me. He served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he worked as an Assistant Solicitor General of the United States in both the Bush and the Clinton administrations. Neither Carlos Lucero--now Judge Lucero--nor Miguel Estrada had judicial experience at the time of their nomination. They both had a breadth of legal experience that ensured success on the bench. Miguel Estrada's outstanding record of accomplishment and real-life experiences prove that he will be no different than Judge White or Judge Lucero and that he will perform his judicial duties with great conviction and enthusiasm.

Within 3 months, Mr. Lucero was nominated, confirmed, and seated on the bench of the Tenth Circuit, becoming that court's first Hispanic judge. Somehow, the fact that Mr. Lucero had no judicial experience did not stop a Clinton appointee from being confirmed, but that is not the only ironic argument.

The Lucero nomination points out a second double standard being put forward by his opponents that Miguel Estrada is too political. Carlos Lucero was a two-time candidate for the Senate and a member of one of President Carter's advisory committees. Yet he still was confirmed without a concern being voiced by a single Senator that he was involved in a Senate race which was hailed by local newspapers as a bitter interparty slugfest, and the opposition to Miguel Estrada wants to complain about politics.

Upon his confirmation, Judge Lucero correctly stated it was ``an unfortunate vestige of history'' that it had taken so long for the Tenth Circuit to seat a Hispanic judge. It certainly was not because of delays in a Republican Senate.

With the nomination of Miguel Estrada, the Senate has an opportunity to place the first Hispanic judge on the bench of the DC Circuit Court, a man who came to this country at age 17 as an immigrant from Honduras, and a man who is well equipped to serve as the Nation's second most important court, certainly a success story of America and one that I like to herald time and again.

When Judge Lucero was before the committee, he was not asked his position on one issue, and yet my colleagues just saw my colleague from Utah show the Members of this Senate three pages of facts and testimony that had been collected on Miguel Estrada.

There were a couple questions in committee. I have them right here. This is the committee record on Lucero. We saw the 3-inch committee record on Miguel Estrada. When Judge Lucero from Colorado was on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, they asked him two questions: No. 1--it was an open-ended question--give this committee some idea why you think you qualify to serve on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was an open-ended question, a softball. No. 2--it was intended to be somewhat humorous and bring some levity to the committee hearing--they simply kidded him with a question: Is it easier to become a Senator or is it easier to become a judge? That was the extent of the questions, other than a few introductory remarks that were made in committee on Carlos Lucero.

Yet we have information collected of an extremely qualified candidate, Miguel Estrada. I have to tell you, there is a double standard. Unlike Judge Lucero who was nominated by President Clinton, Miguel Estrada has been forced to put his life on hold while special interests play games with our system of justice, delaying his confirmation and perpetrating an unfortunate status quo.

Miguel Estrada's nomination has been pending since May 9, 2001. That is nearly 2 years, and this is simply ridiculous. Judge Lucero was nominated and confirmed in 3 months. Miguel Estrada has been waiting for 2 years. Judge Lucero ran for the Senate twice. Miguel Estrada is far less political than Judge Lucero.

Judge Lucero clerked for a U.S. district judge but had no judicial experience. Miguel Estrada served as a clerk to Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court, Assistant to the Solicitor General, assistant U.S. attorney, and deputy chief of the appellate section, and law clerk to Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Judge Lucero practiced law in Colorado. Miguel Estrada practiced law in front of the U.S. Supreme Court where he argued 15 cases. Mr. Estrada's qualifications are clear and abundant. The obstructionist charade must stop.

Over the past 2 years, many of my colleagues have come to the floor to make statements regarding the sad pace of judicial nominations during the last Congress. They have made excellent points, but I believe the most telling statistic is simply that more appeals court nominees have had to wait over a year for a hearing in President Bush's Presidency than in the last 50 years combined.

Let me repeat that. The most telling statistic is simply that more appeals court nominees have had to wait over a year for a hearing in President Bush's Presidency than in the last 50 years combined.

The stalemate on the Bush nominees must end. In the wake of September 11, we now understand the somber reality that the most basic of our country's values and traditions are under attack. That is why it is so important that we move the nomination process forward and provide the judiciary branch of Government the tools that are necessary to carry out its constitutional duty. We cannot continue to allow partisan politics to interfere with principled jurisprudence that is intended to serve justice on those who have done us harm.

Justice cannot be delivered from an empty bench. Miguel Estrada's life story defines the very notion of our Republic. Like Judge Lucero and Justice White, he is an American success story, building his success by combining energy and opportunity with self-respect and integrity and values.

It is time for the confirmation process to move forward and for a vote on the floor of the Senate. At least we can have a vote on the floor of the Senate. And it is time to drop the double standard and to confirm this very highly qualified nominee. I thank the Chair.