[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14547-S14635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S14547]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Hatch will be on the floor 
shortly. Before he gets here, I want to talk about one of the nominees 
who we will be voting on, once again, with cloture votes on Friday. 
That is Justice Priscilla Owen. Justice Priscilla Owen has had a vote 
in the Senate. She has had four or five votes in the Senate.
  If we were adhering to the Constitution of the United States, she 
would be sitting on the Fifth Circuit today. There are three vacancies 
on the Fifth Circuit. They need to fill their bench. She should be 
sitting there because she has gotten more than 51 votes. But Priscilla 
Owen is not sitting on the Federal bench today because we have a new 
standard that has been put in place for the first time since 1789. Last 
year, we started having a 60-vote standard for Federal judges.
  So Priscilla Owen, although she has repeatedly and every time, gotten 
over the required 51 percent, is not sitting on the Federal bench 
today. No. Instead, this very qualified supreme court justice of the 
State of Texas is doing her job, doing it very well, serving as a 
supreme court justice in the State of Texas, even though she has gotten 
the requisite number of votes on repeated occasions to be confirmed as 
a Federal judge by the standards of this Congress from 1789 until 2002, 
until the rules were changed because we are now filibustering Federal 
judge nominees.

  Priscilla Owen was endorsed by every newspaper in Texas when she ran 
for reelection. Priscilla Owen made the highest grade--the highest 
grade--on the bar exam when she took it. She graduated at the top of 
her class from Baylor Law School. She has had an exemplary record both 
as a supreme court justice for the State of Texas and as a practicing 
lawyer. She is experienced. She is qualified. She was rendered 
qualified by the ABA system, the committee, and she has been endorsed 
by Democrats and Republicans throughout Texas. She has been endorsed by 
Democratic supreme court justices with whom she served on the Supreme 
Court of Texas.
  The former chief justice of the supreme court, a Democrat, named John 
R. Hill, who also was a Democrat attorney general in the State of 
Texas--a very fine one, a very respected lawyerNOTICE

If the 108th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before 
November 21, 2003, a final issue of the Congressional Record for 
the 108th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Monday, 
December 15, 2003, in order to permit Members to revise and extend 
their remarks.
All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and 
delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of 
Debates (Room HT-60 or S-410A of the Capitol), Monday through 
Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through 
Friday, December 12, 2003. The final issue will be dated Monday, 
December 15, 2003, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 16, 
2003.
None of the material printed in the final issue of the 
Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any 
event that occurred after the sine die date.
Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, 
either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to 
the Official Reporters of Debates at ``[email protected]''.
Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be 
submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed 
statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the 
Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov/
forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template 
formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication 
with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to 
the Official Reporters in Room 
HT-60 of the Capitol.
Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material 
submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by 
contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the 
Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.
By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.
                                                                
ROBERT W. NEY, Chairman.

[[Page S14548]]

in Texas; supreme court chief justice and attorney general of our 
State--said Priscilla Owen is unqualifiedly the best we could have for 
this court. She is a person who ought to be on the Federal court.
  In fact, he came up here and tried to meet with Democratic Senators 
to talk about how qualified she is. That Priscilla Owen is not sitting 
on the Fifth Circuit today is a tragedy, and it is not right.
  She is not the only one who has been asked to meet this higher 
standard. Look at Miguel Estrada, who came to our country as a boy and 
did not even speak English, who studied so hard that he was able to go 
to Columbia and become a Phi Beta Kappa, and then to Harvard Law 
School, where he graduated, again in the top of his class.
  Miguel Estrada, the American dream; Miguel Estrada, who sat here 
since May of 2001, who got the requisite number of votes to be 
confirmed for the DC Circuit--well over 51--time and time and time 
again, but he is not sitting on the DC Circuit. He finally said: I 
can't take this anymore. I have to get on with my life. In September, 
he said: Take my name off the list.
  Why? Why have we set a higher bar for Priscilla Owen and Miguel 
Estrada--these two perfectly qualified people, with great academic 
standing, with great records, with experience, everything you would 
want on the Federal bench?
  What are we going to do to the people who would ask for Federal 
benches in the future? I am very concerned that after watching this 
process so many of them are going to say: Please, don't throw me in 
that briar patch.
  So, Mr. President, I do not think we should change the Constitution 
of the United States without going through the process of a 
constitutional amendment. Have we had a vote on the floor that got a 
two-thirds majority saying that we will have a 60-vote requirement for 
confirming Federal judges? Have we done that? That is the process for 
amending the Constitution of the United States.
  But I do not think that since I have been here I have seen a vote 
that would say: No, it is not a 51-vote margin; it is 60. No, Mr. 
President, we have not had that vote. But, in fact, the amendment to 
the Constitution is being put forward without going through the 
process. Because we now have six people nominated to the circuit court 
bench who are having to meet a higher standard than 51. And that is not 
right.
  To date, our President, President Bush, has had 63 percent of his 
nominees to the circuit court confirmed. The previous three Presidents 
have had 91 percent of their circuit court judges confirmed by this 
time in their terms.
  So I am going to turn the floor over to the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee who has done a wonderful job trying to get 
these nominations through the process. He has done a magnificent job in 
trying to bring these great nominees to the floor.
  But we are standing here tonight because this is a constitutional 
issue, and it is important. It is important that these good people, who 
have submitted themselves for this process to be confirmed as Federal 
circuit judges, be able to, with dignity, have a vote up or down with 
the same standard that we have had since 1789; and that is a 51-vote 
margin.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate and 
the populist arguments being made by Democrats who seem to think that 
having Federal judgeship nominees treated fairly, as they always have 
been in the past, once they have been brought to the floor, seems to be 
not right because they think we ought to do something about jobs.
  Well, why haven't they? This recession began in the last year of the 
Clinton administration. I went through just some of the things that 
show they have had a pattern of obstruction from day 1 around here 
since we have taken over control of the Senate.
  The pattern of obstruction was set on the first day of the 108th 
Congress when the motion to adjourn was forced to a rollcall vote, 
something that is usually never done. The long overdue 2003 
appropriations bills were finally enacted after we became the majority 
in 2003, on February 20.
  For the first time in history, filibusters were used to defeat the 
President's circuit court nominees. I have mentioned upwards of 15 that 
some Democrats have told me they are going to filibuster. They are not 
going to filibuster all of them, but they are certainly filibustering 
already more than four. There are six right now by the time you get 
through with Friday.
  I can tell you, there are a whole raft of others they are planning on 
filibustering. First time in history, treating a President like dirt, 
and these nominees, which is even more important in this sense, because 
these nominees--we are going to find that we cannot get the top people 
in the country to take these positions, especially if they are very 
liberal or very conservative, even though they are in the mainstream. 
And that is a big phony shibboleth. Every time they say: Well, they are 
outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. They were saying that 
about Bill Pryor, criticizing the cases that he won as the Alabama 
attorney general before the Supreme Court. So who is out of the 
mainstream? It certainly is not Bill Pryor, nor is it any of these 
other nominees.
  Like I say, Priscilla Owen, who has been held up for 3 years now--
better than 3 years--Priscilla Owen is on the Texas Supreme Court. She 
was one of the first women partners in this country. She broke through 
the ``glass ceiling'' for women. They ought to be giving her a medal 
instead of treating her in this despicable fashion, and they are only 
doing it because these inside-the-beltway groups control, in many 
respects, what they do. It all comes down to abortion.
  Now, there are sincere people on both sides of that issue. That is 
why I did not allow the issue of abortion to stop otherwise qualified 
candidates from getting a vote up or down on the floor, even though I 
am personally pro-life and cannot imagine why anybody would want to go 
for a regime of abortion on demand. There were 1.6 million abortions a 
year at one time. Forty million abortions in this country--the barbaric 
practice of partial-birth abortion, which many of my colleagues voted 
for, even some on this side.
  Let me go down a few further here: Needed legal reforms, I mentioned, 
to stop lawsuit abuse against doctors, businesses, and industries have 
been virtually banned by the tactics of the minority.
  Jobs have been lost right and left because of their refusal to allow 
decent laws to be passed. Medical liability, class action reform, gun 
liability, and asbestos lawsuit reforms have all been subject to delays 
or filibusters by our colleagues on the other side.

  As I said, we spent 22 days on an Energy bill last year, and then we 
had to spend 18 days on an Energy bill this year, when we basically 
enacted the same bill we did last year.
  Bioshield legislation is very important for those of us who work 
heavily in the area of health care and antiterrorism. Bioshield 
legislation is necessary to ensure proper vaccines and medicines to 
counter bioterrorism attacks has still not cleared objections.
  The State Department reauthorization was stalled by Democrats 
insisting upon unrelated poison-pill amendments being voted on prior to 
passage.
  The District of Columbia appropriations bill is subject to a rolling 
filibuster threat over a provision giving low-income students school 
choice, where we spend over $11,000 per student and have the lousiest 
school system in the country.
  Last year Senate Democrats failed to pass a budget resolution for the 
first time since the Budget Act was written in 1974, and they have the 
gall to come in here and say: Well, we ought to be taking care of jobs.
  We are going to take care of jobs if we can get some cooperation from 
them. But all the taking care of jobs in the world may not amount to 
much if we do not have a good Federal judiciary to make this system 
work, to make sure our constitutional way of life continues.
  They passed no welfare reform. They took no action to ban cloning. 
They passed no Medicare prescription drug plan. They confirmed a record 
low number of judges. They enacted only 2 of the 13 appropriations 
bills and delayed enactment of a Homeland Security Department for 
months. It is this

[[Page S14549]]

dismal record of inaction that Democrats hope to repeat.
  Now, we are committed to delivering the Healthy Forests bill and the 
CARE Act to the President's desk. The Democrats are refusing to name 
conferees to the bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. I 
could go on and on.
  But my friend from Nevada--it is kind of interesting to me that he 
would take 10 hours out of the Senate's time on Monday to filibuster, 
when we all came here prepared to vote on appropriations bills.
  I think it is pretty bad to come in here and say that we should not 
do what we should for judges, when they themselves have been 
filibustering not just judges but virtually everything else with a slow 
walk.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I am glad to yield, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I notice my friend's voice from Utah is cracking a 
bit, and I thought I might give him a moment's relief by asking him a 
question or two.
  Mr. HATCH. Sure.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
was it not the case that the current DC Circuit Judge John Roberts and 
nominee Miguel Estrada were nominated on the same day in May of 2001?
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would ask my friend from Utah, is it not true that 
the rationale for defeating Miguel Estrada given by the other side was 
that either he or the Justice Department or both of them refused to 
turn over the working papers that he had produced during his period as 
a lawyer in the Solicitor's Office of the Justice Department?

  Mr. HATCH. That is correct. These are the most confidential private 
papers of the Solicitor General's Office, the lawyer who represents all 
of the public.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Right. Was it also not the case, I ask my friend from 
Utah, that every single living Solicitor, who are either current or 
former Solicitors, the majority of which are Democrats, concurred with 
the Justice Department's position that these working papers should not 
be turned over?
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct. Four of the seven former Solicitors 
General were leading Democrats, who said that what the Democrats are 
doing is wrong.
  Mr. McCONNELL. People such as Seth Waxman and Archibald Cox?
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. All concurred?
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. All concurred that these types of working papers 
should not be turned over?
  Mr. HATCH. That is right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it not the case, I ask my friend from Utah, that 
both John Roberts and Miguel Estrada worked in the Solicitor's Office?
  Mr. HATCH. They both worked there. They both were excellent appellate 
lawyers. By the way, Estrada worked not only with the Bush 
administration but with the Clinton administration. And he had high 
marks.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The same two gentlemen we just discussed, who were 
nominated on the same day back in May of 2001, by President Bush, for 
the very same court?
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Nominated to the same court, the same experience in 
the Solicitor's Office. And is it not the case, I say to my friend from 
Utah, that John Roberts was passed out of committee and subsequently 
confirmed on a voice vote in the Senate?
  Mr. HATCH. A unanimous voice vote on the floor, but only after 
waiting 12 years through three nominations by two different Presidents.
  Mr. McCONNELL. He certainly had to wait a while, did he not?
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it not the case that you had two nominees nominated 
on the same day, to the same court, having had the same experience in 
the Solicitor's Office, and one nominee was rejected because internal 
papers in the Solicitor's Office were requested and not turned over, 
and no such request for the same kind of office papers were made of now 
Judge Roberts?
  Mr. HATCH. John Roberts, who was one of the finest appellate lawyers 
in the country, as was Miguel Estrada, was treated completely 
differently once the Judiciary Committee considered him. And I had to 
force them to consider him. Yet he passed this body by unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So the request was made for certain papers of one 
nominee and the precise same papers of the other nominee were not 
requested?
  Mr. HATCH. That is exactly right. They treated Miguel Estrada 
differently from John Roberts.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me ask my friend from Utah, is there any 
conceivable basis for such disparate treatment for the same two people, 
nominated for the very same court on the very same day, going through 
the very same Judiciary Committee? Can the Senator from Utah think of 
any rational reason for this kind of disparate treatment?

  Mr. HATCH. Not a legitimate reason. The only reason was they believed 
him to be pro-life. I don't know whether he is to this day because we 
do not ask those questions.
  Mr. McCONNELL. But the stated reason, I would say to my friend from 
Utah, you just confirmed a moment ago. The stated reason for not 
confirming Miguel Estrada was that he would not turn over these papers 
or the administration would not turn over these papers.
  Mr. HATCH. The phony reason.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That was the stated reason.
  Mr. HATCH. The phony reason they hid behind.
  But let me make this point. Miguel Estrada, as great an attorney as 
he is, having argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, having the 
highest recommendation of the American Bar Association, their gold 
standard, they did not want him to come through this process because 
they knew, or at least they perceived, that he was on the fast track to 
become the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court and they just cannot 
tolerate having a conservative Hispanic on the Circuit Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia, let alone on the Supreme Court.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So I say to my friend from Utah, what we have is a 
situation where a white male nominee, to the very same court, with the 
very same experience, was treated one way and a Hispanic-American 
nominee, nominated to the very same court, on the very same day, was 
treated differently?
  Mr. HATCH. That is absolutely right. But even Roberts had to go 
through a lot of pain to get there--12 years waiting, nominated three 
times by two different Presidents.
  We put him out of the committee after a 12-hour hearing. You hardly 
have that much for Supreme Court nominees. There were two others on 
that list. They complained because there were three on one day's 
hearing. They ignored the fact that Ted Kennedy, when he was chairman, 
had seven circuit nominees one day, and another four. We had at least 
10 other times when we had three.
  Then once we put him out of the committee, I had to bring him back in 
the committee so they could have another crack at him. They could not 
touch him. He was that good. So he had to go through an inordinate 
process to get there. But they knew they did not have anything on 
him. They know they didn't have anything on Miguel Estrada.

  Mr. McCONNELL. It sounds to this Senator, I wonder if the chairman 
concurs, that there was a sort of rule created and applied to Miguel 
Estrada----
  Mr. HATCH. It was a double standard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That was not applied to John Roberts, two nominees 
considered for the same court at the same time.
  Mr. HATCH. Absolutely right. Roberts was treated like all other 
nominees during the Reagan years, Bush 1 years, and the Clinton years. 
He was not asked to give his opinions on future issues that might come 
before the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
  Because Miguel Estrada answered the same way basically as all the 
other people who had passed in prior years, they held that against him. 
The big phony issue was knowing that the Solicitor General's Office did 
not give the most privileged, private documents in that department 
without making that department unworkable.

[[Page S14550]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Which is why, I say to my friend, they didn't ask for 
those papers on John Roberts.
  Mr. HATCH. That is right. They did treat Roberts differently, no 
question about it. They gave him a rough time, too. Miguel Estrada is 
in a league of his own in the way he was mistreated, but Roberts was 
mistreated, too. Roberts sits on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia after having been unanimously approved here.
  Let's talk about how important that is. We have had 40 rollcall votes 
on the floor. You talk about delays. You talk about fouling up this 
body. We have had 40 rollcall votes on people who got unanimously 
confirmed. Can you imagine what it takes to go through 40 rollcall 
votes? It slows down the Senate like you can't believe, and muscles up 
the Senate like you can't believe. It is all a big game to try and make 
this President not successful. But Miguel Estrada had to go through 
that as well.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So I say to my friend from Utah, and I will conclude 
with this, the practical result of that is this immigrant who came to 
the United States as a teenager, speaking broken English, realized the 
American dream, went to undergraduate and law school, was a star 
student, argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, was denied an 
opportunity to get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor by the 
creation of a standard that was not applied at the very same time to 
another nominee who was not a minority.
  Mr. HATCH. And, by the way, was never applied to any nominee, to my 
knowledge, in the past. Miguel Estrada was singled out with a double 
standard for the sole purpose of defeating his nomination and getting 
him to withdraw.
  Mr. McCONNELL. They were having a hard time, I say to the chairman, 
trying to find some basis upon which to defeat this guy. He was 
unanimously well qualified by the ABA, right?
  Mr. HATCH. Their gold standard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. He argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court.
  Mr. HATCH. Very few people even argue one case.
  Mr. McCONNELL. He received outstanding recommendations from everyone 
with whom he worked. They were having a real struggle, weren't they, I 
say to my friend, the chairman, trying to find some basis upon which to 
reject this truly outstanding nominee.
  Mr. HATCH. It shows the lengths they would go to on that side--at 
least the leaders on that side--to screw up a nomination of a very good 
person.

  Take Janice Rogers Brown. She is a terrific African-American justice 
on the California Supreme Court. She wrote the majority of the majority 
opinions on that court last year, and yet they come here and say she is 
outside the mainstream. They are outside the mainstream when they make 
arguments such as that.
  There is only one reason they are against Janice Rogers Brown and 
filibuster her: because she is an African-American woman who is 
conservative and pro-life. For these inside-the-beltway groups, that is 
their single issue.
  I had friends on the other side tell me, when I asked, ``Why are you 
doing this,'' say, ``Well, the groups will score this as a vote, and 
then they will come against whoever votes that way in the next 
election.'' These guys don't have the guts to take on the groups.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Isn't it true, I ask my friend from Utah, in 
California where the justice to whom you just referred serves on the 
supreme court, you have to stand periodically for continuation?
  Mr. HATCH. That is right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. You can be rejected. Is it not true she got three-
fourths of the votes?
  Mr. HATCH. Better than that. She got 76 percent of the vote. She was 
the top vote-getter among four supreme court nominees.
  Mr. McCONNELL. This is in that bastion of conservatism, California.
  Mr. HATCH. I think the Senator makes a very good point.
  Mr. McCONNELL. This nominee who was called outside the mainstream--
outside the mainstream--gets about three-fourths of the vote in that 
bastion of conservatism--California--and the other side suggests she is 
somehow unacceptably conservative? That is absurd on its face, I argue 
to my friend.
  Mr. HATCH. It certainly is. I went to one of my friends on the other 
side--and I won't mention the name because I don't think that would be 
proper--and I said: What did you think of Janice Rogers Brown? His 
answer was: She's terrific--which she was in front of the committee. 
Yet every Democrat went against her in committee and I think cited 
horrendously bad arguments to do it.
  They can point to 8 or 10 cases with which they didn't agree, but 
with which a lot of people do agree, and then they say she is outside 
the mainstream when she has tried hundreds of cases and decided, as a 
majority opinion writer, the most majority opinions in that court last 
year and I think in prior years as well.
  It is really unseemly, and that is why we are so upset here. Let me 
tell you, if we continue down this course, we are going to severely 
harm the Federal judiciary and get only people who really are not only 
outside the mainstream, but are Milquetoast, who can't make a decision 
to save their lives. Once you get to the Federal bench, you have to be 
able to make tough decisions.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Isn't it also true, I say to my friend, the chairman, 
that one of the arguments used on some of the nominees is because they 
have certain personal beliefs, that they won't uphold the law? Has that 
been an argument frequently made?
  Mr. HATCH. That is a frequent argument. I think the best illustration 
of that happens to be Bill Pryor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Which is what I was going to ask my friend, the 
chairman.
  Mr. HATCH. They criticized him for cases he won before the Supreme 
Court, saying he is outside the mainstream because they disagreed with 
the cases. In fact, they think Rehnquist is out of the mainstream. They 
think Scalia is out of the mainstream. They certainly think Clarence 
Thomas is out of the mainstream because they want a single approach, a 
minority approach to everything that has to be liberal, and if you are 
not liberal, you are outside the mainstream, even though some of the 
greatest judges ever to sit on the Federal courts and Supreme Court 
were conservatives. Some of the great ones were liberals, too, but 
understood the role of judges.
  Mr. McCONNELL. This is the same Bill Pryor who is currently standing 
up against the Alabama chief justice.
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Who has been defying a court order by refusing to 
remove the Ten Commandments from a public building. It is very 
unpopular in Alabama to be against that guy.
  Mr. HATCH. Bill Pryor is getting savaged by the rightwing because he 
basically sued to have the chief justice removed for not following the 
rule of law.
  Mr. McCONNELL. A classic example of following the law and not his own 
personal beliefs; is that not correct?
  Mr. HATCH. That is absolutely correct. Just fast forward to this 
week. As the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported this week, Bill 
Pryor filed a pretrial brief asking the Alabama Court of the Judiciary 
to remove Judge Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court because of Moore's 
defiance of the Federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments 
display. Bill Pryor's brief stated, quoting from the Atlanta Journal 
Constitution article: Moore should be removed because ``he 
intentionally engaged in misconduct and because he remains unrepentant 
for his behavior.''
  I could go on about Bill Pryor. During his hearing--a lengthy 
hearing--he was asked over and over by virtually every Democrat who 
showed up about his deeply held personal beliefs. He answered every 
question the way a judicial nominee should. Even though he had deeply 
held beliefs, he would obey the law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the majority has 
expired.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for his excellent questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask the time of the half hour allotted to 
this side be divided between myself and Senator Dodd and that I may 
proceed for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what I wish the majority would be allowing 
tonight is consideration of legislation that addresses the loss of over 
3 million jobs in this country during the last few

[[Page S14551]]

years, most of them manufacturing jobs.
  What I wish the majority would be allowing us to do tonight is to 
consider legislation to extend the unemployment benefits to those 
Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession, the way we have 
extended unemployment benefits in previous downturns.
  Those needs of the American people and a dozen other needs are what 
we ought to be spending our time on tonight and every day until those 
issues, and many other critical issues, are addressed.
  Instead, those on the other side of the aisle decided to spend 30 
hours rehashing the reasons that 4 out of the 172 of President Bush's 
judicial nominees have not been confirmed by the Senate. That is their 
right, but it is wrong.
  In my home State of Michigan, the unemployment rate is 7.4 percent. 
In fact, Michigan has lost and continues to lose more manufacturing 
jobs than almost any other State in the Nation. Mr. President, 2.5 
million of the 3.3 million jobs which the U.S. economy has lost since 
January 1, 2001, were in manufacturing. We lost over 160,000 of those 
jobs in Michigan alone. Other States face large job losses, but what we 
should be doing is helping people who lost jobs, acting to stop the 
currency manipulation by China, Japan, and other countries, and the 
one-way street in trade which has been such a large part of the loss of 
jobs in this country.
  The first act of this Congress last January was to extend 
unemployment benefits through the end of this year because Congress did 
not act last year. That made the 2002 holiday season mighty grim for 
those workers whose benefits had expired. Current law provides 13 weeks 
of additional Federal aid to laid-off workers who have exhausted their 
26 weeks of regular State benefits. However, this administration has 
shown no interest in either extending the deadline for the program or 
authorizing new benefits. The trust fund that is to be used for 
unemployment benefits currently has over $20 billion in it. Why this 
administration balks at extending unemployment benefits is beyond me 
since that is what the money in that fund is for.
  I, along with a number of our colleagues, propose we extend the 
December 31 deadline for another 6 months so newly unemployed workers 
can receive Federal assistance, but also making available an additional 
13 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits for a total of 26 weeks. That 
is what we have done in prior recessions. We responded during the 1974 
recession. Federal benefits were extended to 29 weeks.
  In the 1981 recession, Congress extended benefits to 26 weeks. In the 
1990 recession, 26 weeks were provided, 33 weeks to States with high 
unemployment.
  While the unemployment numbers released last week were somewhat of an 
improvement, in terms of manufacturing jobs, that loss continues, and 
the long-term economic forecast continues to be pessimistic.
  On this track, this administration will be the first administration 
to lose private sector jobs since Herbert Hoover.

  In one moment I am going to propound a unanimous consent request that 
I know my Republican colleagues will want to hear, and I want to alert 
them of the fact I will be propounding that request in a moment. I hope 
our Republican colleagues will give us consent to take up unemployment 
insurance extension legislation this evening. Perhaps then this 30-hour 
exercise will be fruitful.
  I think I have alerted the Republicans that we would be making this 
unanimous consent request.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1853

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative 
session; that the Finance Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1853, which is a bill to extend unemployment 
insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to 
its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and 
passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since the majority has now determined we 
will spend 30 hours of the time of the Senate rehashing 4 of the 172 
judicial nominations that haven't been confirmed, I want to address 
what is an even deeper issue than the majority's effort to weaken and 
water down the role of the Senate in exercising its advice-and-consent 
responsibility.
  That even more fundamental issue is our Nation's historic and 
constitutional system of checks and balances. Those checks and balances 
are an integral part of the unique design of our founding document in 
restraining the potential excesses and extremes of the executive 
branch. We share the obligation and responsibility with the judicial 
branch.
  Our rules in the Senate are aimed at restraining the potential abuse 
of the rights of the minority by the majority within the legislative 
branch itself.
  In June of this year, Robert Caro, the eminent Pulitzer Prize winning 
historian and author of ``Master of the Senate,'' his great biography 
of former President and Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, wrote to 
our Senate Rules Committee addressing this subject and quoting from his 
book. Here is what he said:

       . . . in creating this new nation, its Founding Fathers, 
     the Framers of its Constitution, gave its legislature . . . 
     not only its own powers, specified and sweeping . . . but 
     also the powers designed to make the Congress independent of 
     the President and to restrain and act as a check on his 
     authority, [including the] power to approve his appointments, 
     even the appointments he made within his own Administration . 
     . . and . . . the power to approve Presidential appointments 
     was given to the Senate alone; a President could nominate and 
     appoint ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, and other 
     officers of the United States, but only ``with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.''

  Robert Caro goes on to say:

       The Framers wanted to check and restrain not only the 
     people's rulers, but also the possibility that the majority 
     will be used in Madison's words ``to oppress the minority.'' 
     The Framers, he [Madison] said, established the Senate as the 
     body ``first to protect the people against their 
     rulers; secondly to protect the people against the 
     transient impressions into which they themselves might be 
     led . . . The use of the Senate is to consist in its 
     proceeding with more coolness, with more system. . . .

  One of the historical tools for the protection of the minority which 
is developed in the Senate from its earliest days is the principle of 
extended debate. The exercise of this right of Senators, particularly 
when it is used to block actions which the majority fervently wishes to 
take, is embodied in our Senate rule that you must have a supermajority 
of 60 percent of the Senate on matters where there is strong 
opposition.
  Filibusters have played an important role in moderating action in the 
Senate. It is widely recognized the Senate is a less partisan place--
you may not be able to discern that tonight, but generally this is a 
less partisan place than the other body in our Congress or virtually 
any other democratically elected legislative body anywhere in the 
world.
  As Senator Byrd said in his series of scholarly addresses on the 
floor of the Senate about Senate history:

       Arguments against filibusters have largely centered around 
     the principle that the majority should rule in a democratic 
     society. The very existence of the Senate, however, embodies 
     an equally valid tenet in American democracy: the principle 
     that minorities have rights.

  Senator Byrd goes on to say in his study:

       The most important argument supporting extended debate in 
     the Senate, and even the right to filibuster, is the system 
     of checks and balances. The Senate operates as the balance 
     wheel in that system, because it provides the greatest check 
     against an all powerful executive through the privilege that 
     Senators have to discuss without hindrance what they please 
     for as long as they please . . . Without the potential for 
     filibusters, that power to check a Senate majority or an 
     imperial presidency would be destroyed. It is a power too 
     sacred to be trifled with.

  Lyndon Baines Johnson said in 1949:

       . . . If I should have the opportunity to send into the 
     countries behind the iron curtain one freedom and only one, I 
     know what my choice would be . . . I would send those nations 
     the right of unlimited debate in their legislative chambers.
       If we now, in haste and irritation, shut off this freedom, 
     we shall be cutting off the most vital safeguard which 
     minorities possess against the tyranny of momentary 
     majorities.


[[Page S14552]]


  In May of 1994, when the Republican minority blocked Senator 
Clinton's nomination of Sam Brown to be ambassador, one of our 
Republican colleagues said the following:

       In considering the nomination of Mr. Samuel W. Brown to be 
     the Ambassador to CSCE, I have reflected on the latitude 
     which ought to be accorded the President in making this 
     decision for the ambassadorship, reflecting as well on the 
     constitutional responsibility of the Senate for advice and 
     consent as a check. . . . . I am troubled by a situation 
     where the only pressure point Republicans have in the U.S. 
     Government is on cloture. Once cloture is obtained, there are 
     more than enough votes on the other side of the aisle to 
     cover the day. While the House is not involved in this 
     matter, the House is overwhelmingly Democratic; there is a 
     Democrat in the White House. The only place Republicans can 
     assert any effective, decisive action is by stopping somebody 
     from coming up. We have 44 votes, and we have more than 
     enough, if there is unity among the Republicans, to do that. 
     I think Mr. Brown's nomination and the responsibilities at 
     the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe are 
     sufficiently important to preclude his nomination.

  The filibuster succeeded in blocking this nomination.
  There are many reasons to at least consider modification to the 
Senate rules regarding the procedures for ending debate, the process we 
call cloture. Those rules have been modified a number of times before, 
but one of the reasons to consider modifying our rules is not the 
reason which is motivating our current majority in the Senate: 
irritation with the fact that only 98 percent of President Bush's 
judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. That irritation 
that a substantial minority of Senators would stand in the way of 
getting their way 100 percent of the time has led to this 30-hour 
talkathon and their apparent desire to amend the Senate rules to let 
them get their way 100 percent of the time.
  We find ourselves tonight debating not whether unemployment insurance 
should be extended for Americans who have lost their jobs, not how to 
create more jobs in our economy, not how to better provide for the 
education of our children, or to strengthen our homeland security, or 
reduce the cost and increase the availability of prescription drugs, 
but, rather, listening to the re-argument of the case for the 4 
nominees out of 172 nominees the Senate has not confirmed.
  They want a 100 percent confirmation success record, and they appear 
to be willing to throw over the very essence of the Senate and its 
check-and-balance role to accomplish it. The Constitution says the 
President shall nominate, and, by and with the consent of the Senate, 
shall appoint ambassadors and judges.
  William Maclay, one of the first two Senators from Pennsylvania, 
wrote the following:

       Whoever attends strictly to the Constitution of the United 
     States will readily observe that the part assigned to the 
     Senate was an important one, no less than that of being the 
     great check, the regulator and corrector, or, if I may so 
     speak, the balance of this Government. . . . . The 
     approbation of the Senate was certainly meant to guard 
     against the mistakes of the President in his appointments to 
     office [and] the depriving power should be the same as the 
     appointing power.

  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor to my friend from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague from 
Michigan for his comments. I intend to share some similar thoughts this 
evening.
  First of all, let me begin by stating my own views about this process 
this evening and note--some have chosen to use the word anger--but I 
rise more in sadness.
  We are gathered to engage in this--I do not know what it is properly 
called--I guess a filibuster. It is unique in that the majority is 
conducting a filibuster. Normally, a filibuster, for those who are 
interested in how this works, is conducted by a minority within a 
minority, but we find ourselves this evening a few short days away from 
the end of this particular session with a tremendous amount of 
unfinished business, and we are spending the next 30 hours--or 26 
hours, whatever is left--on this particular debate and discussion, 
which I suppose has some value in the mind of some. As far as this 
Member is concerned, I regret in some ways even addressing the matters 
before us this evening. The better approach might have been to protect 
the rights of the minority but not to engage in this debate.
  There may be four votes that will occur on Friday. Three of them 
involve individuals who are seeking appointment to the Federal 
judiciary. With all due respect to these particular nominees, putting 
aside one's views or whether they are for or against them, history will 
probably little note nor record for any great length of time who they 
were. That is not in any way to suggest they are not worthy 
individuals, but in the passage of time, these nominations will not 
register terribly significantly in the history of the debates of this 
great Chamber.
  I arrived as an employee of the Senate about the age of 17 when I sat 
on these steps. Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader of the Senate. 
There was Everett Dirksen and Senator McClellan. It was a sea of giants 
who served in this body. I tried to imagine this evening whether or not 
they might proceed in a debate like we are having, but I cannot imagine 
them doing so, quite candidly.
  I am afraid we are diminishing dramatically the incredible historic 
role of this institution by this process. When I think of all the 
matters that deserve our attention, when I think of all of the 
Herculean debates that have occurred in this Chamber throughout the 
217-year history of our country, some of the great debates deciding who 
we were as a society--I sat on that step over there and listened to the 
all-night debates on civil rights in the early 1960s. I listened to 
southerners argue vehemently on behalf of their position regarding 
States rights. They were incredible debates. Never once in all of that 
process that I watched as a child sitting out there did I ever hear 
anyone suggest we ought to change the rules of the Senate.
  Even among those who were outraged that there were those who were 
arguing about denying a substantial minority of citizens of this 
country the right to participate freely in the democratic institutions 
of America, never once did anyone suggest we ought to somehow curtail 
the right of a minority to be heard in debate, extended debate. Never 
once. Yet here we are tonight, having an extended debate over three or 
four judicial nominations. We may be asked on Friday to cast a ballot 
about amending the rules of the Senate to fundamentally change what has 
been a central ingredient of why this institution has been as 
celebrated and honored throughout the 217-year history of this country. 
That I find rather appalling, that we would gather at this hour with 
all of the other issues in front of us.
  I spent 2 hours yesterday at Walter Reed Hospital. I took my 2-year-
old daughter out to visit with the young men there, many of whom are 
missing limbs. I saw several of my colleagues out there, by the way. 
Sam Brownback was out there. I went to spend a quiet couple of hours to 
express to these young men my great admiration for what they had done 
for their country.
  I would like to think they might think something larger of this 
institution other than that we would engage in a discussion and debate 
tonight about three or four judicial nominations. Other of my 
colleagues have made comments about the numbers that have been approved 
and not approved. I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I have 
heard my colleagues extol the virtues of these nominees. I have heard 
others excoriate them. I will leave that debate for others. The vote I 
am most worried about is the possible fourth vote that may occur on 
Friday, and that is whether we are going to change the nature of this 
institution because some of us are disappointed about some outcomes of 
votes. I would hope whatever else ensues or passes over these next 30 
or 40 hours that when it comes to that vote, maybe there will be those 
who will get up and defend this institution.

  It is inappropriate for me to do so, but I will note the fact that 
there are those watching this debate this evening in this Chamber who 
are of a younger generation. They are students, I suspect, in some way 
wanting to participate or witness what some have tried to describe as 
an historic event. I would hope they take note of the arguments in 
debate about what is important, why the Founders created this 
institution, why we are not a unicameral body, as some State 
legislatures--why

[[Page S14553]]

we are a bicameral body, why it is there is down this corridor a House 
of Representatives at that end of the building and a Senate at this 
end. What are the fundamental distinctions between these two branches 
of one House? Why are we different? Why do we exist? What did the 
Framers have in mind when they created this institution? It is this 
very debate that gives justice, gives rationale to the existence of the 
Senate.
  One needs only to go back to the Federalist papers, and as I look 
around this Chamber there are the forebears of those who sit in these 
seats who made the most eloquent arguments on behalf of the notion, of 
the idea, of having extended debate and the right and power to amend. 
Those are the two central ingredients which make this institution so 
unique.
  When we begin to erode those very powers, then the very justification 
for this institution begins to diminish. We end up creating nothing 
more, potentially, than a mere image of the body that is at the other 
end of this hall.
  I gave some remarks going back a number of weeks ago in front of the 
Rules Committee. I am the ranking Democrat of the Rules Committee. As 
such, I bear a responsibility, along with my colleague from 
Mississippi, who is the chairman of the committee, to consider such 
matters. I have great respect for the majority leader, but I would hope 
as we discuss the idea of amending rule XXII, that we would keep in 
mind what the Framers had in mind when it came to nominations, 
particularly nominations of a life tenure.
  It is one thing to be talking about nominations during the duration 
of a given administration, but with judicial nominations it is for 
life. Depending on how young that person may be, an Federal judicial 
appointment can go on for decades. And so the Framers, given the 
experience they had come through, with the tyranny of a king, desired 
to create a system whereby the third coequal branch of government would 
have powers delineated between the executive branch to appoint and the 
legislative branch to approve, to provide its advice and consent.
  If the ability of this institution to thoroughly exercise that right 
of advice and consent is destroyed, then we run the risk of creating a 
judicial branch, a coequal, that becomes nothing more than the hand 
servant of the executive. That is what the Founders worried about. It 
is what Senator Rutledge of South Carolina argued for when he spoke 
eloquently about the importance of keeping an independent judiciary.
  In fact, for many weeks, during the constitutional convention, they 
argued the President ought to have no rights when it came to judicial 
nominations, that that right ought to be exclusively contained in the 
Senate of the United States. As a result of compromise, it was 
ultimately decided that the power to nominate individuals should reside 
in the executive, and the power to approve should remain here, thus 
guaranteeing, to the extent possible, an independent judiciary.
  What is being suggested by the fourth vote we may be asked to cast on 
Friday is that we undermine that very principle which has survived for 
217 years. I would hope with a resounding vote, both Democrats and 
Republicans, whatever strong feelings there may be about these three or 
four nominees, or whatever the number is, that we would not allow this 
institution to be diminished, caught up in the passions of these 
nominations.

  History will not record nor remember who these people are, but if we 
undermine this institution's ability to do what our Founders asked us 
to do, then history will record forever our shortsightedness.
  I regret in a sense having to engage in this debate. I was stunned to 
learn that in addition to this 30 hours of ``circusry'' going on here, 
and the three votes that will occur on Friday, there may be a serious 
effort to vote on whether this institution should give up its right to 
be able to have extended debate on judicial nominations.
  This institution and its history deserve more. The fact that the 
Senator from Michigan and I have to arise at 10 at night to argue about 
something as fundamental as a rule change in the Senate and to be asked 
to vote on it with maybe 5 minutes of deliberation before that ballot 
is cast on Friday is incredible to this Member. It is incredible we 
would have to do this.
  Does not anyone care about being here? We are only temporary 
stewards. My colleagues and I are just guaranteed a short amount of 
time to be a part of this institution. We do not own this. We bear an 
historical responsibility to those who came before, but an even greater 
one to those who come afterward, to see to it we maintain the order and 
the ideals embodied in the creation of this institution. That we would 
relegate a fundamental change in the rules of the Senate to a debate 
occurring between 10 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 a.m. in the morning, with 
a vote to that may be cast on Friday without further deliberation, I 
find stunning in its dimensions.
  This is a matter that deserves far more deliberation and thought, 
whatever one's views may be on these nominations. To find ourselves, 
with all of these other issues that are in front of us, to have to 
defend the Senate in the wee hours of the morning about a rule that has 
sustained us as an institution, is something I regret deeply.
  I hope my colleagues, whatever their passions may be about Miguel 
Estrada, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Charles Pickering--I do not 
know these individuals. I presume they are good people, whatever 
differences we may have, as I am sure there have been people who have 
been nominated in previous administrations who are also good people who 
were rejected because the majority today disagreed with them. I am 
sorry that happens to people, but unfortunately, that is one of the 
aspects of a process such as we have, as imperfect as it is.
  The idea that our passions are so wrapped up in these individuals 
that we are willing to squander the rules of the Senate is disturbing. 
We should always know that it may only be a short time before roles may 
be reversed. This party in the minority may be the party of the 
majority in the future. And in the future, the party of the President 
may, of course, be different. I would hope we would never suggest 
changing the rules of the Senate because we are momentarily 
disappointed that certain individuals, whatever contributions they may 
have made in their lives and to their communities, are so deserving 
that they warrant changing the rules of the Senate because they are not 
getting a position they seek. I hope we have not come to that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed the stirring remarks of my 
colleague. However, I think he completely ignores the fact that the 
filibuster rule did not even begin until 1917, and it did not come into 
fruition until the 1940s. Nevertheless, we have changed the rules in 
this body many times. But we are not asking for a change of the rules. 
We are asking for a recognition. There is a difference between the 
Executive Calendar, where the precise meaning of the Constitution is 
advise and consent under section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, and 
the legislative calendar where we do have a right to filibuster. So 
that distinction needs to be made.
  I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and 
then I will be happy to take questions on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to respond directly to the 
comments made by the Senator from Connecticut. I too sit on the Rules 
Committee and I take a responsibility here, being a steward, as the 
Senator from Connecticut said, a temporary steward of this place. One 
would think, if they listened to the comments of the Senator from 
Connecticut, that what the Republicans are trying to do is change the 
rules.
  I have a chart of the last 11 Presidents since the ``filibuster 
rule'' has been around: 2,372 judicial nominations confirmed, zero 
filibustered.
  Who is changing the rules? This is a wonderful world we have: That 
left is right, right is left, up is down, in is out.
  The rules have been changed by practice. They hold up a chart 168 to 
4. This states 2,372 to nothing. Never been done. Walk through these 
Halls. Stand in this Chamber. If the walls could speak of the great 
debates, the intense,

[[Page S14554]]

partisan, vicious debates that occurred in this Chamber, fights that 
have occurred on the floor of the Senate because of the passions of the 
moment, so firmly believing that what you were fighting for was right.

  But not once, not one time did they put that passion for that short-
term partisan or political or policy game in front of the sacred 
constitutional process that governs this country.
  What does that constitutional process dictate in the case of judicial 
nominations? Look at the precedent my friends. Look at the precedent. 
No filibusters. Because the Constitution says that it is a majority 
vote. In spite of the rancor, in spite of the partisanship and the 
stakes so high so many times in our country's history, they always had 
the perspective because, yes, I say to the Senator from Connecticut, 
they knew they were temporary stewards. They took that responsibility 
seriously so they did not corrupt the rules.
  Why are we changing the rules? We are not trying to change the rules. 
We are trying to bring back the rules that have been in this country 
for 214 years. We are trying to change the rules? We are not being good 
temporary stewards? Me thinks thou doest protest too much. We are 
simply trying to set this Senate back to the days the Senator from 
Connecticut recalls as a boy, when giants did stroll this Senate, where 
big matters were at stake, but they put the integrity of the process, 
the integrity of the Senate because we are a country of laws and rules 
and constitutions. We do not twist them and corrupt them to meet the 
short-term political needs that some interest group off the Hill was 
pleading for you to do.
  That is what is happening here. That is what occurs here, and will 
occur, unfortunately, if we do not have a change of heart by a number 
of people on the other side of the aisle again on Friday so the 98-
percent button that I see and the 168 to 4 will now be 168 to 6 and 
then 168 to 7 and then to 8 and then to who knows? Because once we 
corrupt the system, once we twist the rules to meet our partisan end, 
there is no end other than a complete debasement of what this Senate 
has stood for 2,372 times before.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield without losing my right to the floor a question of 
the Senator from----
  Mr. REID. We cannot hear you.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator from Colorado without losing my 
right to the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the fine Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I have laryngitis. What a time to have laryngitis. But 
that is the way it is. I apologize for my voice.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the fine Senator from Utah for yielding.
  Many papers in the State of Colorado have expressed a concern that we 
are not voting on judicial nominees, along with many papers throughout 
the country. I have three papers that expressed a view. I would like to 
have the chairman respond to the comments made in these three papers.
  Many people throughout Colorado wonder what the impact might be on 
having a filibuster and how that will affect the Federal judiciary. 
Many of them live in the great city of Pueblo. In fact, the Pueblo 
Chieftain observed, ``some liberals are trying to create a second 
legislative body,'' referring to the judiciary, ``that will pass 
measures which they cannot get passed because they're often opposed by 
a majority of Americans.'' The paper fears this will lead to ``a 
serious erosion of the separation of powers.''
  Does the Senator from Utah share those concerns?
  Mr. HATCH. I sure do. The paper got it just right. I have seen three 
major editorials from the Chieftain and from the Rocky Mountain News 
calling the Democratic filibuster an irresponsible escalation of the 
judicial nominating war.
  I agree with both. The Denver Post said ``a change in Senate 
procedure is long overdue.'' ``[T]here is no good reason to oppose a 
supermajority of the Senate that was not contemplated in the 
Constitution.''
  They got it just right.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is correct. I thank the chairman for responding to 
those comments made in those three major papers in the State of 
Colorado.
  We do need to move on for a vote. They express the view of many in 
Colorado. I thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to ask the 
question.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia without 
losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. I wish the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, were still on 
the floor. In his arguments, he cited a quote from Lyndon Baines 
Johnson as to what would be the best gift that could be given, I 
believe he said, to the Soviet Union or those behind the Iron Curtain. 
He thought the best gift would be unlimited debate.
  I could think of a lot of other things you would want to give people 
who are repressed than unlimited debate. Maybe freedom of speech, 
freedom of expression, freedom of religious beliefs, private property 
rights, due process, equal protection of the law, maybe even the right 
to bear arms so they can overthrow the dictatorship.
  Unlimited debate--that does not strike me as what is needed in a 
democracy. What one wants is adherence to the Constitution, 
accountability and responsible action by those who are elected by the 
people. And we want fairness, which is being denied here, without 
potential for filibustering.
  This is what Senator Levin said that President Johnson said: ``If I 
should have the opportunity to send into countries behind the iron 
curtain one freedom, and only one, my choice would be to send those 
nations the right of unlimited debate in their legislative chambers.''
  I expect they could have had all sorts of unlimited debate but what 
one wants is adherence to our U.S. Constitution.
  Let me share with our distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Hatch, some words that have been said recently: 
Judgeships are currently vacant, causing undue delays in justice for 
citizens served by the court. The candidates for these vacancies 
deserve to have an up-or-down vote on their nominations. The Senate 
should not be playing politics with the Federal judiciary.
  Guess who said that? Senator Carl Levin in a press release on May 24, 
2000.
  Then Senator Levin said, on October 3, 2000, in the Congressional 
Record: I believe the Nation as a whole deserves to have these nominees 
and other nominees awaiting hearings and votes acted on by this Senate, 
as well. I believe it is also unfair. Perhaps this is the most 
important of all to the people who await justice in their courts.
  Senator Levin said that on October 3, 2000.
  Then Senator Levin also said that leadership had a responsibility to 
advise and at least vote on judicial nominees.
  And parallel to the debates we are having on several of the judges 
this evening that will go on through tomorrow and into the morning on 
Friday, he said: Two of the women who we are focusing on today are from 
Michigan. They are nominees for the court of appeals. The truth of the 
matter is that the leadership of the Senate has the responsibility to 
do what the Constitution says we should do which is to advise and at 
least vote on whether or not to consent to the nomination of nominees 
for these courts.
  That was September 14, 2000, 3 years ago. I wish that Senator Levin 
were still on the floor so I could ask him whether he was right in 
2000, saying the Constitution demanded and required Senators to act and 
vote on nominees. Or does he really believe that the most important 
responsibility is for endless debate?
  I say to the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, what we have seen is 
stalling and more stalling and more stalling. They can debate 
endlessly, but at the end of every debate, at the end of every 
examination, of everyone's qualifications and capabilities, and whether 
Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, or any other of the nominees, 
ultimately the responsibility is, as Senator Levin said 3 years ago, it 
is our responsibility to act, to vote. The Constitution demands it. 
Accountability to our constituents and our respective States demands 
it. And fairness should not continue to be denied to these many 
nominees because

[[Page S14555]]

of the obstruction and also the very inconsistent statements that have 
been made this year compared to past years.
  I ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would you find these 
statements to be prior inconsistent statements which call into question 
the desirability of having endless debates in the Senate or in the 
committee, especially after the committee has decided on a majority 
vote to report out, favorably, a judicial nominee?
  Mr. HATCH. That is a good question because it seems as if our friends 
on the other side forget when they were in the majority and they had 
the Presidency and they all wanted votes up and down and all of a 
sudden they do not.

  The Senator is right in pointing out these disparities. All of a 
sudden when the worm is turned, they do not want to live up to their 
own words. I am not sure that Senator Levin does not want to live up to 
his own words, but if he does want to live up to his own words, then he 
should not be voting with the Democrats. He should be voting for 
cloture.
  Mr. ALLEN. I have a followup question. In view of our friend from the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and his articulate, passionate statement, 
Senator Santorum, out of the thousands and thousands of nominations, 
how many have been filibustered? Zero, is that not correct?
  Mr. HATCH. Zero. Until this.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
for a question and then I will yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, may I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has yielded to the 
Senator from Virginia for the purposes of asking a question.
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator will have his half hour in about 15 or 20 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the 
distinguished chairman of our Judiciary Committee.
  I say to my colleague from Virginia how proud we are to be from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia from whence so many Framers of the 
Constitution came. I compliment you on your remarks tonight. I am 
privileged to serve with you because you represent, in my judgment, all 
the fine things about the Commonwealth. I try, in my humble way these 
25 years, to do the same.
  The Senator referred to this Constitution. The question I have to our 
distinguished chairman is very simple. I want to go back to the hot 
summer of 1787, when 55 individuals had gathered from the Colonies to 
work from May 25 to September 17 to frame this precious document. It 
was a long, hot summer. Tireless trips from their homes to 
Philadelphia. As a consequence, today, our form of government is the 
oldest continuously functioning government on Earth today. I have been 
challenged on it. But almost every other government in existence at the 
time this Constitution was written have fallen into the dustbin of 
history. Someone challenged me about Switzerland. Yes, Napoleon crossed 
the Alps and ceased that government for a period of time. This is a 
government that has continued to function.
  As the delegates emerged on the final day, September 17, Ben Franklin 
walked down the steps and was met by a reporter. I thought of that 
little history tonight when a reporter asked me, what is it that you 
are doing tonight in the Senate? Mr. Franklin answered that question on 
September 17, 1787. He said to that reporter: We have given you a 
Republic, if you can keep it.
  This Constitution explicitly gives to the President of the United 
States the power to appoint the judges. In Section 2, it explicitly 
gives to the Senate, not the Congress, but to the Senate, the 
responsibility of advice and consent.
  Three coequal branches of the Government and the judiciary perform 
that critical function of keeping the power of each of the other two, 
executive and legislative, in balance. That is what we are doing 
tonight. I ask the distinguished chairman, are we not, in the immortal 
words of Ben Franklin, here tonight for one sole purpose, to keep our 
Republic?
  Mr. HATCH. That is the way I view it. I have to say this is a very 
dangerous thing the Democrats are doing for the first time in history. 
It has caused a tremendous amount of angst on everyone's part and awful 
partisanship because it has never been done before. It is time to move 
on.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of the 
Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah, for yielding. I have a 
question that reflects upon the implications, changing the 
constitutional standard. The Senator from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania noted that of the past 11 Presidents' judicial nominees, 
2,372 were confirmed, zero filibuster. The President was elected and he 
has served his responsibilities on the part of his office; we have our 
responsibility. I take it that the Senator from Utah would say part of 
those responsibilities in the Constitution give us the opportunity to 
vote, a majority vote to confirm or deny the confirmation of judges.
  The question I have concerns a comment that appeared in a Minnesota 
paper. Like the Senator from Colorado, Minnesota papers have commented 
on this problem. There was a column by George Will, a nationally 
syndicated columnist, that appeared in the Duluth News Tribune. He said 
the following, and I ask the Senator from Utah whether he would agree 
with this statement: If the Senate rules, exploited by an 
anticonstitutional minority, are allowed to trump the Constitution's 
test and two centuries of practice, the Senate's power to consent to 
judicial nominations will have become a Senate right to require a 60-
vote supermajority for confirmations by thus nullifying the President's 
power to shape the judiciary, the Democratic Party will yield a 
Presidential power without having won a Presidential election. Would 
the Senator from Utah agree with this statement?
  Mr. HATCH. I certainly do. That is what is behind this. I think the 
Senator points it out very well. So did George Will.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague from Utah yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. Not on my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. We have had some misstatements on the floor about how 
many filibusters we have had.
  Mr. HATCH. About what? I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I said, we have had some misstatements repeatedly by the 
Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Minnesota about how many 
have been filibustered. There have been a bunch who have been 
filibustered, it is just that we happened to succeed. Isn't that 
correct?
  Mr. HATCH. I am not going to yield at this time to the distinguished 
Senator. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Will the Senator, if I could just follow up--so the 
record is clear----
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. It is clear, in the history of this great Republic, the 
Senate has not denied a confirmation of a circuit court nominee by 
filibuster?
  Mr. HATCH. That is right, in the history of the Senate. Absolutely, 
Will was right, because that same commentary was pointed out by 
Alexander Hamilton. He wrote in Federalist Paper 76 the Senate's role 
is to refuse nominations only for ``special and strong reasons'' having 
to do with ``unfit characters.'' That is not what our Democratic 
colleagues are doing. What they are doing here is denying up-and-down 
votes to very qualified people, who by their own gold standard, the 
American Bar Association, are proven to be qualified.
  I believe it is abysmal that has happened. I think Senators have 
pointed out here this evening this is a very important debate that has 
to occur.
  The American people need to know a militant minority, 45 Democrats, 
basically, is thwarting the will of the majority and taking away the 
dignity of an up-and-down vote to qualified judicial nominees by this 
President, which has never happened, once they hit the floor, which has 
never happened before.
  In the Clinton years, all 377 judges were confirmed--only one was 
rejected, but he got an up-and-down vote, which is more than our people 
are getting.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, 
without losing my right to the floor.

[[Page S14556]]

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator a question. 
Maybe he could help me understand something I am having a difficult 
time understanding.
  I had the privilege of serving as a law clerk in the 1960s to the 
Honorable John Minor Wisdom on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Judge Wisdom was among the four Republican-appointed judges who 
presided over the peaceful desegregation of the South. I have lived in 
the South and grown up in the South and know something about what those 
years were like.
  I have been mystified, since I am not a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, by the treatment of Judge Pickering of Mississippi and 
Attorney General Bill Pryor of Alabama. I do not know Judge Pickering. 
I have met him briefly only twice. My staff and I studied his record. I 
have heard insinuations and words that were carefully chosen by the 
other side to suggest he was guilty of not being sensitive on racial 
issues. Yet when I looked into his record, I discovered, quite to the 
contrary. He had been living in Laurel, MS. In 1967, just to cite one 
example, he had testified in public against the leader of the White 
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which were the closest thing we had to 
terrorists in the United States of America in the last half century--an 
act of courage.
  So here is a man who throughout his whole life was far out front on 
issues of race relations. He was living in an area where it was hard to 
do, and he had not been quiet, he had not been backward, he had been 
far out front of his neighbors on issues of race relations.
  Then I learn about Mr. Pryor, the Attorney General of Alabama, and I 
realize in hearing Senator Sessions talk that he, too, was a law clerk 
to Judge Wisdom, the great civil rights judge in the South. I hear it 
said Mr. Pryor is somehow insensitive to racial and other matters.
  Yet looking into his record, I learned he is at the moment seeking to 
oust the chief judge of Alabama in the case involving the chief judge's 
failure to obey a Federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments 
from the State Supreme Court, that the State Attorney General of 
Alabama wrote all the football players and coaches in Alabama to say 
they could not pray before football games because the law did not 
allow it, that he wrote to the district attorneys telling them they 
could not enforce a law against abortion, that he took a case all the 
way to the United States Supreme Court that was against the Republican 
party to which he belonged. It seemed to me here is a man who I recall 
Judge Wisdom talking about as a wonderfully talented young man. The 
judge was very proud of him. Here he has this record of upholding the 
law when it would be enormously unpopular in Alabama and certainly must 
be against his own views.

  What is it about these two southerners, the latter one, the editor in 
chief of the Tulane Law Review, a law clerk to Judge Wisdom, this 
distinguished person; and then Judge Pickering, who was a leader for 
civil rights, endorsed by former Governor William Winter, the Democrat, 
endorsed by Frank Hunger, Al Gore's brother-in-law. What is it about 
the other side that will not allow us to have an up-or-down vote on 
those two southerners who have been nominated by the President to be a 
judge?
  Mr. HATCH. Well, to be honest with you, it all comes down to 
abortion, according to some of my top Democrat friends. That has become 
a litmus test issue for Democrats because the inside-the-beltway groups 
the Democrats talk about do not want people on the courts who are pro-
life, even though they are committed to upholding Roe v. Wade because 
that is the law of the land.
  In the case of Judge Pickering, Judge Pickering was unanimously 
confirmed as a Federal district court judge in 1990. He has served 
well. He is one of the people who brought about racial conciliation in 
the State of Mississippi and was treated in a despicable fashion here.
  In the case of Bill Pryor, I do not think anybody who looks at his 
record can say he will not uphold the law, no matter how much he 
disagrees with it, because that is what a judge will have to do.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. May I ask the chairman, did he not, as Attorney 
General of Alabama, advise the local district attorneys they could not 
enforce a law passed by the Alabama State legislature----
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Because it would be in violation of a Supreme Court 
decision?
  Mr. HATCH. That is right. If I recall it correctly, it had to do with 
partial-birth abortion, even though he hates partial-birth abortion, as 
anybody who looks at it carefully. It is a barbaric practice, at the 
very least. He upheld the law.
  I do not know you can ask anything more of anybody than that. Plus, 
this is a fellow who graduated No. 1 in his class from Tulane 
University School of Law, who is very bright and was very candid and 
open with the committee, and yet being filibustered for no good reason. 
It really is unseemly.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I wonder if the chairman remembers--I have heard a lot 
of talk tonight about what a great protection of minority rights the 
filibuster is.
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I am trying to think back to the 1950s and the 1960s. 
How many rights of African Americans in the South were protected by the 
filibuster in the 1950s?
  Mr. HATCH. That is right.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. In the 1960s? How long was civil rights legislation 
held up in this very body by the filibuster? What was it that caused 
the cloture rules to be changed so now it takes 60 to override instead 
of 67? It was the Nation's anger about the filibuster, denying equal 
rights for African Americans in the South in the United States.
  What is so great about the filibuster in terms of protecting the 
rights of minorities and individuals if it delayed progress on civil 
rights for so long in this country?
  Mr. HATCH. The distinguished Senator raises some good points. There 
is no question the filibuster rule was despicably used during that 
time. But I still believe most of us would agree that rule XXII, the 
filibuster rule, can and should apply to the legislative calendar. We 
have a right to set our own rules through the legislative calendar. But 
the Executive Calendar is a calendar that is subject to our right to 
advise and consent, which under article II, section 2 is a majority 
vote, and it is being distorted by our friends on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the majority has 
expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I want to lay it on the record 
that Carl Levin, the senior Senator from Michigan, is not inconsistent 
in any way. We all know what happened to Carl Levin and the Michigan 
delegation is the fact that there were no hearings on the judges he 
wanted--no hearings.
  That is the reason some 20 percent of the Clinton nominees never made 
it. They refused to hold hearings. Carl Levin would have welcomed the 
procedure we are going through because if it had gotten here, and there 
had been an attempt to filibuster, cloture would have been invoked.
  Carl Levin, I say to my friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, is 
not and has not been inconsistent in any way.
  I want to refer to this. We have to understand what we are talking 
about here. Mr. President, 168 judges have been approved; 4 have been 
disapproved. For people to continually come on this floor, as if 
history facts have no bearing on what they are talking about--they 
believe, on the other side, if they keep saying it long enough, that 
there have never been filibusters before--that people will believe it.
  I show everyone this New York Times headline of September 25, 1968. 
Headline: ``Critics of Fortas Begin Filibuster, Citing `Property'.'' 
``Griffin Attack Lasts 3 Hours. . . .''
  Of course, we know that was a filibuster. Senator Byrd participated 
in it, as we recall. I say to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, please do not say this is the first time there has been a 
filibuster, because it is not true. It is not true.
  I also want to refer to the next chart, something that is important 
to the American people. What do I think we should be dealing with? 
During the time President Bush has been President, we have lost more 
than 3 million

[[Page S14557]]

jobs in the private sector. I think that is fairly significant.
  Also what we should be talking about is my next chart to show what 
the President of the United States and his administration have done to 
create jobs in America.
  Here is what the President has done to create jobs. Can everyone see 
this chart? In fact, we can turn it around. It is the same on the other 
side, isn't it? Let's see what is on the other side. Yes, the same 
thing. This is what the President has done to create jobs: nothing.
  He has lost 3 million jobs. That is what we should be talking about 
here tonight, not the fact this is the first filibuster we have ever 
had in the history of the country. You can say it once, twice, 1,000 
times--it is not true. Other judges have been filibustered and we have 
had attempts to invoke cloture. It has been successful sometimes; 
sometimes it has not been successful.
  Let's look at this next chart. It is interesting we are spending 30 
hours talking about things we should not be talking about. We are 
talking about judicial vacancies, which are at the lowest rate in 
almost 15 years. What we should be talking about are those things that 
are going up, not the thing that is going down. We should be talking 
about the 44 million Americans who tonight will go to bed with no 
health insurance. That is what we should be talking about. We should 
also be concerned about the millions of Americans who are underinsured.
  Mr. President, 44 million people have no health insurance, and we are 
here spending our time lamenting about the 4 people who want job 
increases; that is, they want to get better jobs. Miguel Estrada, let's 
not shed too many tears for him. He makes a half a million dollars a 
year. I think we should be talking about the people who have no health 
insurance, about the people who have lost jobs in this administration--
the 9-plus million people who are unemployed, as we speak. Why can't we 
spend that time, that is, 30 hours dealing with issues that are 
important to the American people?
  We also know, in addition to having 44 million people uninsured, that 
during the last 3 years those people who are poor in America have 
increased in numbers. The numbers have ballooned. We have the poor 
getting poorer and the rich getting richer, and we are squeezing the 
middle class so it is getting smaller and smaller. Wouldn't it be nice 
if we talk about poor people? I recognize they do not have lobbyists. 
Maybe they do not have Gucci shoes and these big limousines, but they 
still deserve our time.

  The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. 
Shouldn't we spend part of this 30 hours talking about them? The 
unemployed: We have talked about that issue. I have talked about it 
tonight on more than one occasion. But the American people have to 
recognize that during the administration of George Bush the 
unemployment rolls have gone up.
  The national debt: What has happened to the national debt during the 
last 3 years? It has gone up, way up. It is interesting to note that 
during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we were spending 
less money than we were taking in. We were actually paying down the 
national debt. We were being criticized for paying it down too fast: Be 
careful; you can't do that.
  Well, whoever heard that term really took it in spades because the 
fact of the matter is, we are now increasing the national debt. This 
year's budget deficit will be the highest in the history of our great 
country.
  Everything that is going up we are not talking about. We are talking 
about people who have jobs, and they lost an opportunity to get a 
promotion.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative 
session and proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the 
bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read a third time, 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. I am not surprised. I am not surprised. We have the 
audacity on this side of the aisle to ask that the minimum wage be 
increased from $5.15 to something more. Why, these people who draw 
minimum wage, think about it, if they work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a 
year, and don't get any time off for vacation, they can make the grand 
sum, working a whole year, of $10,700. What pigs. They want to get that 
much money?
  I say we should recognize the people drawing minimum wage are not a 
bunch of high school kids working in a fast food chain. The fact of the 
matter is 60 percent of the people drawing minimum wage are women. For 
the majority of those women, that is the only money they get for them 
and their families. I cannot imagine that we have had such a difficult 
time bringing up something so important to the American people, the 
minimum wage, to increase it from $5.15 an hour, maybe increasing it 
$1, maybe increasing it $1.50.
  I know that is pushing the envelope a lot to think this body would 
take up something as unimportant as people getting an increase in the 
minimum wage. No. What we should do is worry about four people, four 
people, one of whom makes a half a million dollars a year downtown. 
Then we can also worry about other people, those other three who, 
between them, make about a half a million dollars.
  I have no understanding in my heart how the majority can continually 
deny us the opportunity to do something about the minimum wage.
  Remember, the judicial vacancies are at their lowest level in almost 
15 years. While we are here talking all night about judges, 44 million 
people, as I have indicated earlier, will go to sleep tonight with no 
health insurance, none, and millions of others have insurance that is 
not very good.
  Nine million, almost 10 million people will go to bed tonight 
wondering if tomorrow they will finally be able to find a job--
recognizing that the average person who loses a job in America today is 
out of work for 5 months. That is the average, 5 months. And it does 
not matter. It does not matter what strata we are talking about. People 
in America have trouble finding jobs. The average is 5 months.
  We have tried earlier today, through a unanimous consent request, to 
spend some of these 30 hours talking about having an extension of 
unemployment benefits. No.
  We have asked tonight to increase the minimum wage, to debate that. 
No.
  I think it pretty well describes what is going on here today.
  This is an issue that people think if they talk about how unfair we 
are, that, yes, what we have done here is so bad--we have approved only 
98 percent of the President's requests to become judges. Only 98 
percent. If we had it up to 99 percent, would we only be here for 15 
hours?

  I think this is a travesty. I say that without any question. Others 
have referred to it as a carnival and a circus. Whatever it is, the 
unemployed, those people who are poor, those people who have no health 
insurance are not getting their time in the Senate.
  Who is getting time? Four people: Estrada, Owen, Pickering, and 
Pryor. That is not fair.
  I yield to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I listened to the debate, and I would say basically, 
kindly, it is just a repetition of arguments we have heard over and 
over again. A little less kindly, sound and fury signifying nothing.
  I tried to ask some questions of the other side a few minutes ago and 
was rebuffed. It is no wonder because we are not having a coming 
together here. We are not having an elucidation. What we are having is 
a rehash of arguments we have heard over and over again.
  It is not going to change anything, I say to my colleagues. It is not 
going to change a thing. There is only one way to change things, and 
that is for the President and the other side to follow the Constitution 
and take the words ``advise and consent'' seriously. If they think we 
can be bludgeoned, if they think more talk radio makes a difference, it 
is not going to make a difference. In fact, I would argue to my 
colleagues, this debate is helping us because the hard-right media, the 
talk radio, and the others don't mention this fact.
  This chart is worth 30 hours of palaver, of gibberish. The Wall 
Street

[[Page S14558]]

Journal today has an editorial with the pictures of the six. Do they 
mention how many have been approved? They don't dare. They have had 
editorial after editorial and some of them criticize me. I write 
letters, and they don't publish them. You would think if they are going 
to do a whole editorial being critical of someone, they would give them 
the courtesy of publishing a letter. They are not interested in the 
debate of facts. No.
  At least we are getting a chance to show this. One picture is worth a 
thousand words; one chart is equal to all the talk we have heard. 
Nothing will change that.
  This is actually going to help our side. It is backfiring. I know 
many of you on the other side didn't really want to do this, but I 
guess I have to say to those of you who argued for it, thanks.
  I heard from a constituent earlier tonight. They were watching the 
debate. I said: Did you know about 168 to 4? No. Most people don't 
because the big storm on this has come from a small narrow band on the 
hard right. We know the other side has to pay attention to them. They 
accuse us of being subject to beltway liberal groups. There are groups 
on both sides. They both feel as passionately.
  I don't know why one group is any better than the other, but the 
group on that side has made this an issue. They just can't stand the 
fact that four have been rejected--four.
  I begin by saying, better be careful about what you wish for because 
this at least is an even airing of the facts. What I would like this to 
be is a real debate. I would like us to ask each other questions. I 
would like us to challenge each other's assumptions and misstatements. 
But it is obviously not happening. Obviously not at all.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield for a question. I give the 
Senator from Texas the courtesy I was not given.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would like to ask the Senator from New York, of the 
individuals he has listed on his chart, isn't it true that all but 
Judge Fortas were ultimately confirmed to the positions to which the 
President appointed them?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes, reclaiming my time, that is exactly the point. I 
haven't gotten up to this chart, but I will go to it now.

  Mr. CORNYN. If I may----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Let me please answer my colleague's question. The bottom 
line is the other side has said--and in the chart of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, he was careful. He said ``successfully filibustered, 
none.'' Then when it was repeated by many of the other colleagues, they 
said there has never been a filibuster.
  As my good colleague from Nevada pointed out, there have been 
filibusters. Here are some of the judges who have been filibustered.
  Don't claim there has never been a filibuster. In fact, I would ask 
anyone on the other side, when you filibustered just 3 years ago, did 
anybody object and say the Constitution is being defiled? Judge Berzon 
was filibustered in 2000. Judge Paez was filibustered in 2000. Judge 
Sarokin was filibustered in 1994.
  I didn't hear the outcries from the Senator from Pennsylvania or 
others that filibuster is constitutionally wrong. Oh, no. Oh, no. So 
the one difference----
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Let me finish--the one difference--and then I will be 
happy to yield for a question--is this. We succeeded. Do you know why 
we succeeded? I will tell you why. Because President Clinton made an 
effort to nominate moderate judges, by and large; because President 
Clinton did far more of the advise-and-consent process than President 
Bush, and President Clinton was able to persuade 15 or 20 Members from 
the other side to finally vote for these judges.
  We have had no advice, meaning consultation. I am consulted in New 
York, and we have filled every vacancy. On the main court of appeals 
nominees, there is no advise, and that means there isn't consent.
  I would argue this to my good friend from Texas: No President has 
chosen judges through an ideological prism more than President Bush. He 
said it when he ran, to his credit. He was going to appoint judges in 
the mold of Scalia and Thomas, two of the most conservative judges we 
have. Some of them are to the right of Scalia and Thomas. Clearly, 
Justice Brown is. I believe Miguel Estrada was. He has appointed judges 
ideologically. Then we are supposed to not challenge that ideology? It 
is two-faced. It is hypocritical.
  Most of President Clinton's nominees--not all, but most--were not 
legal aid lawyers or ACLU attorneys. They were partners in law firms; 
they were prosecutors. Anyone who has followed this knows President 
Clinton decided to nominate, by and large, decidedly moderate judges. 
That is why the filibusters were not successful.
  Our filibusters are successful, frankly, not because of any of us. It 
is because President Bush has decided to nominate people from the hard 
right so that he gives us no choice. Nothing would please me more--and 
I am one of the leaders in this--nothing would please me more than for 
Counsel Gonzales to call some of us in and say: How do we come to some 
kind of comity? Guess what, the same thing that happened in New York 
and a few other States will happen nationally.
  Will most of the judges be far more conservative than me? Yes. Will 
many of the judges disagree with my view on choice or affirmative 
action or anything else? Yes. But at least we will feel they will 
interpret the law, not make law.
  As my good friends know on the other side, the Constitution requires 
interpretation of the law, and ideologues, far left or far right--I 
don't like far-left judges, either--want to make law because they feel 
they are so right and the country is so wrong, and so they try to make 
law.

  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield----
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom--I will yield in a 
minute, and maybe the Senator would ask the others on their time to 
yield to us as well. Then we can get some debate here and maybe make a 
little progress instead of just talking past one another.
  The bottom line is this: We are defending the Constitution. We are 
saying there should be some balance. President Bush didn't win by a 
landslide. This Senate is not 62 to 38 or 70 to 30. This country is 
narrowly divided, and that means when laws are made, they tend to move 
to the middle. The prescription drug law is an example right now. But 
judges don't have to move to the middle. Once they are appointed, they 
are there for life, and they have virtually absolute power over cases. 
All we have is the constraints within their own heads.
  My good, learned friend from Texas knows that in the ``Federalist 
Papers,'' Alexander Hamilton said ideology should play a role. My good 
friend from Texas--he is a student of history--knows one of the first 
nominees of George Washington, John Rutledge, was rejected because of 
his views on the Jay Treaty. My good friend knows in that Senate that 
rejected John Rutledge were a good number of the Founding Fathers. So 
this is not new. This is not made up. In fact, what is new is the view 
on the other side that if they don't get their whole way, they want to 
change the rules. If there had been for 20 years protests from many of 
my colleagues who sat in those seats in 2000 and 2000 and 1994 and 1994 
when there were filibusters, maybe we could feel there was some genuine 
feeling here, some genuine fidelity. Instead, I would argue most of 
those who study logic know that things can be made; that the weakest 
arguments are outcome determinant. In other words, you look for the 
outcome you want and then you make the argument. That, I would argue, 
with all due respect, is what my colleagues are doing.
  The bottom line is filibusters were not an abomination to the 
Constitution when President Clinton nominated. And, by the way, in the 
inverse case, holding back judges from even getting a vote in the 
Judiciary Committee was perfectly OK. That didn't unbalance the 
Constitution.
  What my colleagues have done is taken the result they want, which is 
172 to 0, and then come up with an argument that all of a sudden 
filibusters are bad. Blocking judges can't be bad because look at all 
these judges the other side blocked and didn't even

[[Page S14559]]

allow to come up for a vote. So it can't be that blocking judges is 
wrong. But it also can't be that filibusters are wrong because they did 
them in recent history. They just didn't succeed.
  Now they have this twisted logic that only a successful filibuster is 
bad. That doesn't make much sense. I am sure my good colleague from 
Alabama wishes his filibuster had succeeded. He felt it passionately. 
He felt Judge Berzon and Judge Paez were too far over, maybe.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield since I mentioned the Senator's 
name.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Did the Senator know that although the Senator from 
Alabama strongly opposed Berzon and Paez and voted against both those 
nominees, that there were holds on those nominees, and the Republican 
leader, Trent Lott, moved for cloture to move the nominations forward, 
and this Senator, as did Trent Lott, voted for cloture to bring an up-
or-down vote and voted against the nomination although we----

  Mr. SCHUMER. Let me reclaim my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is not the kind of filibuster we have going on 
today.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I simply say to my colleague----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York controls the time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  What I said before was, and I say it again, I did not hear an outcry 
about filibustering being wrong or being unconstitutional or being evil 
when these judges came up. I didn't see people get on the floor for 30 
hours. There were four of them in the last 6 years. I didn't even hear 
people get on the floor for 3 hours and take up time to say why 
filibustering is bad.
  Do you know why they say it is bad now? Because we have succeeded. 
Again, why have we succeeded? Because President Bush has changed the 
way people are appointed to the judiciary. He has nominated judges 
through an ideological prism to a far greater extent than any President 
in history.
  I say to my colleagues, do you want to get it to be 172 to 0? Tell 
the President to sit down with us, to advise, to come to some 
compromise, and then you will probably get 172 to 0. But as long as 
this process continues where there is no advise and consent, as long as 
this process continues where certain judges who believe decisions that 
have been discredited 50 and 100 years ago should be law, we have no 
alternative but to do what we are doing.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield to my colleague for a question.
  Mr. REID. Does my friend from New York support the unanimous consent 
requests--plural--that have been entered today on the record and 
rejected by the majority, first of all to extend up employment 
benefits? Does the Senator from New York believe we would be better 
advised to go forward on something like that than on these four people 
who do have a job?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I say to my colleague, most definitely, because, first, 
not only do these people have a job, but they shouldn't be on the 
bench.
  Mr. REID. I ask another question. Does the Senator also agree that 
rather than going through 30 hours of this--first of all, with all due 
respect, everybody, including me, everything that has been said so far 
tonight in these 5 hours has already been said.
  Mr. SCHUMER. More than once.
  Mr. REID. And I am sure for the next 25 hours, there will still be 
nothing new. Having said that, I ask my friend from New York, does he 
think it would be a good idea that the unanimous consent requests I 
proffered where I asked to do something about the minimum wage right 
here on the Senate floor tonight, does the Senator think that would be 
a good idea to help the American people?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I say to my colleague, it would be an excellent idea. 
This debate, as I mentioned earlier, is not going to accomplish a 
thing. In fact, if it accomplishes anything, since we haven't had the 
media drumbeat on our side the way the others have, it is going to help 
us; it is going to get this very fact out. Why not have a debate on 
something we haven't debated, such as minimum wage, such as health 
care, such as energy policy, instead of having two people decide energy 
policy. Nobody knows what the conference report will be. Let's have a 
debate about that.

  Here we are repeating over and over and over and over again the 
arguments that have been made and made and made.
  The bottom line, I say to my good colleague from Nevada, is there are 
100, 200, 300 better ways to spend 30 hours in the Senate than redebate 
these issues. If this is frustration on the other side because 4 of the 
172 have been blocked, the solution is not to repeat the same arguments 
which we regard as specious. The solution is to come to the middle and 
compromise and talk to us, as we have done in certain States.
  I say this to my colleagues: Stop using outcome-determinative 
arguments. Filibusters are fine when you do them. Only when we do them 
successfully are they no good. And blocking judges? That is just fine. 
You blocked so many more than we have. This argument is like trying to 
thread a needle: Blocking judges is OK; filibustering is OK; only 
successful filibustering is unconstitutional.
  I doubt many legal scholars of any political persuasion would be able 
to sustain the contradictions in my friends' arguments from across the 
aisle.
  The bottom line is simple: We believe advise and consent really means 
what it says.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator has consumed his time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. We believe keeping judges in the mainstream is within 
what the Founding Fathers wished us to do. I will have more to say in 
the next hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is a rough 
sense between the Democratic and Republican sides that the next hour, 
at least on our schedule, had been designated, that the Republican time 
would take half an hour and the Democratic side half an hour. If there 
is a different point of view on that side, perhaps that could be 
expressed. Otherwise, we would go forward. If there is not, then what I 
would like to do at this time is yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have spent a fair amount of time on the 
floor tonight listening. I am a freshman on the Judiciary Committee. 
There are a great many things Senators can do. They can speak 
flamboyantly, they can speak articulately, they make history, but they 
cannot rewrite history.
  I heard a few phrases tonight that were trying to rewrite a little of 
the history. So I thought for a few moments I would read from a letter 
from the Senator who was there for the Abe Fortas debate, not a 
filibuster but a debate, a cloture vote. We are trying to say tonight 
that cloture votes are somehow filibusters. Well, my goodness, what an 
interesting term of art. Most importantly, what an interesting play of 
words.
  Filibusters are nonstop speaking. Cloture votes are simply to gain 
the majority necessary, a supermajority, to continue the work of the 
Senate. Now, those are the rules of the Senate.
  Let me read a letter that came to us from Robert Griffin, Republican 
Senator from Michigan. He writes to the Honorable John Cornyn, chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution:

       Dear Mr. Chairman: An Associated Press piece which appeared 
     yesterday in many of the Sunday newspapers (copy attached) 
     speculated that Chief Justice Rehnquist and/or Justice 
     O'Connor might retire this year or next, and concluded with 
     this comment: Presidents have not had much success in 
     appointing Supreme Court justices in election years. . . . 
     The last person to try it was Lyndon Johnson in 1968, when he 
     failed to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Chief Justice 
     Earl Warren. Republicans filibustered the nomination and 
     Johnson backed off.

  That is what the article in the paper said. Here are the facts from a 
Senator who was on the floor at the time debating the Abe Fortas 
nomination. He goes on:

       Whether intended or not, the inference read by many would 
     be: Since the Republicans filibustered to block Justice 
     Fortas from becoming Chief Justice, it must be all

[[Page S14560]]

     right for Democrats to filibuster to keep President Bush's 
     nominees off the appellate courts. Having been on the scene 
     in 1968, and having participated in the debate, I see a 
     number of very important differences between what happened 
     then and the situation that confronts the Senate today.
       First of all, four days of debate on a nomination for Chief 
     Justice is hardly a filibuster.

  He goes on to speak of the remarks that he gave in closing out that 
debate.

       When is a filibuster, Mr. President? . . . There have been 
     no dilatory quorum calls or other dilatory tactics employed. 
     The speakers who have taken the floor have addressed 
     themselves to the subject before the Senate, and a most 
     interesting and useful discussion has been recorded in the 
     Congressional Record.
       Those who are considering invocation of cloture at this 
     early stage on such a controversial, complex matter should 
     keep in mind that Senate debate last year on the investment 
     tax credit bill lasted 5 weeks--

  In other words, Senate leadership is now considering imposing a 
cloture vote on the debate that has gone on for 4 days. Nothing was 
said about a filibuster. So we go on, and he speaks about that. Then he 
says:

       While a few Senators, individually, might have contemplated 
     the use of the filibuster, there was no Republican Party 
     position that it should be employed. Indeed, Republican 
     leader of the Senate, Everett Dirksen, publicly expressed his 
     support for the Fortas nomination shortly after the President 
     announced his choice. Opposition in 1968 to the Fortas 
     nomination was not partisan. Some Republicans supported 
     Fortas; and some Democrats opposed him.

  Then he goes on to speak about the cloture vote. There were 45 in 
favor of the motion and 43 against.
  What happened the next day, when the President, a Democrat President, 
could see he simply did not have bipartisan support on the floor for a 
majority, 50 plus 1? He pulled the Abe Fortas nomination. There was no 
filibuster. There was simply a cloture vote.
  Now, it is a term of art that is trying to be finely defined tonight 
and finely written. When is a filibuster a filibuster? When is a 
cloture a cloture? Well, my colleagues cannot use the Abe Fortas 
example as a filibuster because simply this Senator will never allow 
other Senators to rewrite history. History is what it is at the time it 
is recorded and the Congressional Record clearly demonstrates----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield at this time.
  It is simply a fact recorded in the Congressional Record, so spoken 
by Robert P. Griffin, then the Senator from Michigan, who was there 
debating the cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. We have 
heard some comments about we ought to be talking about jobs and the 
economy. On this side of the aisle, we are always looking at ways to 
make our tax laws, our regulatory policies, and our legal system more 
conducive to more jobs with more investment in this country.
  We have heard this evening all sorts of excuses and justifications 
for filibustering. For example, we heard mentioned earlier by the 
Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, a citation as justification from 
Lyndon Johnson who said: ``If I should have the opportunity to send 
into countries behind the iron curtain one freedom and only one, my 
choice would be to send those nations the right of unlimited debate in 
their legislative chambers,'' to which my view was, gosh, there are a 
lot more important rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of 
religion, property rights, due process under the rule of law.
  When we get to the rule of law and how important that is for the 
credibility in this country, whether it is people in this country or 
outside of America to take a risk and invest in this country, the fair 
adjudication and administration of laws is very important. It is 
vitally important that we have judges on the courts so that if there 
are contractual disputes, or if property is being taken, or if there is 
a dispute, it is as expeditiously handled and decided rather than being 
delayed because of insufficient judges.
  In many of these circuits, we have judicial emergencies. In fact, it 
is a fundamental principle of the American judicial system that justice 
should be blind, that people can get a fair hearing regardless of who 
they are, where they come from, or what they look like. Surely, 
nominees to the Federal bench deserve the same rights to a fair hearing 
as any of us.

  Our sense of what is right for the country tells us that the most 
political among us realize that it is imperative that our courts are in 
working order. Common sense tells us that many of America's highest 
courtrooms do not have judges to run them and as a result the legal 
system cannot function.
  When it is said that the economy is somehow not doing as well as it 
should, all of us, on this side of the aisle, President Bush and his 
Cabinet, are working to make sure that our economy gets stronger and 
more jobs are created. In fact, the gross domestic product is the best 
in nearly 20 years. We had negative growth in 2001, obviously because 
of a variety of factors, including, of course, the terrorist attacks. 
The gross domestic product has grown every quarter since the passage of 
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of June of 2001.
  It grew our economy by a 7.2-percent annual rate the third quarter of 
this year. This was the fastest pace of growth since 1984, almost 20 
years ago. Employment continues to make gains. Payrolls increased by 
126,000 new jobs, net new jobs, in October. The stock market continues 
to grow. That means more money for people's nest eggs, for their 
security and retirement.
  Business is reacting favorably to tax relief and corresponding 
economic growth, where businesses are growing, thereby providing more 
jobs. We also find an increase in disposal household income, where 
mothers and fathers have more money so they are spending it on their 
children, which is great for those who are selling whatever products or 
services that they are purchasing, as well as whoever is packaging, 
transporting, fabricating, assembling, or manufacturing what they are 
purchasing.
  Dividend relief also is leading to billions of new dividends 
distributed to shareholders. All of this is going on now. It also is 
important, though, that we have judges and the fair administration of 
the rule of law in the laws that we pass.
  We cannot have activist judges. Activist judges create uncertainty. 
Businesses want to know what the laws will be so they can make those 
strategic long-term decisions. To have judges coming up with activist 
inventions of new laws that were not written or adopted by the 
legislative branch is dangerous for security, jobs, and investment in 
this country.
  To put a fine point on judges, look at the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Ask those affected every day by the decisions by our Federal 
appellate courts whether confirming circuit court nominees is 
important.
  The people of California almost had their constitution gutted by a 
three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit only to have a larger panel of 
the same circuit reinstate their constitutionally authorized 
gubernatorial recall election. I think it is pretty important who sits 
on the Ninth Circuit.
  I am sure those in circuits where, for example, schoolchildren in 
Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho, who cannot say the Pledge of 
Allegiance because of leftwing activist judges in that circuit, who say 
that if one person takes offense at some other revering our flag, then 
the pledge is unconstitutional, would say these judges do matter.
  They matter in our everyday lives. They matter in our schools. They 
matter in our businesses. Let's put in judges who will interpret the 
law, not invent it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the gentleman for his comments, both 
on the status of our economy and the great economic growth that we are 
now enjoying, but also the last point about the importance of 
confirming judges.
  I hope people around America are watching tonight so they will 
understand why we are talking about the importance of confirming judges 
nominated by the President to the Federal bench.
  We have all heard the phrase, ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' 
The

[[Page S14561]]

reason that is a common phrase is because there is a lot of truth to 
it. What we are seeing around the country today is delay in justice 
because the Senate is denying the President a mere up-or-down vote on 
some of his nominees to the bench.
  While it is possible for minority members, along with some in the 
majority, to defeat a judge on an up-or-down vote, that has only 
happened one time, a few years ago, since I have been in the Senate.
  The judges who are being denied confirmation would all pass with a 
majority vote, but the minority is holding them up through the 
mechanism of the filibuster. I will have more to say about that 
mechanism in a moment.
  The key point the Senator from Virginia made was that it is important 
we confirm these judges, as important as many of our other functions.
  Let us reflect for a moment. The Senate was given some very unique 
responsibilities by the Framers of our Constitution. Among those unique 
responsibilities is the sole ability to ratify treaties and confirm 
nominations of the President. Advice and consent of the Senate is the 
way the Constitution refers to it.
  The House of Representatives, with all of the great responsibilities 
of that body, does not have this authority. This is alone the job of 
the Senate, and it is a job that the Senate, throughout its entire 
history, has taken very seriously. Never, in the history of the Senate, 
has there been a successful filibuster of a nominee to the bench by the 
President. That is what is so striking, what is so important, what is 
so significant, about the activity of the minority party during the 
course of the last couple of years, and it is why we are here tonight 
talking about this and trying to move America to move our Democratic 
colleagues to recognize that it is only fair to provide an up-or-down 
vote for these candidates. That is all we are asking.
  We have talked about the fairness to the nominees themselves. Miguel 
Estrada, one of the most competent attorneys in the country, after more 
than 2 years, finally withdrew his name from consideration because he 
had to move on with his career. We could talk about the fairness to 
these nominees of having to languish for months, for years, without 
even the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. We could talk to the fairness 
of the President. We could talk to the fairness of the majority in the 
Senate.
  What I want to address briefly is the fairness to the American people 
in denying justice by the delay in filling vacancies, vacancies which 
are emergency vacancies.
  What is an emergency vacancy? An emergency vacancy is one which has 
been determined by the Judicial Conference, which is a nonpartisan 
entity that acts as the principal policymaking body for the 
administration of the U.S. courts, that there are so many cases per 
judge in a particular circuit or district that an emergency exists; 
there are not enough judges to take care of the cases in any reasonable 
timeframe, as a result of which litigants suffer.

  Perhaps the clearest way to make this point is, every schoolchild 
knows that the Constitution of the United States guarantees a criminal 
defendant a speedy trial, but they cannot get a speedy trial if there 
is no judge. So what happens is that all of the other litigants in the 
courts have to go to the back of the line and stay there until all of 
the criminal defendants have had their speedy trial.
  In some cases, that means the civil cases languish for 3, 4, 5, 6 
years. That is justice denied in the case of those litigants whose 
justice has been delayed.
  What are these judicial emergencies? There are 12 judicial 
emergencies on the circuit court of appeals including the Ninth 
Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, and the Fourth Circuit. 
Democrats are obstructing nominees for every one of those circuits. For 
all three of the nominations who have already been filibustered--
Priscilla Owen, nominated to fill one of the two Fifth Circuit judicial 
emergencies; Charles Pickering to fill one of the Fifth Circuit 
judicial emergencies; and Bill Pryor, nominated to fill an Eleventh 
Circuit judicial emergency--in each case, the filibuster is preventing 
us from filling a seat which has been declared a judicial emergency.
  This is not some theoretical exercise. This is a problem that has to 
be dealt with, and the Senate is falling down in its responsibility to 
fill these emergencies.
  Democrats have also threatened to filibuster other nominees who have 
been named to fill judicial emergencies in other circuits, by name, 
Carolyn Kuhl, who I would like to speak about a little later, nominated 
to fill a Ninth Circuit judicial emergency, Henry Saad for the Sixth 
Circuit, Susan Neilson for the Sixth Circuit, Richard Griffin for the 
Sixth Circuit, David McKeague for the Sixth Circuit, and Claude Allen 
to fill a judicial emergency in the Fourth Circuit.
  The cost of judicial vacancies to litigants in civil rights cases not 
being able to vindicate their civil rights in commercial disputes, in 
contract disputes, in regulatory cases involving Federal regulations, 
in every kind of case one can mention, there are cases languishing and 
litigants who are not being given their rights because there are not 
sufficient judges to hear their cases.
  I mentioned the Ninth Circuit. That is the circuit in which my home 
State of Arizona is located. I am very familiar with the delays in that 
circuit. It is hurting the economies of our States. It is hurting the 
rights of litigants in our States. I will mention a couple of details 
to make the point.
  The Ninth Circuit is the largest circuit in the country. It hears 
appeals from California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Washington, 
Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. There are over 5,200 cases pending in the 
Ninth Circuit. It has the largest civil docket in the Nation, more than 
1,500 cases. Since early 2001, cases filed in the district court of the 
Ninth Circuit and that make their way through the court of appeals take 
longer to resolve than they did 2 years ago. In 2001, it took 30 months 
for a case to go from original filing to a final decision on appeal. By 
June 2003, it took 31 months. This 1-month increase in delay may seem 
small but the delay adds up across the circuit. There are more than 
4,100 cases in the Ninth Circuit affected by this delay.
  That means there are more than 123,000 extra days that have been 
spent by both parties waiting for a decision. It takes 5 months longer 
to resolve a case in the Ninth Circuit than the national average of 
courts of appeal, 31 months versus 36 months. That is what has affected 
my State and other States in the United States Court of Appeals. The 
filibuster that has been conducted by the Democrats is responsible for 
the inability to fill these vacancies. Not just vacancies, but judicial 
emergencies.
  The last point I make before yielding time, if the Senator from 
Alabama is still here and would like to speak briefly, to answer a 
question that has been asked of me by constituents in Arizona. They 
remember the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' with Jimmy Stewart. 
A couple of them have read in the history books about the great 
filibuster Strom Thurmond conducted over 24 hours. They asked me, if 
the Democrats are filibustering these judges, why can't you make them 
talk all night? The answer to that question is, that is not the nature 
of a modern filibuster. When Jimmy Stewart and Strom Thurmond were 
speaking that long, they were trying to hold the floor, as our 
colleague from Nevada did a couple of nights ago when I think he spoke 
over 8\1/2\ hours. He did not want to give up the floor because he did 
not want business to be conducted.
  In the case of Strom Thurmond and Jimmy Stewart, in the movie, they 
did not dare give up the floor because they were a one-man band for 
their cause. They may have had one or two colleagues with them, but 
basically they were it. They knew as soon as they gave up the floor, 
the leader would say: I ask unanimous consent we now vote on the matter 
they were arguing about. They would object and say, I object, and under 
Senate rules that is enough. It only takes one person to object to go 
to the next stage. The next stage is filing a cloture motion and then a 
vote occurs. If 60 Senators say, ``We are ready to vote,'' you take the 
vote on whatever matter it is. In this case, it would be the nomination 
of these judicial nominees. They might pass by 51 votes, but you cannot 
take the vote until 60 Senators agree.

[[Page S14562]]

  That is the rule that applies on the legislative calendar. Up until 
now no one thought it would be a rule that would be abused with respect 
to the Executive Calendar, the calendar on which the judicial nominees 
are considered.
  The Democrats have decided to seek to apply that 60-vote rule so if 
more than 40 of them vote no to take a vote, we would not have the 60 
votes necessary to take that vote and the majority rule would never be 
permitted to prevail. That is the way it has been for the last several 
months. We have taken a cloture vote several times and each time there 
are 44, 45 Democrats who vote against cloture. They vote against taking 
the final vote. That means there may be 55 or 56 on the other side with 
some Democrat support, obviously, willing to take the vote. But we 
cannot get that number up to 60.
  Up until now, in the interpretation that has prevailed, we cannot 
take the final vote which would pass for all of these nominees; 51 
votes would be secured for every one of the nominees that have been 
filibustered. That is why we cannot make someone talk all night. If our 
colleagues on the Democrat side wished, they could have one person on 
the floor all night tonight and simply object to our request to go to 
these votes. But they would not have to talk if they did not want to.
  I am pleased they are joining in this debate so we can actually have 
a discussion about these candidates. In that sense, I guess we have 
forced an all-night discussion. It is a discussion that should have 
occurred a long time ago. It is a useful discussion, but it is not a 
discussion at the end of the day that I suspect will change any of 
their minds, as a result of which, as long as we adhere to the 60-vote 
rule that has always been the rule in the past, we cannot get to a vote 
where the majority would be able to prevail. That is what the Senate 
rules are.

  On Friday, we will have a vote to change the rules. That vote 
requires a two-thirds majority to pass. It is unlikely that will occur, 
either.
  That is the state of play right now. That is why, to answer the 
question, ``Can you make somebody talk all night,'' the answer is no, 
not if they have 40 friends, because if they have 40 friends, all they 
have to do is vote ``no'' when you have a cloture vote and you cannot 
go on to your final vote. That rule may sound arcane, but I also say on 
legislative matters, it has been used by both parties to defeat 
legislation that did not have a 60-vote majority. It is a right 
Senators have always felt important, for important matters to require 
60 votes. To pass a treaty, it takes two-thirds. The Constitution 
explicitly spells that out. But to confirm a judge, the Constitution 
has no supermajority requirement.
  There are a lot of people who believe the real intent of the Framers 
was that a simple majority should apply. Perhaps one day that issue 
will be tested. Until then, we are with the proposition that as long as 
any Senator objects, it takes 60 votes to get to a final vote in which 
a simple majority would prevail. As of right now, that is what is being 
applied in the case of these judicial nominees.
  The important point for Americans to understand is the minority has 
thwarted the will of the majority; that the consequences are 
significant for the country; that emergency judicial vacancies are not 
being filled; and while this is unfair to nominees themselves, it is 
even more unfair to the American people because the judicial vacancies 
remain vacant.
  It is a solemn responsibility of the Senate to act on the President's 
nominees. We are not fulfilling that responsibility. It is for that 
reason the Republican majority decided to take this time tonight and 
tomorrow to try to bring this matter to the attention of the American 
people to urge our colleagues to reconsider their position in 
opposition to even taking a vote on these nominees so eventually we can 
get to the point where we can simply have an up-or-down vote on the 
nominees President Bush has made for these important positions.
  I reserve the balance of the time allotted to the Republican side 
during this hour. If there is another Republican wishing to speak, I am 
happy to recognize that person. If not, I am happy to yield the floor 
to colleagues on the Democrat side for whatever time is remaining and 
pick that up a little bit later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy for the Senator to go forward and then we 
will come back at the end of the hour.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I inquire how much time remains of the half 
hour?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and \1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KYL. If either Democrat who is on the floor would like to speak, 
fine. Otherwise I will go ahead and use that time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it works better when we use our time and do 
not get mixed up so no one owes time.
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to follow the precedent we have established and 
use the remaining 2\1/2\ minutes.
  I wanted to speak to the qualifications of some of these nominees. 
Obviously, during the short period of time I have, I am not going to be 
able to do that except that I said I wanted to mention the 
qualifications of one of these nominees, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, nominated 
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a judge who would be sitting on 
cases I might argue to the Ninth Circuit Court.
  She has been a judge in a State trial court in Los Angeles since 
1995. The American Bar Association rated her ``well qualified,'' their 
top rating for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She has served as a 
superior court judge in Los Angeles County in both the criminal and 
civil divisions and supervising judge of the civil division, the first 
woman to hold that position. Before that, she was a partner in a 
prestigious law firm in California. Before that, she served in the 
Department of Justice. She worked as a deputy solicitor general of the 
United States and argued cases before the United States Supreme Court 
in that capacity. She has extraordinary bipartisan support. A 
bipartisan group of 23 women judges on the superior court who serve 
with Judge Kuhl have written to our Judiciary Committee and said, ``As 
sitting judges, we, more than anyone, appreciate the importance of an 
independent, fair-minded and principled Judiciary. We believe that 
Carolyn Kuhl represents the best values of such a Judiciary.'' That is 
from a bipartisan group of judges.
  A bipartisan group of nearly 100 judges who serve with her said: We 
believe her elevation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will bring 
credit to all of us. As an appellate judge, she will serve the people 
of our country with distinction, as she has done as a trial judge.
  There are a variety of other endorsements that have been made of this 
fine candidate. The bottom line is we reviewed her record, we heard her 
testimony. She made a tremendous impression on all of us on the 
committee. The worst a couple of people on the other side can say is 
they disagreed with a couple of her decisions. I daresay if that was 
the test of every one of us as Senators, we would be in a sorry 
position because we cannot go very long without people disagreeing with 
us philosophically on positions.
  Judge Carolyn Kuhl, it is plain, will follow the Constitution. She is 
one of the candidates we need to act upon. I urge my colleagues to 
consider these remarks in consideration of her nomination.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the first 15 minutes will go to the Senator 
from California, Mrs. Boxer, and the second 15 minutes to the Senator 
from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am glad Senator Kyl brought up the Kuhl nomination 
because I will be talking a little bit about that nominee and her 
background and the number of people from all sides of the spectrum who 
oppose this nominee and the fact there is a very serious case involving 
a breast cancer patient who she ruled against in terms of her privacy 
rights. I will get into that. Judge Kuhl was overturned immediately. I 
will get into that and why it is we have taken a stand on a handful of 
these very extremist, very controversial judicial nominees.
  First, I remind us of the scorecard. If I were the Republicans and I 
got 168 of

[[Page S14563]]

the judges I wanted and only was turned down for 4, I would do what my 
mother said when I was a kid: ``Honey, if you get 90 percent of what 
you want, say thank you, give the person a hug, and leave the room.''
  Instead, what do we have? We do not have smiling, we do not have 
thank you's. We have 30 hours of wasted time to hear people complain 
and whine about the fact they did not get four.
  Somebody wrote a book once, called ``All I Really Need to Know I 
Learned in Kindergarten.'' I honestly think this is the most childish 
situation. The President gets 168 and does not get 4 and his party is 
up in arms.
  How does that compare to President Clinton? Let's take a look at 
that. President Clinton had 63 nominees blocked, or 20 percent of his 
nominees. President Bush has, up to now, four--I suspect if we get 
these new two women we are talking about coming forward on Friday, 
hopefully, there will be six, but tonight there are four. That is 2 
percent, and we have complaining going on.
  I do not get it. I feel like Barbara in Wonderland. It makes 
absolutely no sense. I cannot figure it out. It is like the kid who 
comes home from school and says to his dad, ``Dad, I got 98 percent; 
aren't you proud of me?'' Dad says, ``What happened to that other 2 
percent?'' What is it about? We all learn to be gracious when we win. 
When we win 98 percent, we should be gracious.
  Here are the names of the Clinton nominees who were blocked. Fifteen 
times more judicial nominees blocked than that of President Bush. Why 
were they blocked? The other side felt, for whatever reason, maybe they 
did not feel they came from the mainstream.
  I remember speaking to Senator Hatch. He actually called me into his 
office. We had a very good talk. This is when he was chair of the 
Judiciary Committee and President Clinton was President. He said to me: 
``I just want you to know, Barbara, if your side sends over from 
California liberal judges, they will never go anywhere. Do not send me 
liberal judges.''
  I said: ``Orrin, I get it. I am a pragmatist. I have a committee 
advising me. I will so instruct them.'' We got almost all of our 
nominees through.
  When President Bush was elected, I said to Senator Hatch: ``I hope 
you are not going to send us rightwing nominees, because they are out 
of the mainstream and this President promised us mainstream nominees.''
  Remember the night the Court decided he had won the election? The 
President came out--I will never forget it--we needed healing, and he 
came to the mike. It was very healing. He said: ``I will govern from 
the center. I am a uniter, not a divider.''

  Yet we see some of these nominees who are coming down who are so far 
off to the right they are falling off the charts. I want to be clear. I 
want to say this unequivocally to my colleagues. I don't deserve to be 
here if I don't exercise the right given to me in the Constitution of 
the United States, which I revere. If I don't exercise that right, I do 
not deserve to be here. If I don't stand up and block some of these 
people, I do not deserve to be here. It is as simple as that. You can 
come to my State, you can call me every name in the book, it does not 
matter to me, because my constituents want me to stand up for what is 
right. What is right is to support mainstream candidates for the 
judiciary and stand up to extremist nominees and those who are out of 
the mainstream. I have to do it. It is my job.
  Do you want to come and talk about it for 30 hours when we could be 
doing other things? That is fine with me. I can talk about it for 630 
hours. That is how strongly I feel in my heart about what we have done.
  What does the Constitution say about our job? The Constitution says: 
The President--that means this one and every other one--must seek the 
Senate's advice and consent. It does not say ``sometimes.'' It does not 
say ``usually.'' It does not say ``when you feel like it.'' It says 
very clearly, the President must seek the Senate's advice and consent. 
That does not mean notifying Senators, ``This is who we are coming up 
with.'' It means sitting down with us. It means talking to us. I have 
to say, this administration falls short.
  When Carolyn Kuhl was nominated, I said to Alberto Gonzales, the 
President's man on this, Give me some time. I wanted to support a woman 
for this judgeship. Members know my record. I said, Let me get back to 
you. Lo and behold, what did I find out? I want to tell you what I 
found out.
  First I found out about this case. Think of yourself as the woman in 
this circumstance, perhaps as her husband or as a relative. A woman had 
a mastectomy. It is a brutal operation. She is frightened. She is sick. 
She is going to the doctor for a followup exam. She is in the office. 
The doctor has another person in the office, dressed in a white coat, 
and the exam takes place. This other gentleman is leaning over this 
woman in one of the most embarrassing moments, her most frightened 
moments, her most humiliating moments, and he is fanning her. He is 
involved in this. He is staring at her the whole time. When she leaves 
the doctor's office on the way out, something did not feel right to 
her. She asks the receptionist, ``What doctor was that in the office 
with me?'' The receptionist said, ``That was no doctor; that was a drug 
salesman.''
  The woman was appalled. A drug salesman had been in this room with 
her without her permission, without her knowledge.
  The bottom line of all of this, she sues. The case comes before Judge 
Kuhl, who is a new judge in the State. Judge Kuhl rules against this 
woman. The case is appealed and Carolyn Kuhl is overturned.
  Is this someone you think should be rewarded with a lifetime 
appointment? I say not.
  Let's see what the National Breast Cancer Coalition has written. This 
is a group that does not get involved in politics. This is a group that 
does not get involved. They were so upset, they said:

       We cannot afford to have Judge Kuhl on the court of appeals 
     where she will have a greater effect on women with and at 
     risk of breast cancer and our family and friends.

  The National Breast Cancer Coalition getting involved in a judicial 
nomination. I will tell you, if I did not stand up for the women across 
this country--how many of us get breast cancer? About one in nine. If I 
did not stand up for them, I do not deserve to be here.
  So if you want to talk about it for 30 hours, for 40 hours, for 50 
hours, count me in--count me in--because if I were to roll over and 
allow someone such as that to get on the bench, someone who is hostile 
to women, someone who is hostile to civil rights, someone who is 
hostile to privacy rights, someone who is off the deep far right end of 
the spectrum, I do not deserve to be here because I promised my 
constituents I would support mainstream judges. I have supported many 
judges, 90 percent of the judges President Bush has brought forward. 
But once in a while you have to take a stand.
  Let's look at the number of groups that are against Carolyn Kuhl's 
nomination, which is going to be brought up on Friday. I cannot even 
read all of these to you. It would take too long. But I will give you a 
few: the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, the 
American Federation of School Administrators, the Asian Pacific 
American Labor Alliance, Breast Cancer Action, the Breast Cancer Fund, 
the Women's Law Center, Clean Water Action, Communication Workers, 
Defenders of Wildlife, the Feminist Majority, the Foundation for a 
Smoke-Free America, Friends of the Earth, the International Federation 
of Professional Technical Engineers, Los Angeles County Federation of 
Labor, NARAL, Moveon.org, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National 
Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National 
Employment Lawyers Association.
  It goes on and on and on, and there are reasons why these groups have 
gotten involved in this. Because all you have to do is see the record 
of this woman and you understand why these groups are against her.
  Office and Professional Employees International Union----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. No, I will not. People for the American Way, Physicians 
for Social Responsibility, Planned Parenthood, Pride at Work, 
Progressive Jewish Alliance, the Sierra Club, Smoke Free Educational 
Services--this goes on--Taxpayers Against Fraud, United American 
Nurses. It goes on and on.

[[Page S14564]]

  There is more: the Wilderness Society, the Women's Leadership 
Alliance; the Members of the California delegation: the Honorable Nancy 
Pelosi, Barbara Lee--all the women of California who are on the 
Democratic side in the Congress.
  So you want to talk about it for 30 hours? We will talk. We will 
talk.
  This is from 102 law professors from across the United States on 
Judge Kuhl:

       Judge Kuhl has spent her entire professional life--in the 
     Government, in private practice, and on the State bench--
     aggressively promoting an extremist agenda that is hostile to 
     women, minorities, injured workers, and the environment.

  Judge Kuhl's record goes back to when she worked in the Reagan 
administration and tried to persuade the Reagan administration to say 
that it was OK that Bob Jones University get a tax deduction. She was 
called part of a band of zealots who did that.

  So you want to talk about Judge Kuhl. I know her record inside out. I 
wanted to support a good woman from California. My whole life is spent 
promoting women but not women who would be hostile to other women and 
hostile to the guy who maybe needs to join an organization and perhaps 
get into a law suit. She does not even like the fact there are juries. 
She does not like the fact there are juries.
  So here we are. It is a quarter to 12 at night. I am all perky now. 
The reason is, I feel deeply about this. This is a chance to stand here 
and say, ``What are you doing?'' to the other side of aisle. You have 
168. You did not get four. You are whining and you are complaining and 
you are crying and you are marching into the Senate and you are 
stopping progress.
  What about the millions of jobs that have been lost? Three million 
jobs lost, 2.6 million in manufacturing. Let's talk about that for 30 
hours--instead of crying, crying about not getting 100 percent but only 
98 percent of what you want.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 1 more minute, and then I will turn it over to 
my colleague from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield a minute to my colleague from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. So here we see the problems. We have lost jobs. You do 
not want to talk about that. I think right now I ought to ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate now return to legislative session and proceed 
to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase 
the minimum wage, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Was there an objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there was either an objection or no 
objection.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Just finishing up my minute, this proves my point that 
they want to complain about four judges who already have jobs. But they 
do not want to deal with the people who are unemployed and this 
terrible economic situation we have in our country today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, I thank my colleague from California. She is feisty any time 
of the day but, not only feisty, on target. I very much appreciate her 
great work, particularly in bringing to our caucus's attention the 
problems with Judge Kuhl.
  Now, I would like to review the bidding so far. First, we have had a 
lot of talking, virtually none of it new. Second, there have been 
repeated refusals to go on to issues that we do not talk about, such as 
minimum wage, loss of jobs, health care. Third, we believe this debate 
is helping us because the rightwing radio and the rightwing groups have 
talked about their argument.
  I mentioned the Wall Street Journal editorials that never mention 
this number, what anything fair would be. We are getting this number 
out: 168 to 4.
  When I go to parades in upstate New York, conservative areas, they 
say: Why are you stopping the President's judges? I say: It is 168 to 
4. They say: Never mind. Well, that is what this debate is doing. The 
American people are going to say: Never mind.
  Finally, I think we have revealed how our colleagues' arguments are 
outcome-determinative. Lawyers will tell you they are the weakest 
arguments. You pick your outcome and then you determine it.
  Are they against filibusters? No. Again, I will repeat my challenge: 
Let a Senator on the other side show me that they got up and demanded 
30 hours or 3 hours or 5 hours when Members on their side attempted to 
filibuster Judge Barkett, Judge Sarokin, Judge Marsha Berzon, Judge 
Paez. Did anyone get up and complain? No.
  So you are not against filibusters and you are not against blocking 
judges. Here they are. You have blocked a whole lot of judges. You did 
not use filibuster. You refused to give them a vote. But they were 
blocked--same effect. The only thing you seem to object to is a 
successful filibuster. Where is the logic there?
  Finally, you want to have viewer-successful filibusters? Talk to us. 
Come and meet with us. Nominate judges who may be conservative but are 
not so far out of the mainstream, such as Justice Brown who believes 
that Government is evil. She is against all zoning laws, at least 
according to her speech to the Federalist Society. And she thinks the 
Lochner decision, one of the most discredited decisions which said the 
State government could not regulate the number of 60 hours--New York 
State said 60 hours is when a bakery worker could not work any longer. 
They can't do that.
  So nominate some people who are conservative but not so far out that 
they want to make law, not interpret law. That is the bidding so far.
  Now, one other point that was made since I last spoke. My good friend 
from Idaho, I love him. He is a fine guy. We even worked together on a 
gun control bill, so it shows you anything is possible around here. But 
he is saying Judge Abe Fortas was not filibustered? What is this 
argument? A cloture vote is not a filibuster? As my daughter would say: 
``Hello.''
  Why do we have a cloture vote? Because there is a filibuster. Here is 
the headline in the New York Times: ``Critics of Fortas Begin 
Filibuster. . . .'' Why is that not a filibuster? But the New York 
Times, they are one of those wacky, liberal publications, and this is 
one of these slanted liberal headlines.
  So let's take the U.S. Senate Web site. What is the headline? October 
1, 1968: ``Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment.'' I am 
paraphrasing: In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed 
President Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire because of a 
filibuster.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a document from the 
Senate's own Web page printed in the Record. I would ask all of my 
colleagues who believe that Abe Fortas was not filibustered to make a 
motion to correct the Web site.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment

       In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed President 
     Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire from the Supreme 
     Court. Concern that Richard Nixon might win the presidency 
     later that year and get to choose his successor dictated 
     Warren's timing.
       In the final months of his presidency, Johnson shared 
     Warren's concerns about Nixon and welcomed the opportunity to 
     add his third appointee to the Court. To replace Warren, he 
     nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his longtime 
     confidant. Anticipating Senate concerns about the prospective 
     chief justice's liberal opinions, Johnson simultaneously 
     declared his intention to fill the vacancy created by Fortas' 
     elevation with Appeals Court Judge Homer Thornberry. The 
     president believed that Thornberry, a Texan, would mollify 
     skeptical southern senators.
       A seasoned Senate vote-counter, Johnson concluded that 
     despite filibuster warnings he just barely had the support to 
     confirm Fortas. The president took encouragement from 
     indications that his former Senate

[[Page S14565]]

     mentor, Richard Russell, and Republican Minority Leader 
     Everett Dirksen would support Fortas, whose legal brilliance 
     both men respected.
       The president soon lost Russell's support, however, because 
     of administration delays in nominating the senator's 
     candidate to a Georgia federal judgeship. Johnson urged 
     Senate leaders to waste no time in convening Fortas' 
     confirmation hearings. Responding to staff assurances of 
     Dirksen's continued support, Johnson told an aide, ``Just 
     take my word for it. I know [Dirksen]. I know the Senate. If 
     they get this thing drug out very long, we're going to get 
     beat. Dirksen will leave us.''
       Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, 
     nominated for chief justice, to testify as his own 
     confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some 
     senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting 
     justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he 
     briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on 
     behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed 
     the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed 
     that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent 
     to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American 
     University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their 
     support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, 
     floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate 
     history on a Supreme Court nomination.
       On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. 
     Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing 
     that if he had another term, ``the Fortas appointment would 
     have been different.''

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank you, Mr. President. So I guess I have caught a 
little of the feistiness of my friend from California.
  Now, Senators, this is a serious issue. Many of my colleagues have 
done a great job of bringing up the issue of jobs and health care and 
all of that. I think we should do that because we have heard these 
arguments over and over and over and over again. We have not talked 
about the minimum wage once or for providing health care for the 
uninsured or many other issues. But so be it.
  Let me again go over what our Constitution says. Does our 
Constitution say, ``Do not filibuster''? It does not say that. In fact, 
our Constitution says the Senate ought to be the cooling saucer.
  We all know the story. James Madison was explaining, I believe it was 
to Thomas Jefferson, why there was a Senate. Jefferson thought it 
looked too much like the House of Lords. He had been over in Paris. And 
he had not written the Constitution.
  He came back and he goes over to James Madison's house and Madison is 
pouring tea. He says: You see. He pours the boiling water into a cup, 
and he says: You see the boiling water in the cup? That is the House of 
Representatives, where the people's passion bubbles over. Then he 
poured some of the water into the saucer, and he said: The Senate is 
the cooling saucer.
  Well, James Madison, we have been, by stopping these four nominees, a 
little bit of that cooling saucer. Our job, when the President goes too 
far, as he has with some of these nominees, is to be the cooling 
saucer.
  Now, unfortunately, our being the cooling saucer gets some of the 
others on the other side very hot. But we are defending the 
Constitution. The idea that a successful filibuster is bad has nothing 
to do with the Constitution. That comes from a few of my colleagues' 
view that they want to get every nominee. So let's make an argument. 
Because if a successful filibuster is bad and an unsuccessful 
filibuster is OK--and we have been through that before--then you cannot 
make any argument about a filibuster.
  Again, I would like my colleagues to read this over and over and over 
again. There is nothing in there that says: No filibuster. There is 
nothing in the Constitution that says: A majority will decide judges, a 
51-to-49 majority. It says the President must seek the Senate's 
``Advice and Consent.''
  Constitutional scholars will tell us that the reason we have these 
rules in the Senate--unlimited debate, two-thirds to change the rules, 
the idea that 60 have to close off debate--is embodied in the spirit 
and rule of the Constitution.
  Yes, my colleagues, we are the cooling saucer. When the President's 
passion for hot rightwing judges who might make law rather than 
interpret law gets overwhelming, we will cool the President's passion. 
That is what the Constitution is all about, and we all know it.
  By the way, when, again, my colleagues thought President Clinton was 
nominating a few judges too far left, what did they do? What did you do 
over there? You filibustered. Paez and Berzon were very liberal, no 
question about it. But because President Clinton had, by and large, 
nominated moderate nominees, nominated moderate people, your 
filibuster could not last.

  Let me say something to my colleagues. We did not want to undertake a 
filibuster. Many of us on the Judiciary pleaded with Chairman Hatch to 
go to the White House and say: Meet with us. No. Many of us pleaded 
with Counsel Gonzales to come meet us a little bit of the way. No.
  So we had no choice. Either we could be a rubberstamp or we could use 
the only means we had at our disposal to stop the President from 
getting every nominee, and that was the filibuster. Again, it is in 
keeping with the Constitution. We believe we are fulfilling our 
constitutional obligation.
  Again, I see my colleague from Pennsylvania brought up his chart: No 
successful filibusters. Did my colleague object to the unsuccessful 
filibusters of Barkett, Sarokin, Berzon, and Paez? Did my colleague say 
he wanted 30 hours on the floor because a filibuster was wrong?
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield. I want to finish my point and then 
I will yield to my friend from Virginia, who is one of the most 
respected and erudite Members of this body, and I consider him a friend 
of mine.
  I would simply say that the argument that filibusters are OK but 
successful filibusters are not OK just melts under even the sunshine of 
a distant logic.
  I yield to my colleague from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of leaving the 
floor and talking with a number of visitors. It is remarkable how many 
people have come from all across the country to be here. They have 
asked me, in a very straightforward manner: Senator, we have followed 
this debate and we cannot understand how one side says there is no 
filibuster and the other side says there is a filibuster.
  So, Mr. President, I would hope we could enter into a colloquy and 
allow the colleagues here--the former attorney general of Alabama, who 
is on the Judiciary Committee, and the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania, who has taken such a leadership role--to see whether or 
not in colloquy we can provide some clarity to those trying to follow 
this very important debate on this highly technical use of the word 
``filibuster.''
  So I am just wondering if you would state what your understanding is, 
and then my colleagues on this side will state their understanding.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Virginia for that excellent 
inter--I do not mean interruption--I mean it in the classical sense, 
trying to bring us together.
  I will be happy to yield to either of my colleagues from Alabama or 
Pennsylvania and ask them, because I would like to have debate here 
instead of each of us getting up and making speeches. I asked a few 
times and my colleagues were not on the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. So, Mr. President, you have your chance. So let's go.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Well, this is a good interjection by my friend from 
Virginia.
  Why is it that a successful filibuster is wrong but an unsuccessful 
filibuster is OK? Because we have had them before, and many on your 
side participated in them. We did not hear any of these arguments about 
the Constitution or anything else. I would be happy to yield to my 
colleague from either Alabama or Pennsylvania for an answer. Maybe we 
can come to some meeting of the minds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, maybe I would suggest, as we go forward 
here, the time be counted to each side. We are now in the next hour 
anyway. Is that where we are?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are 15 seconds from the minority's time 
running out.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. So in the next time block we set aside 
perhaps we can count the time against each side if we speak.
  Let me explain what happened. The Senator from New York was not 
here--

[[Page S14566]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
this colloquy, whatever time is consumed by whatever party member run 
off the time of that hour of that side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. So we make sure we understand, what we are saying is 
whoever is talking, time will be taken off their side; is that right?
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from New York was not here during the 
Clinton years in the Senate; he was in the House.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield? I was here the last 2 years of 
the Clinton years. I was here for Berzon and Paez.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Let's talk, then, about Berzon and Paez and get this 
straight. That is real good to remember. I just assumed the Senator 
couldn't have been here or he might have understood a little 
differently.
  Holds are placed on legislation by Senators. Holds are placed on 
nominees by Senators. One way to break that hold is to file for cloture 
which guarantees an up-or-down vote. Holds were placed on Berzon and 
Paez. President Clinton was President of the United States. These were 
two of his most liberal nominations to the most liberal circuit in 
America; the one that struck down the death penalty, struck down the 
Pledge of Allegiance, struck down the ``three strikes and you're out'' 
law in California, and Berzon and Paez participated in all those 
opinions.
  Anyway, when they were up for nomination, I strongly believed those 
were not good nominees and opposed them. We discussed these nominations 
within the Republican ranks. Somebody said: Why don't we filibuster? 
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, said: No, 
filibusters are not appropriate for judges. We should not enter a 
filibuster.
  A Democrat said: We want a vote on Berzon and Paez. We have waited 
long enough. So we got to the point where Trent Lott, the Republican 
majority leader, the equivalent of Tom Daschle in this circumstance, 
filed for cloture. He said: Let's bring these two nominations up for a 
vote.
  I and a whole lot of others did not support the Berzon and Paez 
nominations but did not believe in filibusters. The Senator from New 
York suggested we were unprincipled. He suggested that we are now 
opposing filibusters which we then favored. But when Trent Lott moved 
for cloture, I voted for cloture. Only half a dozen or so voted against 
cloture, and the nominees came up, and they got an up-or-down vote. 
Trent Lott voted against the nominees. I voted against the nominees. 
They had an up-or-down vote, and they were confirmed.
  You can say that is a filibuster, but it is not the same thing as a 
filibuster organized by the Democratic leader and unified Democratic 
ranks to block now six nominees from even getting an up-or-down vote. 
It is not the same. I don't think there is any doubt about it, it is 
the first time a filibuster has been used systematically under these 
circumstances.

  Mr. SCHUMER. If I might respond to my colleague from Alabama, let me 
say to everyone here, I have great respect for my colleague from 
Alabama. We work together on the Judiciary Committee quite well. We 
have had some legislation together. Let me make a few points.
  First, I don't disagree that Paez and Berzon were very liberal. There 
could be made an argument--I didn't agree with it--that they may have 
been out of the mainstream and maybe should have been blocked. 
Certainly, that is what our former colleague, Mr. Smith from New 
Hampshire, believed.
  In fact, I agree with the Senator from Alabama. I think the Ninth 
Circuit is a very liberal circuit. I voted for Jay Bybee, who is far to 
the right of me, because I thought the Ninth Circuit could use some 
balance. I don't have a problem with people saying Paez and Berzon were 
very liberal and we ought to try to block them.
  Let me make two points in reference to what is a hold. A hold is 
saying ``I am going to filibuster.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. No.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If I might finish. That is why the hold is able to hold 
things. There is nothing in the rules about one Senator can hold things 
up, but the way things work around here, you say: If you bring this to 
the floor at this point, I am going to keep talking and you are going 
to need 60 votes. I don't know it to be any different than a 
filibuster. It is certainly not a difference that makes a difference. 
One may call it a hold rather than a filibuster, but it is a 
filibuster.
  Second, I say, in all due respect to my colleague, again, let's not 
get semantical here. It is true that my good friend from Alabama 
opposed cloture. How many Senators voted for cloture? How many voted 
against? Thirty-one? I don't think there was a Democrat among them--
maybe; maybe one. I don't recall if Senator Miller was here then. 
Thirteen voted against Judge Berzon.
  But immediately after on the vote for Paez, my colleague from Alabama 
got up and made a motion to ``indefinitely postpone the nomination.''
  Let's not get semantical here. If you are indefinitely postponing the 
nomination, you are seeking to do what we are seeking to do, which is 
block a nomination you thought was ideologically incompatible.
  The bottom line is this: I will make this argument and then yield--I 
defer to our great whip here--we have divided up all our time and I am 
taking somebody else's time; maybe my friend from Minnesota, and I 
don't know who the other Senator was--Senator Boxer. So I don't want to 
take too much of it.
  I simply say, again, these arguments sort of, a little bit, contain a 
bit of sophistry. Blocking a judge is the goal--successful filibuster, 
unsuccessful filibuster, a motion to indefinitely postpone, not 
allowing a judge to come to a vote. When either side has thought a 
judge out of the mainstream, they have used the device that was 
available to them to allow the Senate, I would argue, to do what the 
Founding Fathers wanted us to do, which is to be the cooling saucer. 
Sometimes it was successful, sometimes it wasn't, but it is not a 
difference that makes a difference, as the law professors used to say.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, please: How much time remains on our 
side following the statement of the Senator from New York?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-six and a half minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No, Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is now 
the majority's time, as I understand it. The minority time has 
finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time that is used will be taken off the 
sides. It has been taken off when it was being used.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is right, but Senator Sessions and Senator 
Schumer took equal amounts of time. Wouldn't the majority time follow 
since the minority time----
  Mr. REID. We know that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 26 minutes left and have a 
priority on that unless they wish to continue the agreement they had of 
having an open debate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will go back to the original system we 
had.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object to the change, if he is making a point.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If I might make a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, while the Senator from New York is here, 
and he is such a good advocate, as we say in Alabama, you make soup out 
of slop. A motion to postpone is not a filibuster. It is an up-or-down 
vote to delay.
  I was in negotiations with the Senator from California and the White 
House to say we can let Berzon and Paez go but at least put more 
decent, more mainstream judges in California. We didn't get that 
agreement, and they moved forward with the vote. That was not a 
filibuster.
  I want it to be clear that the leadership on this side, the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, the majority leader, and this Member of the 
Senate did not vote to maintain any kind of extended debate but voted 
for cloture which would have guaranteed a vote and did guarantee a vote 
for them. That is not a classic filibuster.

[[Page S14567]]

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The Senator from Virginia made a good 
point. There are a lot of people confused, and the Senator put me in 
that category. I sat here and listened to this debate.
  Is it true that the main difference between the example they are 
using and our problem is that these two people are on the court?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is certainly a distinct and obvious difference. 
Both of these nominees were moved forward by the action of Trent Lott, 
the Republican leader, to move a Clinton nominee for an up-or-down 
vote. He got the up-or-down vote. Both those nominees were confirmed. 
That is exactly correct.
  And you want to talk about consistency, I ask the Senator from New 
York if he still stands by his statement he made that the basic issue 
of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the 
qualifications, which we can always debate; it is an example of 
Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the 
President nominates and we are charged with voting on the nominees?
  And Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will for a question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to clarify a point because the Senator from 
New York tried to equate a filibuster with a hold. I was hoping the 
Senator from Alabama would show the difference between a hold and a 
filibuster. If we start calling a hold a filibuster, then we have 
really changed the rules around here because holds are used for a 
variety of purposes. They are used for negotiation, and they may or may 
not lead to a filibuster, and usually they don't.
  To say that someone put a hold on someone and then there was an 
effort through extended debate to get those holds taken off is a 
filibuster is a misreading of the rules; would the Senator agree?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would certainly agree, and as the Senator from 
Georgia suggested, we do that a lot around here.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I noticed my friend, the Senator from New York, for 
whom I have great respect, made a comparison between a hold and a 
filibuster but yet at the same time he has shown this chart over and 
over again, showing where we have 168 approved and only 4 filibustered. 
But as the Senator well knows, the Senators from Michigan have had 
holds on numbers and numbers of judges for months and months. So his 
number four, instead of being four, should be about eight, if he really 
believes a hold was equivalent to a filibuster. So his argument simply 
doesn't hold water, if I may pose that in the form of a question to the 
Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I agree, if a hold is a filibuster, then there are a 
lot more Bush nominees now being filibustered than have been suggested. 
I think there are four being held by Senator Levin.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield for a question from the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. In the nature of a question, first, I ask the Presiding 
Officer to inquire of the Parliamentarian if the word ``filibuster'' 
appears in any of the rules of the Senate. My understanding is that it 
does not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. So the word ``filibuster'' is not in the rules. I want to 
clarify that. I have done a lot of study on this question, and I think 
I can work our way through it. It is not in the rules. Let's go to 
Webster's Dictionary. It is rather interesting, the word has been used 
throughout history in many ways.
  Filibuster--the first definition: ``An irregular military adventurer; 
an American engaged in fomenting insurrections in Latin America in the 
mid-19th century.'' But then we get to the last definition, and herein 
I think is some guidance: ``a: the use of extreme dilatory tactics in 
an attempt to delay or prevent action, esp. in a legislative assembly. 
b: an instance of this practice.''
  I think somewhere in between lies the truth. So perhaps with this 
background and the assurance it isn't in the rules, the Senator from 
Alabama can continue to educate the Senate as to his perspective, and 
the Senator from New York can continue to educate the Senate from his 
perspective, and let us hope we have brought some light on this issue.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I can add one more thing, there is a 
very fine book issued by the Library of Congress. I ask the Presiding 
Officer the title of that book. The Parliamentarian knows of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The title would be ``The History of the 
Cloture Rule.''
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, I have studied that, and it is issued by the Library 
of Congress; am I not correct in that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. For those who want to pursue this in great depth. I thank 
my colleague for this colloquy, and I hope perhaps we got some clarity 
to the issue.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Warner. He has brought wisdom here and 
helped us to keep from going around in circles.
  There is an argument that can be made by the Senator from New York 
that holds that were ended by cloture votes are filibusters, but they 
were not really filibusters in the sense we are facing them today. What 
we are seeing today is a sustained deliberate attempt by the leadership 
of the Democratic Party to block judges by having less than 50 votes to 
do so. They block judges by requiring through the procedural rules of 
the Senate that we have to have 60 votes to confirm a judge instead of 
51.
  We know that in each one of these nominees that have been held up 
that more than 50, usually as many as 55, 54, 53 votes are there to 
confirm the nomination, but they have been blocked by a sustained 
filibuster led by the Democratic leadership and Tom Daschle and his 
team. That is what has brought us to this point. I think we have 
clarified that issue.
  I say on the question of are we changing our views on this side, I 
reject that point. This side was principled during the Clinton years. 
This side did not resort to the filibuster as a tool of the opposition, 
as the Democrats have. There can be no debate about that. Their 
nominees were moved forward. We did not adopt this policy.
  I see the Senator from Texas is here. She has some thoughts she would 
like to share with us about a particular comment that was made about 
the nominee from California, Judge Kuhl. I yield time to her.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes on the majority side; 25\1/
2\ on the minority side.
  Mr. REID. It would be, I think especially for the wee hours of the 
morning, better if we continue with what we started with so there is 
not a fight for who gets recognized. Does anybody have a problem with 
the way we have done it?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am not exactly sure of the way we have done it.
  Mr. REID. What we have done since 6 o'clock; the majority would take 
the first half hour and we take the second half hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. En bloc.
  Mr. REID. Yes. I hope we can go back to that arrangement. That is my 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I assume you mean during this hour the 
majority would get its 16 minutes----
  Mr. REID. Absolutely, and we will get our 25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And the next hour would be half hour first for 
the majority and----

  Mr. REID. Yes, starting at 1 a.m. going back to the regular system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless the Senator agrees to an alternate 
position, that would be the policy.
  Mr. REID. That request is granted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the way the unanimous consent was set 
up to begin with.
  Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

[[Page S14568]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to tell the rest of the story 
on Judge Carolyn Kuhl because I think a misimpression was left by the 
Senator from California regarding the case of the woman who was having 
a breast exam, and when she left the office, she asked who the doctor 
was, and the receptionist said: That wasn't a doctor, that was a 
pharmaceutical company representative.
  When I first heard about that, I definitely wanted to hear more 
because that did not sound like the kind of judge I would want on the 
bench, a judge who would dismiss the case against the pharmaceutical 
company for having a person in the room when the patient was not even 
told this person was not a doctor or who this person was. I, in fact, 
did look at the rest of the story and I found a very different story. 
In fact, the plaintiff sued both the pharmaceutical company and the 
doctor. The doctor was sued for negligence in not informing the patient 
and asking the patient's permission, or having the patient have the 
right to say, no, I do not want that person in the room. The plaintiff 
sued the doctor, the doctor's firm, and the pharmaceutical company.
  Judge Kuhl allowed the case to stay open, which she dismissed against 
the pharmaceutical company, because the case against the pharmaceutical 
company was common law intrusion upon seclusion, which was not settled 
law in California at the time, but she kept the case against the doctor 
for his failure to consent. The judge allowed the cause of action, the 
trial, to go forward against the doctor and the medical partnership for 
failure to obtain consent, and the plaintiff did recover. The plaintiff 
should have recovered, and the plaintiff did recover. Judge Kuhl 
allowed that to happen by keeping the lawsuit open against the doctor 
who was the person negligent in this case.
  I think it is very important that when we know the full story it 
shows Judge Kuhl, in fact, was very sensitive to this woman's claim and 
allowed it to go forward. She made sure it went forward, and, in fact, 
the woman did settle for a full recovery.
  I just wanted to set the record straight because I thought there was 
a misimpression in the record about Judge Carolyn Kuhl, and I would 
hope we would acknowledge she did let this case go forward and there 
was a recovery.
  I think Judge Kuhl is an outstanding judge. After looking at her 
record very fully, I am very pleased to support her. I am very aware 
she is supported in a bipartisan way by many people in California, and 
most certainly when we talk about needing some balance on the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals I think Judge Carolyn Kuhl would be an 
excellent addition to bring some balance to this circuit that is the 
most reversed circuit in the entire United States of America. Of all 
the circuit courts of appeal in the United States of America, the Ninth 
Circuit is the most reversed by the Supreme Court. I think that would 
tend to show we need some balance on this court, and I would hope Judge 
Carolyn Kuhl would get a fair vote, because if she does, she will get 
the majority in this body. They will look at the facts in her record. 
They will see how qualified and balanced she is, and she will get 
confirmation if she has a fair shot.
  I thank the Senator from Alabama for letting me bring out the rest of 
the story, as Paul Harvey would say, and make sure the record is 
complete on behalf of Judge Carolyn Kuhl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas so much 
for those comments. I remember when that came up in the Judiciary 
Committee. We heard these allegations that this woman, Carolyn Kuhl, 
was insensitive about the rights of women and she had made this big 
error in this case. What she said simply was, as the Senator mentioned, 
the doctor allowed this man to come into the room, and not the drug 
company who hired this gentleman. They did not even know about it, I am 
sure. The permission was given by him, and if anyone committed a wrong, 
it was that doctor. She allowed the case to go forward, and under 
California law, the full recovery can come out of any one defendant who 
is liable, and the full recovery did come in fact from the doctor. It 
is an important matter to note.
  I will just share, since the issue was raised, about this side not 
being principled and I pointed out during the 8 years of President 
Clinton's administration, the leadership on this side of the aisle 
absolutely rejected filibusters. During that same time when President 
Clinton was seeking to get judges confirmed, the Democratic Senators 
also were attacking filibusters and used a lot of language that would 
make that clear.
  For example, Senator Boxer on May 14 of 1997 said: It is not the role 
of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly 
qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on 
the floor.
  Senator Feinstein said: A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them 
up, vote them down.
  Senator Daschle, now the Democratic leader, said: I find it simply 
baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial 
nomination.
  Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the 
time of the Democratic majority, said: I think the Senate is entitled 
to a vote in this matter. I think the President is entitled for the 
Senate to vote--he is talking about President Clinton--and I think the 
country is entitled for the Senate to vote.
  Now Senator Leahy is leading the filibuster. So is Senator Daschle. 
They are completely changing their position, and this side did not do 
that.
  Senator Hatch explained to us why filibusters were bad, so this side 
rejected that and did not go forward.
  Senator Kennedy said: It is true that some Senators have voiced 
concerns about these nominations, but that should not prevent a 
rollcall vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to say yes or 
no.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Just like the Senator from Alabama, I was somewhat 
shocked by the comments of the Senator from California about the fact 
that if you get 98 percent you ought to be happy with what you get and 
go home. The fact of the matter is, never before in the history of the 
United States of America has any President gotten 98 percent. Every 
other President, prior to this President, prior to the obstructionism 
coming from the other side of the aisle on these judicial nominees, has 
gotten 100 percent. It is zero and four filibusters out there right 
now.
  I remind the Senator from California of her comment made back on 
March 9, 2000, as per the Congressional Record: I make an appeal, if we 
vote to indefinitely postpone a vote on these two nominees or one of 
these two nominees, that is denying them an up-or-down vote, that would 
be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has 
never been done before for a judge, as far as we know, ever.

  So the Senator from California agreed with us back in March 9 of 
2000. Again, it would be in line with what Senator Lott said when he 
said these people deserve an up-or-down vote.
  The thing about these votes is that if people disagree with them, if 
any Senator on the other side of the aisle or if any Senator on this 
side of the aisle disagrees any judicial nominee is qualified to serve 
on the Federal bench at the district level or on any circuit court, 
they should have the right to vote against them, but they are entitled 
to a vote.
  I agree 100 percent with the Senator from California when she made 
her comment in March of 2000 that we ought to have an up-or-down vote; 
that it has never--and I repeat her statement--it has never been done 
before for a judge, as far as we know, ever. It has never been done.
  When it comes to saying ``has there been a filibuster'' or ``has 
there not been a filibuster,'' I agree with the Senator from 
California; there has never been a filibuster before of a circuit court 
nominee. There ought not be a filibuster that continues on these 
judges. We ought to have an up-or-down vote.
  I yield back to the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has 5 minutes 40 
seconds.

[[Page S14569]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator from South Carolina wants to make a 
comment, I will yield to him.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Just very briefly. I thank the Senator 
for yielding.
  I never thought in a 30-hour debate you would have to fight to get 
something to say. We may want to extend this thing.
  It has been good to hear everybody's perspective about what has gone 
on in the past. I am really more worried about the future. I am new to 
the Senate. This is my first year here. I do not know who shot John 5 
years ago or 10 years ago, and who is still mad about what happened 
during Clinton, Bush 1, or George Washington. That is not my concern.
  My concern is I am in the Senate at a time when I know that if this 
continues, we are going to destroy the judicial nominating process as I 
have understood it to be since law school. We are going to drive good 
men and women from wanting to serve because the nominees who are being 
filibustered--I have been on the Judiciary Committee--have had a 
hatchet job done on them. They have had an opinion here and a 
dissenting opinion there taken out of context. They are all well 
qualified by the American Bar Association. They all come highly 
recommended by the people who know them best.
  For one of the nominees, they used a letter he and his wife wrote to 
his diocese about Christian marriage. Mr. Pryor from Arkansas was asked 
about whether or not he chose to take his kids to Disney World during 
Gay Pride Day. You are asking people questions I feel are unbelievably 
uncomfortable asking anybody as to whether they are qualified to be a 
judge.
  This process is broken. The past has its abuses on both sides, but 
this process is broken. There is no precedent for what is going on 
here.
  I may be wrong, and if I am wrong somebody correct me, but it is my 
understanding, in the history of this country, over 200 and something 
years of following the Constitution, we have never had an occasion 
where somebody came out of the Judiciary Committee, was voted out of 
the committee, and was unable to get a vote on the floor, until now.
  If that is the case, then we are doing something different that is 
really bad, in my opinion, because it will be answered in kind down the 
road. If this is successful, to expect the Republican Party to sit on 
the sidelines if there is a Democratic President and not answer in kind 
is probably too optimistic.
  If that happens, you are taking the Senate in a death spiral of where 
40 people, 41 people, answering to special interest groups, are going 
to hijack the Constitution. This is a big deal. This is wrong and it 
needs to stop. It has never happened before. It should not happen now. 
Whatever problems we have had in the past with judges, you have taken 
it to a new level that will destroy the ability to follow the 
Constitution, and you will take politics to a level that it has never 
been before in a rule-of-law nation and we will all suffer greatly.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I agree so strongly with the Senator 
from South Carolina that this has the real danger of undermining the 
independence of the judiciary and injecting politics into the judiciary 
in a way we do not want to do.
  I had the opportunity to obtain information from one of our greatest 
understanders of Senate rules on holds. I think I would like to share 
that with the Presiding Officer, Senator Enzi, who is as skilled on the 
history of the Senate as anyone.
  He just notes this: What is a hold? A hold is a request by a Senator 
to be notified so a unanimous consent request can be objected to. If 
somebody is going to move a bill, legislation, or a judge, and you want 
to talk more about it or so forth, you put a hold. They have to call 
you before they will do a unanimous consent without your knowledge and 
slip something through you want to talk about or debate. It is not a 
filibuster.
  A filibuster would be a continuous success by less than a majority of 
the Senators to stop progress to a vote in an action or a matter. It is 
a success continually by a minority of the Senate to stop the majority 
from bringing a matter to a vote. A cloture, more than a majority, 
stopped by a minority, 55 votes for cloture to stop debate, can be 
defeated by 45 Senators who vote contrary to that, is a filibuster, as 
has been admitted by the Senators on the other side.
  I think we have been playing some games with words, but the bottom 
line is what has occurred this year is unprecedented. It is a 
systematic, organized filibuster by the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, 
and his team and the assistant leader and most of the Members on the 
other side--but not all--but on these now six nominees to date we have 
not had 60 votes to shut off debate.
  That is what we are talking about. You can call a hold a filibuster 
if you choose. Maybe you could justify that. But I do not think it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. We will divide the time on this equally between the Senator 
from California and the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how many minutes do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 42 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, here we go, more of complaining and more upset from 
the other side. They just did not get 100 percent of what they wanted. 
They only got 98 percent. The score is 168 to 4. Other charts can be 
printed, but here is the truth. Do my colleagues want to see it another 
way? Here are the names of the people we have confirmed to the Federal 
bench for George Bush, 168 strong, and there are 4 we believe are out 
of the mainstream, who we believe would actually hurt the rights of our 
people to privacy, to dignity, to fairness, to justice, and we have 
stood up and we have said, no. The other side cannot believe they did 
not get 100 percent of what they wanted. Maybe in their life they get 
100 percent of what they want. Most of us do not. Most of us work hard 
for what we believe and we are happy to get maybe close to what we 
want.
  We have more complaining and more bickering, more upset, 30 hours 
taken away from other issues. This is where we are. We even had Senator 
Graham stand up and throw out this fact: No one is going to apply for 
judgeships. No one is going to apply for lifetime judgeships that pay a 
lot of money because Democrats stood up and said 4 did not meet the 
test of fairness, 4 were outside the mainstream and, yes, 168 were 
fine. So now people are not going to apply for judgeships anymore? 
Well, if I spoke to someone who said, do you think I ought to apply for 
a judgeship, the first thing I would say is, well, your odds are pretty 
good, 168, and only 4 did not make it. So I would say your chances are 
pretty good.
  Then we hear all this talk about we Democrats are doing something 
different, we have never filibustered, never, even though on the Senate 
Web site itself there is discussion that there have been filibusters, 
and Chuck Schumer put that in the Record.
  Let me read something much more recent than that one. This is just a 
couple of years ago, when we had the Berzon and the Paez nominations. 
The other side today is saying those were not filibusters. Well, let's 
hear what Republican Bob Smith said as he launched, yes, a filibuster.
  I wish my colleagues would listen, but it is okay, their minds are 
made up. He said: It is no secret that I have been the person who has 
filibustered these two nominees.
  Let me say that again. A couple of years ago, Bob Smith said: It is 
no secret that I have been the person who has filibustered these two 
nominees, Judge Berzon and Judge Paez.
  The issue is, why are we here? What is the role of the Senate in 
judicial nominations? The Constitution gives the Senate the advise-and-
consent role. We are supposed to advise the President and consent if we 
think the judge should be put on the court.
  Republican Bob Smith, who led the filibuster against two 
Californians, goes on to say--do I remember it? It is etched in my mind 
forever. These were two terrific people who were held up, one for 4 
years and one for 2 years, and then we finally got them to the floor 
and Bob Smith launched a filibuster

[[Page S14570]]

saying a filibuster in the Senate has a purpose. It is not simply to 
delay for the sake of delay. It is to take the time to debate, to find 
out about what judges' thoughts are, et cetera.
  Can we please not have a debate over whether the other side ever 
launched a filibuster? They admitted it. I ask unanimous consent that 
this be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          The Paez Filibuster

       So that the record on this point, this dramatic reversal in 
     positions, is clear, I feel constrained to mention that the 
     15 Senators who voted to continue to filibuster the Paez 
     nomination and to, in fact, postpone it indefinitely, (voting 
     both against cloture and for indefinite postponement) were 
     Senators Frist, Bob Smith, Jessie Helms, Wayne Allard, Larry 
     Craig, Michael Enzi, Phil Gramm, Asa Hutchinson, James 
     Inhofe, Frank Murkowski, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Mike 
     DeWine, and Richard Shelby. How many of the current Senators 
     among them have you seen on this Senate floor claiming that 
     [President Bush's] judicial nominees are entitled to an up or 
     down vote and that delaying or filibustering is wrong? I have 
     seen some of them. It is their right to change their minds, 
     but at least acknowledge their past efforts to block 
     President Clinton's nominees, which kept many seats for this 
     President to try to pack.
       I will let the words of the Senators who filibustered 
     Clinton nominees speak for themselves. For example, in 2000, 
     just three years ago this month, Senator Smith noted during 
     the filibuster of Judge Paez and Marsha Berzon, a Ninth 
     Circuit nominee:
       ``[I]t is no secret that I have been the person who has 
     filibustered these two nominees, Judge Berzon and Judge Paez. 
     The issue is, why are we here? What is the role of the Senate 
     in judicial nominations? The Constitution gave the Senate the 
     advise-and-consent role. We are supposed to advise the 
     President and consent if we think the judge should be put on 
     the court. . . .
       Filibuster in the Senate has a purpose. It is not simply to 
     delay for the sake of delay. It is to get information.
       It is to take the time to debate and to find out about what 
     a judge's thoughts are and how he or she might act once they 
     are placed on the court.''
       So, those who came before the Senate and said no Republican 
     ever filibustered a Clinton nominee were dead wrong. Senator 
     Smith went on to explain:
       ``As far as the issue of going down a dangerous path and a 
     dangerous precedent, that we somehow have never gone before, 
     as I pointed out yesterday and I reiterate this morning, 
     since 1968, 13 judges have been filibustered by both 
     political parties appointed by Presidents of both political 
     parties, starting in 1968 with Abe Fortas and coming all the 
     way forth to these two judges today.
       It is not a new path to argue and to discuss information 
     about these judges. In fact, Mr. President . . . [w]hen 
     William Rehnquist was nominated to the Court, he was 
     filibustered twice.
       Then, after he was on the Court, he was filibustered again 
     when asked to become the chief Justice. In that filibuster, 
     it is interesting to note, things that happened prior to him 
     sitting on the Court were regurgitated and discussed. So I do 
     not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate 
     has gone down before by talking about these judges and 
     delaying. It is simply not true.''
       This straight-forward Republican from New Hampshire 
     proclaimed:
       ``Don't pontificate on the floor and tell me that somehow I 
     am violating the Constitution . . . by blocking a judge or 
     filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on 
     the court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise-and-
     consent role, and I intend to exercise it.''
       Thus, the Republicans' claim that Democrats are taking 
     ``unprecedented'' action, like the White House claim that our 
     request for Mr. Estrada's work while paid by taxpayers was 
     ``unprecedented,'' is simply untrue. Republicans' desire to 
     rewrite their own history, while understandable, is just 
     wrong. They should come clean and tell the truth to the 
     American people about their past practices on nominations.
       They cannot change the plain facts to fit their current 
     argument and purposes. It is also noteworthy that, before the 
     debate on Bush nominations this year, the distinguished 
     chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my good friend from 
     Utah, admitted that the Republicans had filibustered Judge 
     Paez's nomination in 2000. After cloture was invoked in 
     Paez's nomination, Senator Sessions made a motion to 
     indefinitely postpone a vote on the nomination; this motion 
     failed by a vote of 31 to 67.
       Senator Hatch then admitted there had been a filibuster: 
     ``I have to say, I have served a number of years in the 
     Senate, and I have never seen a `motion to postpone 
     indefinitely' that was brought to delay the consideration of 
     a judicial nomination post-cloture. ``Indeed, I must confess 
     to being somewhat baffled that, after a filibuster is cut off 
     by cloture, the Senate could still delay a final vote on a 
     nomination. A parliamentary ruling to this effect means that, 
     after today, our cloture rule is further weakened.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Let me quickly say about Judge Kuhl, Senator Hutchison 
said, in fact, that Judge Kuhl showed a lot of compassion to this 
victim who went into a doctor's office and was subjected to the 
humiliation of having a drug salesman witness her exam without her 
permission. Senator Hutchison said she was very, very kind to this 
victim.
  Let's see what the victim says about Judge Kuhl.

       My name is Azucena Sanchez-Scott. I am a survivor of breast 
     cancer and Judge Kuhl's courtroom. I stand before you now 
     because I want to tell my story so that other people will 
     never have to relive it.
       Nothing about my cancer is easy. Not the chemotherapy, not 
     the fear, and certainly not the emotional pain of 
     disfigurement. As a person battling cancer each visit to the 
     doctor brings questions about my future and my health. That 
     is where I was when my doctor and a stranger walked in. The 
     doctor offered no introduction and proceeded to examine me 
     and asked that I disrobe. It was only when I left the office 
     and inquired with the receptionist that I learned that the 
     stranger was a sales representative for a drug company with 
     no medical reason for being there.

  The bottom line, Carolyn Kuhl ruled against this woman, and when 
Senator Hutchison said she allowed the case of the doctor to go 
forward, that is what Judge Kuhl said. Then she retracted that and 
said: I made a mistake; I never had the doctor's case before me.
  So let's get the facts straight here. Why do you think we have three 
major breast cancer organizations--Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer 
Fund, the National Breast Cancer Coalition--asking us to defeat Carolyn 
Kuhl? Not because Carolyn Kuhl was compassionate. But because of the 
opposite reason: She turned her back on a woman in need, on a sick 
woman. And Carolyn Kuhl was overturned in a unanimous vote by the court 
of appeals. For that, my friends want to promote her to this lifetime 
appointment.
  I say if I caved in to that, again, I do not deserve to be here. 
Sometimes you have to stand up for people who need protection. Carolyn 
Kuhl had that chance. She took a hike. She ruled against this woman. 
This woman has been scarred in more ways than one from that experience.
  Here we are. It is 12:45. We could be working on issues that really 
matter to people instead of rehashing these judgeships. They got almost 
everything they wanted. But they are going to pound their fists and say 
the same thing over and over, ``This has never happened before''--
despite the fact it has and make it sound as if we are being unfair 
when we are not. We are just doing our job. But there we are.
  Look at what we could be doing. We have lost almost 3 million jobs in 
this country. This President has the worst record of any President 
since Herbert Hoover on private-sector employment. Why don't we spend 
30 hours talking about that? Why don't we pass the 6-year highway bill? 
We got it out of our committee thanks to Senator Reid and Senator 
Inhofe today. Why not bring that bill down, I say to my friend, Senator 
Reid? Let's vote on the 6-year highway bill. Do you know how many jobs 
we would create in this country? In my State, 80,000 jobs.
  Let's pass a manufacturing jobs tax credit so that manufacturing 
stops leaving this country. Let's raise the minimum wage. I tried to do 
that by unanimous consent. The other side objected. They do not want to 
do that.
  With our salary, we make the minimum wage for a year in just a couple 
of months here. But no, they are spending 30 hours talking about 4 
people who already have jobs and they do not want to talk about the 3 
million jobs that were lost. They do not want to protect overtime. As a 
matter of fact, they tried to take it away from workers. They do not 
want to extend unemployment insurance.
  Nothing is getting done that really matters to people. That is a sad, 
sad situation.
  Long-term unemployment: These are the people who have been out there 
and out there--2 million, plus. That is a terrible record. Long-term 
unemployment tripled since George Bush took over.
  How about the tax cuts? Let's look at how fair they are. They are 80 
times larger for millionaires than for middle

[[Page S14571]]

income households earning about $50,000 to $75,000.
  The Bush economic record? The only administration going back to 
Eisenhower with a decline in manufacturing output--big manufacturing 
job losses.
  No, we cannot talk about that. We cannot have an action plan to get 
people back to work. And I have not even talked about school 
construction, which would really employ a lot of people. I visit some 
of my schools and the tiles are falling off the ceiling. No, we cannot 
talk about that. We do not have time. But we have time to discuss, for 
30 hours, judgeships that we have gone over and over. And they are 
winning. They got 168 through and they did not get 4. They are worried 
about 4 people; I am worried about 3 million people. I am worried about 
the unemployed in my State, the people without health insurance.
  I will tell Members what else I am worried about. We have a President 
who has rolled back so many environmental laws--I have them on a scroll 
and I cannot show them because it is not allowed by the Senate rules. 
But I will hold this up. If I took this scroll and I rolled it across 
the Chamber, it would go from one end to the other. It goes on and on 
and on. It is small print. It shows all of the environmental rollbacks 
of this administration.
  Just 2 weeks ago they came up with an incredible idea. When there are 
PCBs on your land--those are the most toxic chemicals there are; they 
are carcinogens--we always had a rule if you had PCBs on your land you 
had to have a plan to clean it up and EPA had to oversee it. No. Gone. 
Now you can sell your land and God help the people who buy it with PCBs 
on it.
  Superfund under President Clinton, 80 sites a year we cleaned up--the 
most toxic sites. Now we are down to 40 a year.
  How about arsenic and playground equipment? In the latest hit of the 
administration, they announced they will allow the use of arsenic-
treated lumber for playground equipment. Wake me up when this 
environmental nightmare is over.
  It is 12:35 in the morning and I can still feel it in my heart that 
we are doing the wrong thing tonight. Why not try to reverse this 
horrible record and protect our children and protect the health of our 
people and get our people working again? Instead, we are debating 168 
to 4.
  I close with this, and I will probably dream about these numbers all 
night--what is left of the night. They got 168, and they did not get 4. 
They cannot accept the fact that 98 percent is pretty good. I don't 
know what else we are supposed to do, but I will say, whatever it 
takes, I will not be intimidated into voting for nominees that are so 
far right they would roll back the hands of time. They will not protect 
the health of the people, the privacy of the people, the safety of the 
people. I am not going to do that.
  I was sent here on a promise that I would stand up for the people of 
my State. That is what I intend to do. With 168 to 4, they ought to be 
smiling instead of whining.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have learned politicians' priorities can 
be measured by their passions. What do they care about most? What stirs 
their souls? For that reason, the exultation of my colleagues across 
the aisle about this session, their fervor, their apocalyptic 
predictions, their press announcements, other than tax cuts for the 
rich and the super-rich, I have not seen that much passion across the 
aisle in my 3 years in this Chamber. Frankly, it does not do that for 
me.
  My passion tonight is what my colleague from California said: to work 
on other matters. We would be far more aroused talking about how to put 
Americans back to work, the over 3 million who have lost their jobs 
since this administration took office less than 3 years ago. And not 
just a return to any jobs, but jobs that are the same as, as good as or 
preferably better than the jobs they held before. Not minimum wage jobs 
with no benefits, no health coverage for spouses and children, no 
pensions, no protections, no real future.
  I would like us to talk about how we replace the 2.6 million 
manufacturing jobs lost in this country in the last 3 years, jobs moved 
offshore to someplace other than America. Many of them, I fear, are not 
coming back to America.
  The majority of the Republican caucus leadership has the authority to 
decide the Senate's agenda and has decided we will spend 30 hours on 4 
jobs. We have not spent 30 minutes on jobs for the other 3 million 
Americans out of work who are looking for jobs. We have not spent 3 
minutes on jobs and survival assistance for the over 2 million 
Americans who cannot find jobs for so long that they have exhausted 
their unemployment benefits. Many are completely broke. If we do not 
provide them with some support soon, more will be completely broke.
  Every time we have tried to bring up a bipartisan bill to extend 
unemployment benefits for Americans out looking for work, except one 
time last year, someone has objected across the aisle and we cannot 
proceed. No one has objected to spending 30 hours on 4 people, but we 
do not spend 30 seconds on most people affected by unemployment in this 
Nation.
  I will try again. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
legislative session and the Finance Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment 
insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to 
its immediate consideration, the bill be read the third time and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  That would extend the basic program unemployment for 6 months. It 
would extend the long-term unemployment for an additional 13 weeks and 
would benefit 5 million Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DAYTON. As I said, you can tell the priorities and what arouses 
people's passions. I could get really compassionate about the Senate's 
whole last week and the disaster aid for Minnesota and elsewhere where 
crops have been devastated by the summer's drought. Many of Minnesota's 
farmers had their crops totally destroyed. I did not detect as much 
passion and priority or concern among Members of the caucus, combined, 
as in one of them tonight for the misfortune falling on thousands of 
Minnesotans.

  I get passionate talking about prescription drug coverage for seniors 
on Medicare, which went to the Republican-controlled conference 
committee last July and has not come out since. That is only half as 
good as the resources committed to the Members of Congress, which is 
why I introduced my ``taste of their own medicine'' amendment which 
passed the Senate months ago by a vote of 93 to 3. It says that 
prescription drug benefits that Members of Congress receive can be no 
better than what we vote for seniors and others under Medicare.
  Over 17,000 Minnesotans were compassionate enough about that 
principle that they signed a petition at the Minnesota State Fair in 12 
days. That is what Minnesotans are passionate about.
  I could get passionate about learning the truths about the present 
conditions in Iraq. After being told for weeks now how much they are 
improving and that things are getting better, I read today a CIA report 
disclosed by two people high up in the administration who cannot get 
their message through at that level any other way than going to the 
American people and saying, You do not know all the facts. You do not 
know even the right perspective on what is going on there.
  We have sons and daughters and husbands and wives and children of 
Minnesotans who have given their lives, who are giving their bodies and 
well-being or giving their livelihoods, and we cannot find out the 
truth about when they are coming home or whether their stay of duty 
will be extended and for how long.
  Those are things that Minnesotans can get very passionate about. That 
is real life or death.
  What is important to people? If we do not manifest it here, people 
will not care about the institutions such as the Senate. I do not 
question my colleagues' right to their choice of priorities. I don't 
question their right to have different views on policies and judges or 
any other matter. That is the

[[Page S14572]]

nature of our process. That is the strength of our process. That is the 
wisdom of our process.
  I have been, in less than 3 years, in the parity, even, 50-50 Senate, 
with the Vice President, the tiebreaker, but in committee and 
conference committees equal, and in the majority for a year and a half 
and this last year in the minority. The previous year and a half there 
were 69 cloture votes that the Democratic leader, the majority leader, 
then had to file to move to proceed to legislation, to consider 
legislation, voting on legislation, issues that were far more important 
and affected a far greater number of Minnesotans and other Americans 
than a particular judgeship: health care for senior citizens; benefits 
for our veterans; environmental protection. And now this year, the 
conditions have changed.
  As somebody once said, how a minority reaching majority, seizing 
authority, hates the minority. So we have, as colleagues across the 
aisle noted, and I agree, seen a certain role reversal. But that is, in 
part, the different responsibilities of minority and majority caucuses, 
and it is particularly the difference of the responsibilities of those 
in the party other than the President and in the party the same as the 
President.
  I don't question the right of my colleagues, one of them or all of 
them, to support the President, whether he is right, whether he is 
wrong, whether they believe he is right or wrong. Those are individual 
decisions of conscience and politics.

  The Founders of this country--and this applies whether the President 
of the United States is Democrat or Republican, in which case the 
situation is reversed--understood that the incredible foresight and 
wisdom of the separation of powers, this coequal authority of the 
legislative branch, equal to that of the executive branch, was critical 
in every respect, critical to this country's genuine freedom and 
preservation of our democracy.
  Judge Brandeis, almost 100 years ago, said the separation of powers 
was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to 
preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid 
friction but, by means of the inevitable friction inherent in the 
distribution of governmental powers among the three branches, to save 
the people from autocracy, to save the people from despotism, from 
tyranny. That is what they were concerned about. That is the practice 
that has served us well in this Nation and in this institution of the 
Senate for 216 years.
  So it concerns me, and I do not question anyone's right to take 
whatever position they wish, but it concerns me as I read my colleagues 
on the other side who were designing this debate, this forum, have a 
combined number of years of experience in the Senate that amounts to 
less than one half of 1 percent of the combined collective wisdom 
achieved by nearly 1,900 men and women who have served in this body in 
its 216-year history. Yet I hear Members of this body who have been 
here less than a year saying emphatically this system is broken and it 
should be radically overhauled and that somehow the process we are 
engaged in is one that illserves our country and is even, they say, a 
violation of our Constitutional responsibilities. That is one of the 
most serious charges that anyone can make against a fellow Senator, 
because when we take this office, we stand, each of us, and recite the 
same pledge----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DAYTON. To uphold the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to complete my 
thought.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the time agreement----
  Mr. REID. What was being asked?
  Mr. DAYTON. A unanimous consent request for 1 minute to complete my 
thought.
  Mr. REID. Well, we will just take that out of our time from the next 
half hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  That is the most solemn oath I have ever taken, to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States. I do not question the commitment of 
anybody in this body to upholding that oath and carrying it out as he 
or she believes is right, which is the reason we are elected 
independently, to exercise that independent authority.
  But when people put out releases saying these matters we are engaged 
in are dangerous and irresponsible, that we have no right to be doing 
this, that it is a dangerous dereliction of our constitutional duty, 
those are very serious accusations.
  If anyone in this body believes what we are doing is 
unconstitutional, they should take that question to the proper court. 
If anyone believes what we are doing in this body is a violation of 
Senate rules and procedures, they should take that question to the 
Parliamentarian.
  I was told earlier today that the Parliamentarian has not been asked. 
I believe the Parliamentarian, based on all the rules and precedents of 
the Senate--this book of 1,400 pages of precedents that have been 
adopted over 216 years--would find we are acting responsibly and within 
that authority which is our responsibility and our right.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority's time has expired.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. President.
  As we go into the 1 o'clock hour, Jimmy Buffett says it is 5 o'clock 
somewhere. But it is 1 o'clock here. We will try to reorient ourselves 
as to what was going on in the last hour. It is kind of an update, a 
CNN headline update.
  The last hour was pretty interesting, I thought. We had examples used 
by our friends on the Democratic side to say basically that what we 
Republicans have done in the past we complain about now. I reiterate, 
as far as I am concerned, the past is the past, and I am more worried 
about the future. I have been here a year and all I have known since I 
have been here is fussing and fighting about everything, particularly 
judges. It has not been too pleasant to be on the Judiciary Committee 
because a lot of good men and women have had a hatchet job done on 
their professional qualifications and who they are as people, to not be 
allowed to be voted on. There have been a lot of manufactured reasons.
  But as I understand, from having listened to the debate the last 
hour, the idea of holding a judge has been used as an example of an 
abuse, that holds have been put on judges, which is apparently a 
process in the Senate to deny somebody from going through the committee 
process, or to go forward.
  The example Senator Schumer used was two judges: Paez and Berzon. I 
hope I have their names right. They were two judges who were appointed 
by President Clinton, and I think Senator Smith from New Hampshire 
tried to block their nominations, put a hold on it. There was a real 
contention about what was going on with those two judges. But the 
curious thing to me was there was an intervention in those cases, in 
those two nominations by the Republican leadership, as I understand it, 
that basically brought to a close the process of blocking those judges 
from having a vote after they came out of committee.
  To me, that illustrates that in the past, when efforts were tried or 
were being used to basically hijack the constitutional requirement of a 
majority vote, once the nominee was presented to the Senate, there has 
been intervention to right the ship.
  Since I have been here, the only intervention I have seen is to shut 
down what has been going on for 200-some years. Now, it is like a 
cricket match. It is 168 to 4. It is 168 to 16. Cricket goes on for 3 
days. It is pretty interesting for the first hour or 2, but 3 days 
later I kind of get blurry-eyed watching cricket--the same way here 
with these numbers.
  The point is, there never has been in the history of the country a 
situation where somebody was reported out of the Judiciary Committee to 
come to the floor of the Senate to be voted on as a judicial nominee, 
that they were not eventually voted on--until now. There have been 
cloture motions made, but they were always made to bring about a vote.
  There has been a concerted effort by the Democratic leadership to 
block judicial nominees in an unprecedented

[[Page S14573]]

way. That is why we are all here tonight. Not only is it unprecedented, 
it is very dangerous. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it 
effectively changes the constitutional standard.
  I am going to read, since we have 30 minutes here, where the 
Constitution talks about a supermajority vote: The ``Concurrence of two 
thirds'' of either the House or the Senate is required to ``expel a 
Member'' of Congress.

  That is kind of self-serving. But we do not want to throw each other 
out until we get two-thirds of our colleagues to agree we should be 
thrown out. So that is a real check on us keeping our jobs.
  Also: ``And no Person shall be convicted'' by the Senate in an 
impeachment trial ``without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the 
Members present,'' according to article I, section 3.
  I have a little experience with that article. That is a very high 
standard to achieve. And it should be a high standard to achieve. Can 
you imagine what would happen if, by Senate rule, we changed the 
impeachment standards so the President of the United States could be 
impeached by a majority vote?
  I am sure the Supreme Court would not allow that to happen. I am sure 
there would be a great outcry by the public if we, in a partisan 
fashion, changed the way you impeach a President because we did not 
like that person or their agenda. There would be a huge outcry in the 
country because we would have subverted the Constitution.
  That is exactly what is going on here in reverse. Instead of a two-
thirds requirement to confirm a judge, like we have to throw somebody 
out of the House or the Senate, or to impeach the President, or to 
ratify a treaty--why two-thirds to ratify a treaty? The Founding 
Fathers were worried about a President making a deal with some foreign 
power that was not in the best interests of the country, so you had a 
high standard to ratify. You had a check over Presidential power.
  They give the power in the Constitution for the President to veto 
legislation coming out of these bodies, to make sure we do not get off 
track. The only way we can override a Presidential veto is the two-
thirds vote.
  There was a lot of thought going into supermajority votes. It was not 
just by accident that the Constitution has six or seven provisions that 
require a majority vote, and I would argue strongly it is not by 
accident that the majority vote requirement applying to judges was put 
there on purpose.
  Our job, as I see it, is not to say what we would do if we were 
President. Our job, as the Constitution lays out for us, is to advise 
and consent by a majority vote to make sure the President--whoever he 
or she might be--is not sending over their brother-in-law or sister-in-
law or unqualified people.
  What we have done this year, different from other years, is we have 
taken our political differences and our desire to make the court go one 
way versus the other and we have hijacked the Constitution for 
political reasons.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle lost badly in 2002. There 
was an article right after the election where the conference came 
together and started inventorying: Why did we lose? There was a strain 
of thought on the Democratic side that they lost because they were too 
accommodating to the President, and the Democratic base was deflated; 
that you are working with them too much on taxes, you are helping him 
with homeland security, that you are doing this and that with President 
Bush. One thing you might want to do to fight back--and this is in the 
article; and I do not have it with me--is to go after his judges.
  Well, that certainly gets people fired up. Republican and Democratic 
base voters very much follow issues such as this: who the President may 
pick for the Supreme Court, who the President may pick for the Federal 
bench.

  I am asking, in all sincerity, that somehow we find a way out of the 
box that we are in. Because I have been in the Senate for a year--I do 
not know how much longer I will be here but I do understand what is 
going to happen down the road.
  If this is successful--and why they pick people, I really do not 
know. I have been on the Judiciary Committee. They do not do this to 
everyone. But they pick certain people for court of appeals jobs right 
below the Supreme Court and they will pick a few out of the herd, and 
they will start saying awful things about them--I will talk about that 
in a moment--and they will wind up, after they come out of committee, 
not getting an up-or-down vote in the Senate--for the first time in 
history. I will talk about this later when I have more time.
  There are dozens of quotes by Democratic Senators saying it is really 
an abuse of the Senate's power not to allow somebody to be voted on up 
or down. They were right then. They were talking about a situation in 
President Clinton's term where they thought the Republicans were 
denying people a chance to go through committee and they were latching 
on to the constitutional provision of a majority vote, the advise and 
consent vote, saying: The high road for the Senate to take is if you do 
not like these people, if you do not like their philosophy, and if you 
do not think they are qualified, vote against them, but do not change 
the constitutional standard because it would be bad for the country.
  That way of thinking has been replaced. I think the reason it has 
been replaced is because the political moment is so hot. We are a 
divided nation. The year 2000 was a very close election. In 2002, there 
was a change in the Senate's makeup. It is 51 to 49. And we are being 
consumed by the political moment.
  I can tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and my 
Republican colleagues, that if we keep up this practice, it will do 
long-term damage to this country.
  The one thing I like most about America is it is a rule-of-law 
nation. Instead of having to go in the parking lot and fight people, 
you have a court to go to. There is a way in this country for the weak 
to make the strong answer; and that is called the courtroom. The people 
you put in the courtroom are important. We have constitutionally, in 
the Federal system, given that power to the President. We, by majority 
vote, say yes or no to that nominee.
  What we have done is politicize this process in an unprecedented way, 
in a dangerous way. If you don't think down the road it will be 
answered in kind by the Republican Party, I think you are very naive. I 
hope I will have the courage not to go down that road as an individual 
Senator.
  But the animosity being generated by this practice is red hot among 
both bases, and it will be almost impossible, in my opinion, for this 
not to become the norm. Payback is hell. That is a phrase with which we 
are all familiar. Payback, when you are messing with the Constitution, 
is dangerous. Political payback has to have boundaries. When you are 
messing with the constitutional standard about judges, I think you have 
gone too far.
  The question is, is this really a filibuster?
  It is obvious that it is a filibuster in terms of these nominees 
because they have come out of committee and they cannot get a vote 
because our Democratic colleagues, behind their leadership, have 
united, with a few breaking away, to deny a vote. We have had hours of 
debate on all these nominees. They cannot come to the floor for an up-
or-down vote. The Democratic Party has changed its whole opinion about 
whether that is a good or bad idea, and they have adopted a practice 
that no one has done before in the history of the country.

  But we are having a hard time. It is 1:15 in the morning and we 
cannot get the other side to admit that their filibuster going on here 
is different than anything that has happened before.
  I used to be a prosecutor, and the old saying was: Follow the money. 
If you want to know what happened in the criminal enterprise, follow 
the money.
  Well, let me tell you about an e-mail that was sent by a good friend 
of mine. Senator Corzine is a very nice person. His job is to retake 
the majority for the Democratic Party. He is in charge of the 
Democratic Senatorial Committee. Senator Allen, who sits right next to 
me, is in charge of the Republican Senatorial Committee. Their jobs are 
to go out and recruit candidates and raise money so the party will be 
effective in taking over the majority, if you are a Democrat, or 
retaining it, if you are a Republican.
  Here is what an e-mail said about what is going on right now:


[[Page S14574]]


       Senate Democrats have launched an unprecedented effort. By 
     mounting filibusters against the Bush administration's most 
     radical nominees, Senate Democrats have led the effort to 
     save our courts.

  November 3, 2003, it was an e-mail to donors from Senator Corzine. I 
would argue that when he said they are engaging in ``an unprecedented 
effort . . . mounting filibusters against the Bush administration's 
most radical nominees'' that he was not tricking people, that he was 
telling them: We are up here fighting by using the filibuster.
  One of two things are true: The e-mail is accurate, which I think it 
is, and it is designed to get people to send in money; or he is 
tricking people and he ought to give their money back. Because if you 
listen to our Democratic friends on the other side, this e-mail is 
wrong, and these people deserve a refund. They are raising money on the 
idea that they are filibustering Bush's nominees. That is the best 
evidence of what has gone on here. They are trying to get people to 
open up their wallets to give their money because they are doing 
something that is unprecedented. What is that something? We are 
``filibuster[ing] against the Bush administration's most radical 
nominees.''
  There are a bunch of quotes out there. Senator Boxer:

       Frankly, from my perspective, if people are off the charts 
     on the right wing, I am not going to vote for them. I will 
     not filibuster them.

  February 26, 2003.
  One of the people being filibustered comes from California, Justice 
Brown.
  Let me tell you a little bit about her, and then I will yield to my 
friend from Georgia.
  Justice Brown sits on the California Supreme Court. She has been 
there since May of 1996. In California, people get to vote on who they 
want to be on the court. She received 76 percent of the vote in her 
last election.
  Now, the last time I checked, California is not a hotbed of 
Republican conservatives. I do not know why we lose so badly; and we 
do. We have lost almost every national election in California since 
Ronald Reagan. But she received 76 percent of the vote from people who 
live in her State.
  A little more about her: She is the daughter of a sharecropper, born 
in Greenville, AL. She attended segregated schools. I grew up in South 
Carolina. The first African American I ever went to school with, I was 
in the 6th grade--not something to be proud of but a fact. She preceded 
me.
  She has an academic record that if she were your daughter you would 
be unbelievably proud. She received a BA in economics from California 
State, her JD from the UCLA School of Law. She received an honorary 
degree from Pepperdine University. She has authored more majority 
opinions for the California Supreme Court than any other justice.
  This is how nasty this has gotten. This is a cartoon from something 
called ``The Black Commentator,'' September 4, 2003. This person is a 
racial stereotype. Your eyes can tell you better than I can. It says: 
``Welcome to the Federal bench, Ms. Clarence . . . I mean, Ms. Rogers 
Brown. You'll fit right in.'' And the people clapping are a caricature 
of Justice Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.

  This is what people are having to go through. This is the way they 
are being characterized and being attacked. I think it is a low for the 
Senate. I am very sorry that she had to go through it, but she is being 
filibustered after having come out of committee.
  If you don't like Justice Brown, then you can vote against Justice 
Brown, but you don't have the right to take the Constitution and turn 
it upside down for petty politics, and that is exactly what is going on 
here.
  I can tell my friends on the other side, if they think we are not 
going to fight back, they are dead wrong. They are going to have a 
fight on their hands as long as this goes on, and at the end of the 
day, the loser is going to be the American people if we don't find a 
way out of this mess because 40 people are a lot easier to gather up 
than 50 when it comes to politics. Sixty is really hard to get.
  What is going to happen if this continues is that we are going to 
have special interest groups, whether it is environmentally driven, 
abortion driven, gun driven--there is a group for everything out 
there--that is going to be upset with a particular nominee, and they 
are going to try to get 40 Senators to jump on their side.
  The people being empowered from this practice are special interest 
groups, and the big loser is the average, everyday American. The big 
loser is the 76 percent of the people who voted for Justice Brown.
  I yield to my friend and colleague from Georgia to talk about another 
abuse that exists in California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Carolina. 
He and I served together for 8 years in the House of Representatives. 
We were both elected in 1994 and came in with a bunch of 
revolutionaries who came to Washington to change the world. We were 
staying up all night on the House side on a regular basis. He and I 
looked over at the Senate, and said: The decorum is great; they go to 
bed at a reasonable hour. What do you know, here we are.
  I am sorry the Senator from California has left the floor because she 
made the point over and over that President Bush had his nominees 
confirmed 98 percent of the time. The fact is, the Constitution of the 
United States must be complied with 100 percent of the time. Ninety-
eight percent of the time is not good in that particular instance.
  There are some other situations where 98 percent of the time isn't 
that great, and that is why I am really sorry she is not here. If I 
told my wife that I was faithful 98 percent of the time----
  (Disturbance in the Galleries.)
  She wouldn't be all that happy with me. I wouldn't be happy if my 
food was 98 percent free of E. coli bacteria. I would not be happy if 
my car started 98 percent of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Galleries are 
not allowed to react to any statement on the floor. The Senator will 
resume.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would not be happy if my soap was only 98-percent 
pure. I would not be happy if our voting machines had a 98-percent 
accuracy rate.
  I would not be happy if the power worked only 98 percent of the time. 
And I would be awfully nervous if the airplane that I was flying on had 
a track record of landing safely 98 percent of the time.
  So the Senator's reference to this President getting 98 percent of 
his judicial nominees confirmed simply does not hold water.
  I wish to talk for a minute about Carolyn Kuhl. Again, she was 
referenced by the Senator from California about her qualifications and 
her abilities to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Carolyn Kuhl is a very special lady. She has been a judge in 
California since 1995. But prior to that, Carolyn Kuhl had an exemplary 
record that includes service both as a committed advocate as well as an 
impartial jurist. She has outstanding qualifications and bipartisan 
support.
  Her qualifications include having graduated cum laude from one of 
those liberal universities--excuse me, one of those conservative 
universities called Princeton University and having graduated Order of 
the Coif at Duke University Law School. The Senator from South Carolina 
and I graduated from the University of South Carolina and the 
University of Tennessee, respectively.
  Order of the Coif means you were in the top one or two, not percent, 
the top one or two in your class. Neither one of us was there. That is 
something special. She was a law clerk to then-Judge Anthony Kennedy of 
the Ninth Circuit. She then worked in the Department of Justice as a 
Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Deputy Assistant to the 
Attorney General, and Deputy Solicitor General.
  She was a partner in the very prestigious law firm of Munger, Tolles 
& Olson. She was the first female supervising judge of the civil 
department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Carolyn Kuhl 
brings excellent, outstanding educational credentials to the bench.
  There are a number of individuals who have registered their support 
for Judge Kuhl. There has been some indication that maybe some female 
members of the bar are upset with her over some of her decisions, and 
one decision in particular.

[[Page S14575]]

  Let me show you what 23 members of the Los Angeles Superior Court, 23 
women judges on the Los Angeles Superior Court bench said about Judge 
Kuhl, and this was a bipartisan group:

       Judge Kuhl approaches her job with respect for the law and 
     not a political agenda. Judge Kuhl has been a mentor to new 
     women judges. . . . She has helped promote the careers of 
     women, both Republican and Democrat. . . . As sitting judges, 
     we more than anyone appreciate the importance of an 
     independent, fairminded and principled judiciary. We 
     believe that Carolyn Kuhl represents the best values of 
     such a judiciary.

  There was a case that, if you listened to the Senator from 
California, you would have thought that Judge Kuhl was the doctor in 
the office who was being sued, not the judge on the bench who was 
reviewing the case.
  Let me tell you what the appellate court judge who wrote the opinion 
in the case, referenced by the Senator from California, said about 
Judge Kuhl and about that specific opinion that he reviewed:

       On appeal, I was the author of the Sanchez-Scott opinion. . 
     . . Judge Kuhl's order sustaining the demurer without leave 
     to amend was not an act of bias or insensitivity. . . . In 
     fact, a strong argument can be made that she correctly 
     assessed the competing societal interests the California 
     Supreme Court requires of all jurists in this State to weigh 
     in determining whether the tort of intrusion has occurred. 
     With respect to those who have criticized Judge Kuhl as being 
     insensitive or biased because of my opinion in Sanchez-Scott, 
     they are simply incorrect.

  Judge Kuhl brings impeccable credentials to the bench. She brings 
impeccable educational credentials, as well as jurist credentials, to 
the bench. She brings bipartisan support from the women, from the men, 
from the Republicans, and the Democrats in the State of California who 
know her best.
  For us to have to go through the exercise here of, once again, 
contending with a filibuster from the folks on the other side of the 
aisle with respect to the nomination of Carolyn Kuhl, is truly an 
injustice and is one of those injustices that, as my friend from South 
Carolina has said, there will be a payback on. That is not the way we 
want to operate. It is not the way this body has operated for well over 
200 years since we have been approving judges, and it is not the way we 
should operate in the future.
  There is still time to correct the process that we are going through, 
and based upon what we are doing here tonight, I hope the profile of 
this issue is going to be brought home to the household of every 
American and every voter, and that they will understand there is a 
group in the Senate who wants to move forward to make sure their lives 
are made better because good judges are going to be put on the bench, 
and good judges ought to be confirmed by the Senate; and that there is 
another group in the Senate who is being obstructionist and is doing 
everything within their power to prevent the President of the United 
States from having the judges that he thinks are the best qualified 
from being put on the Federal bench all across America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. President. On this half hour to which we are 
entitled, the two Senators from Arkansas are going to split the time, 
with Senator Lincoln taking the first time, whatever time she may 
consume, leaving the remainder to the junior Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am proud to be here 
this morning to see that this age-old institution is acting as it 
should. We are looking at, reviewing, and exercising our constitutional 
responsibilities.
  I am not, however, proud of the fingerpointing that is going on--as 
we say to young children, I hope no one's eyes get put out--and all the 
fingerpointing that goes on in these 30 hours of discussion and debate, 
the warnings we have just heard: There's a payback; there's a payback.
  I do rise this morning, however, to express my extreme disappointment 
and dismay that we are expending such a large portion of our remaining 
time and energy on this unnecessary debate. We probably have only a few 
days left in this session to deal with important issues on which we 
have not yet completed action this year. How many seniors have my 
colleagues talked with in their travels back home to their States about 
the need for prescription drug coverage for our elderly?
  How many of them have they talked with as they traveled with Meals on 
Wheels and other programs and talked with these seniors who are telling 
you that they are cutting their medications in half, that they are not 
going to be able to afford their heating bill this winter and their 
prescription drugs?
  I implore my colleagues, how many have you talked with in your 
travels back home?
  Looking at education funding, how many teachers have my colleagues 
spoken with as they traveled back home--teachers who are telling them 
they are going to have to spend their own money on supplies come 
February because they don't have enough glue and construction paper for 
their children or that they are having to spend an undue amount of time 
meeting demands that we have put on these school districts and yet have 
been unwilling to provide the resources for them to meet those demands?
  How many of those single mothers who are working day and night to 
pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to leave the welfare rolls and 
bring dignity to their children and to put bread on the table--how many 
of those have my colleagues spoken with as they have traveled home to 
their States when we could be doing the welfare reauthorization bill 
and making it bigger and better than we did before?
  The highway bill: How many people have they talked with when they go 
home to their States? I had a group come to me the other day who said: 
We come to you all in Congress begging every year for a few million 
dollars to try to create the infrastructure that we need in rural 
States, such as Arkansas, to improve our economy, and all of a sudden 
$87 billion falls out of the sky? What about us at home? Are you all 
going to talk about us? Are you going to bring us up? Are you going to 
do something about the things we need to make our lives stronger, to 
make our families better, to strengthen the fabric of this Nation?
  Those are the issues about which we should be talking, Mr. President, 
and I wish we were. We have not yet completed action on all the 
appropriations bills. We have an Energy bill that should have been 
finished in 2002 to bring our country into the 21st century. For the 
last 25 years, we have needed a new energy policy in this country. 
Other countries are leaving us behind in the new and innovative ways 
they are looking to provide renewable fuels to improve not only their 
economy and their environment but to lessen their dependence on foreign 
oil.

  These are the issues about which we should be talking, and genuine 
concern about what we want to do to strengthen our Nation.
  We are still waiting. We are still waiting for these to be completed, 
time tonight that could be spent in dealing with those very important 
issues.
  Faced with these and many other pressing issues and faced with a 
tight schedule, what does the leadership propose? They propose to spend 
30 hours of our time, and far more time in preparation and staff hours, 
overtime for police officers and multitudes of others who are here for 
these 30 hours, debating four or five judicial nominees, all of whom 
have been debated, generated significant opposition where they live and 
work. All have been given adequate review time, and all of whom, in my 
judgment, should not be promoted to a lifetime appointment on the 
Federal bench.
  Instead of focusing so much time and attention trying to promote a 
lifetime position for these individuals who already have very good 
jobs, my wish would be that President Bush and the Republican 
leadership would focus more of our time on issues that truly impact the 
lives of all of our constituents, and particularly the lives of the 
Arkansans I represent--issues such as creating good paying jobs in 
Arkansas, improving public education and expanding access to affordable 
health care and prescription drugs for our seniors, and, yes, providing 
something we all have agreed would make a big difference in people's 
lives: a refundable child tax credit, something that got overwhelming 
support in the Senate but is buried in a couple of conferences

[[Page S14576]]

and here, there, and yonder because it is not a priority.
  Those people in this country who make between $10,500 and $26,650 are 
not important enough for us to deal with. Somehow they don't work hard 
enough, although they have to work, they have to bring home a paycheck, 
and they have to be raising children to be eligible for a refundable 
child tax credit. But for some reason, they are not a priority here 
anymore.
  We could have done that months ago, but we didn't. Here we approach 
the holidays, people have been in school, a multitude of needs that 
families across this country have, and we fail once more to even look 
at the small ways we can be helpful.
  There are any number of issues that merit careful and lengthy 
consideration in the Senate, but filling a handful of judgeships should 
not be given a priority given the backlog of pressing issues the Senate 
has yet to complete this year.
  Unfortunately, this is a manufactured crisis to distract the American 
people from the very real crises that we are going through; the ones 
that we are facing, such as the fact that in the next 15 to 20 years, 
we are going to go from 41 million Americans over the age of 65 to over 
70 million Americans over the age of 65. We as a nation are so 
completely underprepared for that crisis.
  We have 126 medical schools in this country. Only three of them have 
a department in geriatrics. We are training less geriatricians, and we 
are training even less academic geriatricians who will teach those 
geriatricians who might be there to take care of me, and I am the 
youngest in this body.
  We are so underprepared with health care, a reform in Medicare, and a 
prescription drug package to meet these unbelievable numbers that will 
cause a crisis in this country.
  We are here tonight, tomorrow, until midnight tomorrow talking about 
four people who did not get a job they wanted. It is unbelievable.
  What about our children? What about educating our children to be 
prepared in the 21st century, to be competitive in a global economy, 
teaching our children the skills they are going to need to be 
competitive? They are the future of this country. They are our future 
workers. They are our future leaders.
  We came up with a great bipartisan bill to educate our kids, and we 
do not have the guts to pay for it. Out of the $8 billion for the 
education plan for our kids, we are only funding $2 billion of it from 
the President's budget, a quarter. I have to say, that is a misspent 
priority there.
  We have record deficits that are going to be heaped on the shoulders 
of our children. Sixty-six percent of that debt comes due in 4 years. 
What happens to our constituents if all of a sudden somebody comes up 
and says, ``Guess what, your debt is due and I want it on demand. No, 
you cannot refinance, no way. I am going to call that debt on you''?
  These are serious crises we should be addressing and we are spending 
our time pointing fingers and not addressing the issues of the American 
people.
  We have a conflict in Iraq that is taking the lives of American 
soldiers every day, and there is no end in sight. These are crises, not 
the fact that four people who wanted a job did not have the support of 
enough Senators and that is what we are spending all this time on.
  Today, 95 percent of Federal judicial seats are filled. This is the 
lowest number of judicial vacancies in 13 years. This 5 percent vacancy 
rate is lower than the U.S. unemployment rate and the poverty rate, and 
I know because I represent a State that is very high in poverty. I come 
from one of the 20 highest poverty counties in the country.
  Today there are more lifetime-appointed Federal judges serving than 
at any time in our Nation's history. Furthermore, since President Bush 
was elected, the Senate has confirmed 168 Federal judges and rejected 
only 4--2 percent of his nominees.
  By comparison, when Republicans controlled the Senate during 
President Clinton's administration, more than 60, or 20 percent, of his 
nominees never received a vote in the Senate.
  Sadly, I think the Senate's record on this matter truly speaks for 
itself. I believe all executive and judicial nominations that come 
before the Senate are entitled to courtesy and respect, but I also 
believe the Senate's role of advice and consent is a very important 
check and balance our forefathers designed and instituted. It is an 
obligation I do not take lightly.
  Senators are not elected to play a ceremonial role in the nomination 
process. This is not an issue of whether one likes the President or 
does not like the President. This is not an issue of whether one thinks 
these nominees are good people. They are all good people. Ours is not a 
ceremonial role in this nomination process. Instead, we have an 
obligation to carefully consider each nominee individually, to help 
ensure the judiciary is fair and balanced and to ensure the American 
public maintains faith in our judicial branch of Government. We have a 
responsibility to make sure these judicial nominees will not be 
partisan in their decisionmaking, that they will not be biased or 
partial to their own personal beliefs, but will institute the rule of 
law, the Constitution, and the precedent of the higher courts.

  Given the undue attention that has been lavished on these four 
nominees, I certainly believe it is worth revisiting a bit of their 
cases just to reconsider why they have not been confirmed. In each 
case, it is clear each of the nominees who has not been confirmed has 
shortcomings that in my opinion disqualify these individuals for the 
important positions to which they have been nominated. This does not 
mean I do not think they are good people. It does not mean I do not 
like the President. It simply means I am doing the job the people of 
Arkansas sent me here to do, to evaluate these people.
  When we look at Ms. Owen, after reviewing the record and meeting with 
Judge Owen, discussing her tenure with members of the bar who practice 
in Texas and in Arkansas, I was not satisfied this nominee could set 
aside her personal views and give each side a fair hearing. She had not 
in the past. In some instances, it is not just me. Judge Owen's own 
colleagues have criticized her failing to understand and abide by the 
plain meaning of statutory provisions before her as a judge on the 
Texas Supreme Court.
  Likewise, we look at the case of Alabama's Attorney General William 
Pryor. He is one of the most strident and outspoken nominees we have 
seen. After reviewing some of the statements General Pryor has made 
about sitting Supreme Court Justices and the decisions of that Court, I 
am concerned that he does not possess the necessary judgment and 
temperament to be a Federal judge, to oversee that element of the 
judiciary.
  Judge Pickering of Mississippi, who I do think is a good man, has 
also been invoked in this debate and his record does bring me concern. 
His record raises serious questions about his ethical conduct on the 
bench. His repeated contacts with the Justice Department in an attempt 
to obtain a lesser prison sentence for a convicted defendant, and his 
solicitations of letters of recommendation from lawyers in Mississippi 
who had cases before him are well-known examples.
  Finally, consider the case of Miguel Estrada, who withdrew himself 
from consideration earlier this year. By many accounts, Mr. Estrada was 
a distinguished attorney with a very talented legal mind. However, when 
we in the Senate attempted to verify this assessment by asking Mr. 
Estrada to come before the Judiciary Committee to answer additional 
questions and submit all of the relevant information that was 
necessary, and the burden of proof was in his court--we asked the same 
of President Clinton's nominees--Mr. Estrada indicated he would rather 
not. To me, and many of my colleagues, Mr. Estrada's response simply 
was not acceptable.
  It is important to note there are good, solid reasons as to why these 
people were not confirmed. These reasons had nothing to do with any 
personal beliefs or characteristics. They had nothing to do with 
partisanship. They had nothing to do with working against the 
President. I opposed these nominees because I am not convinced they 
meet the requirements of what is expected of those who receive a 
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. That is my job.
  Again, these are 4 nominees. Out of 172, 4 have not been confirmed. 
Do 4

[[Page S14577]]

nominees constitute any sort of judicial crisis? Of course not. Of 
course they do not. If we do math, the Senate has confirmed 98 percent 
of President Bush's nominees. I do not know about you, but you are 
right in that we do not want our automobile to work at 98 percent, but 
let me tell you 98 percent is pretty good. It is not 100 percent, but 
that makes me think about my kids. If they come home from school after 
they make 98 on their test, am I going to send them to their room? Am I 
going to punish them for that? Am I going to say, well, I cannot 
believe you did not do 100? No.

  What I am going to do for my children is what we should be doing. I 
am going to sit down with them and I am going to help them reach 100 
percent. I am going to work with them. That last 2 percent may be the 
most difficult, but the most difficult is worth working towards. When 
we work together, we can get there. In working together, we could reach 
that. But the administration does not want to do that. No, telling them 
they had not done good enough is not what I would do. I would work hard 
with them to get to where we needed to be.
  It is my sincere belief if President Bush would make a good-faith 
effort to work with Democrats in a spirit of cooperation, all of his 
nominees would be confirmed, with little or no controversy or 
opposition. Unfortunately, it has become apparent the President is more 
interested in staging a fight and casting blame, which is really a 
recipe for gridlock. In gridlock, the only ones who get hurt are the 
American people.
  It is disappointing the President and the Senate leadership are 
expending so much time and energy to secure jobs for four people who 
already have good jobs, particularly considering the millions of people 
who are out of work and finding it increasingly difficult to make ends 
meet. The people who lose out in this fictional crisis are the American 
people. Tying up the Senate for 30 hours on 4 judicial nominees means 
we are not talking about the issues that matter most to the people we 
represent. It means we are not talking about how we are going to finish 
that prescription drug bill in order to help seniors cope with the 
rapidly rising cost of those prescription drugs. It means we are not 
spending our time focused on improving our schools and educating our 
children, so they can get the best possible start towards competing in 
that global marketplace. It means we are not doing all we can to create 
jobs and move our economy forward. It means we are not building that 
infrastructure that is so necessary in rural America and elsewhere 
across this country.
  Just this week, I learned Arkansas has experienced its highest rate 
of unemployment in a decade. While my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle point to the improving economic indicators as evidence that 
the doldrums are behind us, I can assure them that for most people in 
Arkansas those numbers are just abstractions. They want to see jobs, 
and they want to see real action in the Senate to get things done on 
behalf of the voters who sent us here.
  Unfortunately, I think we have taken this time and used it most 
unproductively. Many Members have come to the floor tonight to talk 
about the past. I have heard some very eloquent speeches about their 
times as pages and debates they have heard, many quoting history from 
centuries ago. I think the most important thing we can talk about 
tonight is the future. I think we must talk about the future. I think 
we must talk about all of these crisis issues we are faced with, and I 
think we must come back to our children and let that be our focal 
point.

  All of us in this body are so blessed. I started out speaking about 
how blessed I feel to even be in this body, to be in this place 
tonight, to be a part of an institution that is so incredible that it 
has lasted over 200 years. We are all blessed in many things, and for 
whatever faults some people may find in our Government, I believe, and 
I think the American people believe, we still live in the greatest 
country on the face of this Earth.
  Tonight I looked at one of my greatest blessings, my children. I put 
them in bed before I came over. I tucked them in. I thought about what 
we were going to talk about tonight. I thought about this great country 
we live in. I thought about the conflict in Iraq. There were mothers 
who were putting their children to bed tonight whose husbands may be 
stationed abroad. There were children who were being put in bed tonight 
tucked in by their grandparents because their mothers had been called 
up and were in a strange and dangerous land. I thought about the fact 
my children are so blessed to live in this country under a rule of law 
that separates us from the rest, a rule of law that, when it is 
administered without bias, without the interjection of political issues 
or personal views, can create security and safety. It creates freedom. 
It creates a life I want my children to have.
  I look in the eyes of mothers across the globe who do not put their 
children to bed in a nice, warm home, who have not been fed. They live 
in violence and terrorism. They live in a land that is stricken with 
famine because there is no rule of law, or what law exists is 
implemented through a political regime. That is what separates us from 
them, that we have a system designed specifically to separate the 
political from the rule of law.
  I am proud to be here. I do not have the background many of my 
colleagues do, having been Governors and attorneys general, having 
served in this body for a long period of time, but I challenge any of 
them to match my pride, my pride of this country and in what that rule 
of law represents to me, not only as an American but as a mother and as 
a Senator.
  I have no qualms in doing my job the people of Arkansas sent me here 
to do, to make sure these individuals we send to the Federal bench to 
implement the rule of law in this Nation, the Constitution, and the 
precedent of the higher courts do not interject their political views, 
their bias, or their personal views because we know that through these 
years a nonbiased judicial branch of government has served us well. It 
is what has separated us from those countries that right now we work so 
hard to change.
  I yield time to my colleague who I am extremely proud to serve with, 
the other Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and one-half minutes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, in this 2\1/2\ minutes, I would like to 
thank some people for tonight. I would like to thank the staffers who 
are here on both sides. I would like to thank the Senate staff, the 
Sergeant at Arms staff, the doorkeepers, the cloakroom staff, all the 
various people who make the trains run on time around here, because I 
certainly understand they have families to go home to, that they have 
lives outside of these halls. I know the sacrifice they are making 
tonight to be here.
  I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
their viewpoints. We may differ on some of these issues, but I 
appreciate their opinions and respect their viewpoints and the 
zealousness by which they approach the subject at hand.
  I want to thank colleagues on my side who are here in the wee hours 
of the night and will be here throughout the day tomorrow to talk about 
these issues that are very important to the people of this country. I 
know members of the Senate on our side of the aisle are equally 
passionate about these issues. Some of this is a matter of opinion. 
Some of it is a matter of fact and history and tradition. Certainly 
people on this side of the aisle are very passionate about this.
  In the couple of minutes I have remaining, I want to acknowledge some 
of the hard work the people in this institution and around this 
institution have put into this 30-hour filibuster or marathon debate, 
whatever one wants to call it, because it has come at quite a sacrifice 
to the members of the staff in this body.
  Do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. I would again thank my colleague from Arkansas. We have a 
great tradition in our State of sending strong Senators to Washington, 
and certainly Senator Lincoln is one of those. She shows great 
leadership not just for the State but for the Nation. I want to thank 
her for her contribution tonight.

[[Page S14578]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the minority has expired.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am very proud of the State I 
represent. The State of Georgia is, in my opinion, the greatest State 
in our country because that is where I come from, and I am very blessed 
to represent that State. A number of great individuals from our State 
have served in this very august body. We have had a tradition of strong 
leadership in the Senate from Georgia, the Walter Georges, the Richard 
Russells, the Sam Nunns, the Paul Coverdells.
  Outside of the Senate, we also have had a history of strong 
leadership coming from our State. For the past 30 years the man who has 
epitomized political leadership and strength in our State is now our 
senior Senator. It has been a great privilege and pleasure for me to 
have the opportunity, No. 1, to know this man over the past 35 years or 
so, but to have an opportunity to serve with him in the Senate and for 
him to be my senior Senator has truly been a great honor to me.
  It is with great pride, and I consider it a great privilege, to be 
able to yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Young 
Harris, GA, senior Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I stand here proudly next to a copy of the 
U.S. Constitution. It is a document that has stood the test of time. It 
is a document that is revered throughout the world. As a history 
professor, I have read it many times. But I need to know tonight where 
in the U.S. Constitution does it say the President's nominees for the 
judiciary must have a supermajority to be confirmed? Where does it say 
that? I have searched high and low for that clause and that provision. 
I cannot find it. Maybe these old 71-year-old eyes are getting kind of 
dim. Perhaps I need a magnifying glass.
  I seek. I search. I hunt in vain. For is it not there. Even if I had 
the eye of an eagle I could not find it because it is simply not there.
  No, the U.S. Constitution says only the Senate is to advise and 
consent on the President's nominees. Somehow that has been twisted and 
perverted into this unmitigated mess we have today where 59 votes out 
of 100 cannot pass anything because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat 
anything. Explain that to Joe Sixpack in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
  Explain that to this man, James Madison, who wrote that Constitution. 
He predicted and he feared some day someone would try to finagle this 
system, that they would try to plot and conspire and pervert the 
process in just the way they have. James Madison warned about this in 
Federalist Paper 58. He said: If that should happen, ``The fundamental 
principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer 
the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the 
minority.''
  But don't just take my word for it. Look at others who are far 
smarter, far wiser than I will ever be and how they have expressed the 
kinds of things that are going on around here.

  On June 1, 1950, a brave woman who was then the Senator from the 
State of Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, gave one of the most courageous 
speeches ever given on the floor of this Senate. It has been called the 
``declaration of conscience'' speech. Senator Smith questioned what was 
happening at that time in the Senate. It was not about filibusters but, 
make no mistake, it was about intrigue, and it was about character 
assassination.
  Let me give you a few excerpts from Senator Smith:

       The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect 
     as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently 
     that deliberative character has too often been debased to the 
     level of a forum of hate and character assassination 
     sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

  She went on:

       It is ironic that we senators can during debate in the 
     Senate [and in committee], directly or indirectly, by any 
     form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator 
     any conduct or any motive unworthy or becoming an American--
     and without that nonsenator American having any legal redress 
     against us.

  She went on:

       It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone without 
     restraint and with full protection, and yet we hold ourselves 
     above the same type of criticism here on the Senate floor. 
     Surely, the United States Senate is big enough to take self-
     criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to 
     take the same kind of character attacks we dish out to 
     others.

  She continued:

       I think it is high time for the United States Senate and 
     its members to do some real soul searching and to weigh our 
     consciences as to the manner in which we are performing our 
     duty for the people of America and the manner in which we are 
     using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
       I think it is high time we remembered that we have sworn to 
     uphold and defend the Constitution. I think it is high time 
     that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks 
     not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury 
     instead of trial by accusation.

  So said Margaret Chase Smith in 1950.
  Let me tell you what Thomas Sowell, in his recent book ``The Quest 
for Cosmic Justice'' writes about the role of a judge:

       The traditional conception of the role of judges was 
     expressed thousands of years ago by Aristotle, who said that 
     a judge should ``be allowed to decide as few things as 
     possible.'' His discretion should be limited to ``such points 
     as the lawgiver has not already defined for him.''
       A judge cannot ``do justice'' directly in the cases before 
     him. This view was strongly expressed in a small episode in 
     the life of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. After having lunch 
     [one day] with Judge Learned Hand, Holmes entered his 
     carriage to be driven away. As he left, Judge Hand's parting 
     salute was: ``Do justice, sir, do justice.'' Holmes ordered 
     the carriage stopped. ``That is not my job,'' Holmes said to 
     Judge Hand. ``It is my job to apply the law.''
       Elsewhere Holmes wrote that his primary responsibility as a 
     judge was ``to see that the game is played according to the 
rules whether I like them or not.''

  Lastly, I want to quote a Georgian named Phil Kent. In his book ``The 
Dark Side of Liberalism,'' he takes the liberal argument in this 
controversy and states it. He says:

       The United States [according to the liberals, according to 
     the Democrats in this debate we are in today] comprises 
     diverse people and cultures. As such, judges should have the 
     power to change laws when circumstances dictate. The U.S. 
     Constitution is a document in flux, and is many times 
     irrelevant in modern society. Therefore, federal judges 
     should be chosen on the basis of their views or the positions 
     of their issues and should be tested on their ideologies.

  That is what the Democrats have been saying to us in all this debate. 
Then Kent answered that premise:

       We are a nation of laws, not of men. Our government is 
     constitutional, not political. Our highest court is the 
     arbiter of constitutional controversies, and the protector of 
     unalienable rights. As former President Ronald Reagan 
     underscored, ``Freedom is indivisible--there is no ``s'' on 
     the end of it. You can erode freedom, diminish it, but you 
     cannot divide it and choose to keep some freedoms while 
     giving up others.''
       Ignoring the law, whether seen as politically expedient or 
     ideologically sound, suggests that the courts are merely 
     devices to be used to change policy.
       The courts, however, are partners with specific duties 
     separate and apart from lawmaking and law execution. We've 
     missed that point as a nation for too long, to our great 
     peril.

  That brings me to this map of the United States. I ask you to look at 
the faces on this map. They are the faces of America. These are the 
faces of America. There is Miguel Estrada, who spoke little English 
when he came to this country as a teenage immigrant from Honduras. But 
a few years later, this immigrant graduated magna cum laude from 
Columbia College in New York and from Harvard Law School. He clerked 
for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the highest court in this land, the U.S. 
Supreme Court. He continued to soar with a very distinguished law 
career. Yet the Democrats in this Chamber have decided this man could 
not even have an up-or-down vote. It is a shame, and it is a disgrace.
  There is Bill Pryor, a devout Catholic and a southerner who grew up 
in a house where both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were revered. 
He graduated magna cum laude from Northeast Louisiana University and 
Tulane University Law School. He also has had a very distinguished law 
career, including winning statewide election twice as Alabama's 
attorney general. Yet the Democrats in this Senate will not give him an 
up-or-down vote.
  Then there is Charles Pickering, another southerner, a grandfather, a 
courageous and a deeply religious man. He graduated at the top of his 
law school

[[Page S14579]]

class at the University of Mississippi, served in elective office for 
12 years, practiced law for 30 years, and has served this country ably 
on the U.S. District Court since 1990. Yet the Democrats in this Senate 
refuse to give Judge Pickering an up-or-down vote.
  There is Priscilla Owen, who grew up on a farm in rural Texas and 
later rose to win election to the Supreme Court of Texas. Along the way 
she graduated in the top of her class at Baylor University Law School 
and practiced law for 17 years. In her successful reelection bid to the 
Supreme Court in 2000, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. Yet 
in this Senate, this woman cannot get an up-or-down vote.

  Finally, there is Janice Rogers Brown. I have spent a lot of time 
with this woman. I have read dozens of her speeches. I love and admire 
her. The daughter of an Alabama sharecropper who rose to serve on the 
California Supreme Court, she attended segregated schools until she was 
in high school and decided to become a lawyer after seeing African-
American attorneys in the civil rights movement praised for their 
courage. In 1998, 76 percent of Californians voted to retain Justice 
Brown, an approval rating most of us can only dream of. Yet this 
African-American woman will not be given an up-or-down vote because the 
Democrats in this Chamber refuse to let her do it. They are standing in 
the doorway and they have a sign: Conservative African-American women 
need not apply, and if you have the temerity to do so, your reputation 
will be shattered and your dignity will be shredded. Gal, you will be 
lynched.
  These are the faces of America, men and women who pulled themselves 
up, who worked hard, who played by the rules, and excelled in the field 
of law, and now all of their hard work and success has landed them in 
the doorway of the Senate, and each one of them is having that door 
slammed in their faces. The very least they deserve, the very least 
they deserve is an up-or-down vote. Surely, in the name of all that is 
fair and reasonable, surely, in the name of James Madison, surely in 
the United States of America in 2003, that is not too much to ask, just 
an up-or-down vote, just an up-or-down vote, just an up-or-down vote.
  The majority of this Senate deserves to have its voice heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for 
his always direct, forthright, from-the-heart statement. He knows he 
and I share an awful lot with respect to this issue and so many others. 
Again, it has been a pleasure for me to serve with him.
  I want to talk about one of the men he just mentioned who is one of 
the faces on that map and is one of the individuals who is being 
filibustered. That is Judge Charles Pickering.
  What an injustice to an individual is being carried out with respect 
to the filibuster of the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering to the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I feel a very special relationship to 
the Fifth Circuit because when I began practicing law in 1969, I was a 
member of the Fifth Circuit. At that point in time, all of Georgia was 
a part of the Fifth Circuit.
  Then I believe it was 1979 or 1980, we split off. We became the 
Eleventh Circuit and the Fifth Circuit became the circuit that handled 
cases from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
  This man, Charles Pickering, grew up in Mississippi. It has been said 
by his critics on the other side of the aisle--and I quote because I 
was in the chair presiding Monday when this statement was made by one 
of the individuals from the other side of the aisle on the floor, in 
talking about his record on race, ``He has a bad record.''
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Judge Pickering has been a 
strong advocate of the civil rights movement since the very early days 
of his career. Judge Pickering was one who came through a very 
difficult time in the history of our country, particularly coming from 
the South. Those of us who grew up in that same South, particularly in 
the rural South during those days, know the difficult times we faced 
and how far we have come since then. We are still not where we need to 
be. But boy, what strides we have made. It is only because of men like 
Judge Charles Pickering that we have made those strides.
  So for anybody to say this man has a bad record on race is simply not 
just incorrect, but it does a grave injustice to a man who worked so 
hard to make sure civil rights did come to his part of Mississippi.
  Judge Pickering, in 1967--you have to think back. In rural 
Mississippi, a part of Mississippi where the Ku Klux Klan, which today 
we would brand as terrorists--at that point in time, they were very 
active in that part of Mississippi. Judge Pickering stood face to face, 
eye to eye with the Ku Klux Klan. He went to court and testified 
against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi. For 
those who had not lived through that time, you cannot have a real 
appreciation for what he did, how brave, courageous, and how much 
integrity this man showed by doing this. He testified against the 
Imperial Wizard in a criminal action, in which the Imperial Wizard of 
the Ku Klux Klan was charged with the murder of a man named Vernon 
Dahmer.
  Unfortunately, although Judge Pickering did that, now on the floor of 
this Senate it is said he has a bad record when it comes to civil 
rights. Judge Pickering is a strong, religious man. He has a very 
strong faith. He believed there ought to be equality among children in 
schools. For that reason, he made sure his children went to integrated 
schools from the very first day they were eligible to go to school.
  Again, for those of us who grew up in the South during those days 
when integration began, this was not a very popular thing to do in the 
white community, to say the least. But Judge Pickering, again, stared 
racial injustice in the eye and he said we have to do the right thing 
and we have to make sure all of our children have an equal opportunity, 
so he sent his children to the same schools as the African-American 
community sent their children to during, again, this very difficult 
time.
  The list goes on and on about what Judge Pickering has done with 
respect to race relationships, from organizing local committees, to 
organizing statewide committees dealing with the issue of racial 
justice in the State of Mississippi.
  Judge Pickering served on the Federal bench in the district court 
where he lived for several years. He has been criticized for having a 
bad judicial record. Well, let me tell you about his judicial record. 
Some 99.5 percent of his cases have either been affirmed or not 
appealed--99.5 percent. They have either been affirmed or not appealed. 
Of those appealed, Judge Pickering has only had a reversal rate of 7.9 
percent, which is 20 percent lower than the U.S. Department of 
Justice's national average of 9.1 percent, and 2 times lower than the 
average district court judge under the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Judge Charles Pickering is not just a good man, Judge Charles 
Pickering is an outstanding judge. This is the kind of man the folks on 
the other side of the aisle are being obstructionist about and are not 
allowing an up-or-down vote with respect to his confirmation on the 
floor of the Senate. It is wrong, it is unjust, and it ought not to 
continue.
  I want to talk to you about one other individual very quickly, and 
that is Miguel Estrada. Miguel Estrada has withdrawn his nomination, 
after being under consideration for years. He decided he was not going 
to put his family through this any longer and he decided the best thing 
to do was withdraw his nomination and move on.
  Miguel Estrada came to the United States as a teen from Honduras. He 
spoke very little English. He made sure he learned English quickly 
enough to enter school and he graduated cum laude from undergraduate 
school and went to Harvard Law School, where he graduated with honors 
and was a member of the Harvard Law Review. He has given his life to 
public service. Most recently, his public service included being in the 
office of the Solicitor General of the United States of America under 
both a Republican President, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and 
a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. In both instances, he served 
under a Solicitor General who has now come forward and said this man is 
a good man, an outstanding lawyer, and this man deserves to be 
confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Obstruction came from the other side of the aisle, and they would not 
even

[[Page S14580]]

give Miguel Estrada an up-or-down vote to confirm his nomination to the 
DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I want to spend the last part of my time here talking about this 
issue of cloture. The Senate has operated under various different rules 
on cloture, which is the ability of the Senate body to terminate debate 
on a pending matter. From 1789 until 1806, the Senate cloture rule 
allowed debate to be shut off by a simple majority vote. For 17 years 
after the country began operating under the U.S. Constitution, the 
Senate rules provided a simple majority vote was all that was needed to 
cut off debate.

  In 1806, the Senate eliminated its first cloture rule which, in 
effect, put the Senate under a system where unanimous consent was 
required to end debate. This unanimous consent system lasted for over 
100 years and survived 3 unsuccessful attempts to bring back some sort 
of cloture rule.
  In 1917, the Senate filibustered a proposal supported by President 
Woodrow Wilson to arm American ships against German submarines, prior 
to America's entry into World War I. This filibuster was rather 
controversial and led to support for the Senate approving the first 
version of today's cloture rule, which is rule XXII. That required a 
vote of two-thirds present and voting to end debate on ``pending 
measures.''
  Rule XXII was again amended in 1949 to extend cloture to any measure, 
motion, or other matter, but cloture became inapplicable to any rule 
change, making it more difficult to change the rules again. Part of 
this 1949 rule change raised the required number of Senators for 
cloture from two-thirds of those present and voting to two-thirds of 
all Senators.
  Ten years later, in 1959, rule XXII was extended to rule changes, but 
the number of required Senators was moved back to two-thirds of those 
present and voting. In 1975, our esteemed senior Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd, championed another amendment to rule XXII that 
changed the required number of Senators for cloture to three-fifths of 
Senators duly sworn and chosen--in other words, a hard 60 Senators, 
without regard to how many are present and voting. The 1975 rule change 
left the cloture requirement for rule changes at two-thirds of Senators 
present and voting.
  In 1979, Senator Byrd again proposed another amendment to rule XXII. 
This time, the amendment imposed a 100-hour limit on post-cloture 
debate. This was reduced to 30 hours in 1986.
  We started off in 1789 with the cloture rule that closed off debate 
by a simple majority vote. The original rule was clearly constitutional 
because it didn't impose more than a simple majority to end debate and 
proceed to the question of an up-or-down vote on the President's 
nominees. Now it is interesting, and I think very telling, that the 
Framers of the Constitution set out only five instances where they 
thought the Senate needed more than a simple majority vote to act. That 
is what is referred to as a supermajority, such as three-fifths, two-
thirds, and such--anything but a simple majority.
  Those five instances requiring a supermajority are: impeachment, 
expulsion of a Senator, the override of a Presidential veto, 
ratification of a treaty, and adoption of a constitutional amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue and that my 
time be taken off of the next hour, same as we have been doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the minority leader.
  In contrast, the approval of Federal judges should occur frequently. 
I would go so far as to say 100 percent of all qualified nominees 
should be approved by the Senate. This is why there is no requirement 
in the Constitution for more than a simple majority to confirm these 
nominees. The Constitution charges this body with the responsibility of 
advice and consent on the President's nominations.
  With this in mind, when the Senate began operations, it required only 
a simple majority vote to end a filibuster. We have come a long way in 
the last 214 years. As you have just heard, we have tinkered with the 
cloture rule on a number of occasions. I am of a mind that the number 
of cloture rules we have had since the original rule were, or are, 
unconstitutional, including the present rule XXII, where they are 
applied to prevent a majority of Senators from confirming the 
President's judicial nominees. But that has never happened before this 
year. We have never in our Nation's history had a minority of Senators 
try to prevent a vote on the President's nominees under the guise of 
rule XXII.

  By acting in this way, a minority of Senators has found a way to make 
the cloture rule unconstitutional in practice. The Framers of the 
Constitution knew the situations where they wanted more than a simple 
majority for the Senate to act. Confirmation of the President's 
nominees was not one of these instances.
  If you look at the text of article II, section 2, in the second 
paragraph, you see in the very same sentence where the Framers require 
two-thirds of Senators present to ratify a treaty, they charge the 
Senate with responsibility for advice and consent without a word said 
about a supermajority requirement; just a simple majority is clearly 
all they thought was needed to advise the President.
  With respect to the Senate's consideration of nominees, I think the 
only constitutional cloture rule we have ever had was the first one, 
which stood for the first 17 years the Senate was in operation. We have 
tolerated a number of different accommodations over the years, 
including the absence of any cloture rule for over 100 years, where we 
could only end debate by unanimous consent and a lot of other 
compromise cloture rules along the way. Ultimately, what decides 
whether a rule is constitutional is whether 51 Senators say it is 
constitutional.
  We have another proposal offered this year to resolve the impasse 
that has prevented the Senate from discharging its constitutional duty 
to advise the President on nominations of the individuals we are here 
talking about.
  Senate Resolution 138, of which I am a cosponsor, was introduced by 
Majority Leader Frist and has bipartisan support from the senior 
Senator from my State, Senator Miller, who is an original cosponsor of 
the resolution.
  S. Res. 138 is a reasonable compromise to break the impasse we now 
face. Instead of setting a fixed supermajority requirement of 60 votes 
to end debate and bring a nominee to a vote, S. Res. 138 starts with a 
60-vote requirement and gradually reduces the number of necessary votes 
until ultimately a simple majority of Senators present on the floor can 
decide whether to consent to the President's nominee. While respecting 
that the filibuster has a historic role in the Senate, this bill 
assures that, ultimately, the will of the majority will prevail. Over 
the past few years, measures similar to S. Res. 138 have received 
bipartisan support at various times.
  We have a history of support of this concept from people on both 
sides of the aisle for a needed change to the cloture rule. Now is the 
time to come together and make it happen. We can end this filibuster by 
cooperation in a bipartisan fashion, or we will have to decide other 
options that might work.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when will the Democratic allotment of 
time expire?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 3:05.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair for the information.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has been a 
stalwart participant during the wee hours here. I want to publicly 
acknowledge his presence and laud him for his willingness to not only 
be on the floor, but to stay on the floor. I asked if he would mind if 
I would take a couple of minutes, and then I will relegate the balance 
of time for this allotment to him. He has some important remarks to 
make and I, like others, would like to hear him.
  Let me respond briefly to the comments made by the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia. He noted, of course, that the Constitution 
provides the authority to the Senate to write its rules. That, in 
essence, is what we have done, as he has also noted. There have been 
various ways with which the Senate

[[Page S14581]]

addressed the issue of unlimited debate, which is the essence of this 
institution. Having unlimited debate means an opportunity for Senators 
to be heard for whatever length of time, but it also means an 
opportunity to protect the minority--the minority being whatever the 
case may be, whether it is a political minority, ethnic minority, 
minority on a given issue, regardless. That was really the essence of 
what the Founding Fathers saw with regard to the delegation of this 
authority to the Senate to write its rules with an expectation that 
filibusters, this extended debate, would be part of the deliberative 
spirit and soul of this body.
  But my colleague from Georgia fails to recognize, and certainly 
others have ignored the number of times our Republican friends have 
used the rules of the Senate, the filibuster, to advance their 
position. There have been a number of occasions over the course of the 
last three decades where filibusters and cloture votes have been cast. 
There were 63 occasions where nominees from the Clinton administration 
did not even reach the floor because of an effective filibuster within 
the committee. One Senator would say: I will not allow this nominee to 
go forward. That assertion was respected and, ultimately, 63 of the 
Clinton nominees never got out of committee because of a Republican 
filibuster. That has not happened, of course, during this Congress. The 
Republicans have moved their nominees at will, and the only option we 
have available to us, of course, is to vote either against or for the 
nominee in committee, and then on cloture as some of these nominees 
with whom we have grave concern come to the Senate floor.
  No. 1, this is not unprecedented. No. 2, it was used to a far greater 
degree by our Republican colleagues during the 8 years of the Clinton 
administration--as I said, on 63 occasions.
  That issue should not be debated. It is not even arguable. I don't 
think this debate should be about 4 jobs, which, by the way, are 
generating incomes of over $100,000. It is our view that the debate 
tonight should be about the 3 million jobs that have been lost under 
this administration and the 9 million jobs which are lost and for whom 
people are attempting to find some way to survive financially and 
economically.
  Those 3 million jobs have been lost, in our view, because of a 
mismanaged economy that needs to be addressed if indeed we are going to 
bring this economy back. All one has to do is look at the comparison 
between the Clinton and Bush administrations to gain some understanding 
of the degree of difference between the Democratic approach and the 
Republican approach to the economy. The Clinton administration created 
22 million jobs in 8 years. The Bush administration has lost 3 million 
jobs in 3 years. Our view is, if we are ever going to turn this around, 
it is important we do three things.

  First and foremost, we address the concerns of those who are 
unemployed today by providing unemployment compensation beyond the 
limits that have now been put in place. There are too many people who 
have, through no fault of their own, been unable to get employment and 
who have run out of unemployment benefits. We need to address that. I 
hope the Senate will do so before we leave this year.
  The second thing we need to do is to ensure those who are employed 
have the kind of incomes they deserve. That means, in some cases, 
increasing the minimum wage for the first time in now almost 7 years 
and addressing the fact that at minimum wage we are at the lowest 
purchasing power in the history of minimum wage.
  It also means we protect people's overtime. Contrary to what the 
administration would like to do, we need to ensure those 8 million 
people who could see their overtime lost are provided the confidence 
and the knowledge they will not lose the overtime and will be 
compensated as we have done now for almost 70 years, for time they have 
worked over a 40-hour work week.
  Finally, I think it is critical we understand we must provide some 
relief for the extraordinary costs our working people especially are 
facing with regard to health care. Health insurance costs have 
skyrocketed--some 15 percent a year.
  There are a number of ways with which to create jobs--the highway 
bill, the manufacturing job tax credit. We offered tonight unanimous 
consent requests with the hope our colleagues might join us in at least 
allowing this legislation to go forward. Obviously they have objected. 
But that is the first thing we need to do--create the jobs for those 3 
million people who have lost their jobs in this administration.
  Second, we need to ensure the incomes of those who are working are 
protected.
  Third, I hope we can recognize that, even with incomes, they can't 
afford their health insurance today unless we help them to find ways in 
which to bring its cost down.
  There is a lot more to talk about with regard to jobs and this 
economy, but as I said, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has 
been waiting. He has done an extraordinary job of representing this 
caucus on the Senate floor and I yield the floor now for his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge and thank my 
colleague from South Dakota, who has done such an outstanding job 
tonight, and always.
  Tonight I would like to read a portion of a book that won the 
Pulitzer Prize recently. It is called ``Master of the Senate.'' It is 
about Lyndon Baines Johnson as a Senator, not as President. It was 
written by Robert Caro. It is 1,040 pages. I assure you I am not going 
to read all thousand pages tonight. I am just going to read a few 
excerpts from chapter one. Chapter one is entitled ``The Desks of the 
Senate.'' I am only going to read a small portion of chapter one. I 
will be starting on page 3. But I think it is important for us to all 
put this in context and remember what the Senate is all about and how 
it works and how it is designed to function within our constitutional 
system. So, if I may start midway down, on page 3.

       When a person stood on the floor of the Senate Chamber, 
     however--in the well below the dais--the dais was, suddenly, 
     not plain at all. Up close, its marble was a deep, dark red 
     lushly veined with grays and greens . . .

  In fact, on this pilaster behind me you can see those colors Mr. Caro 
is referring to here.

     . . . and set into it, almost invisible from the galleries--

  We have a number of people in the gallery tonight.

     . . . almost invisible from the galleries, but, up close, 
     richly glinting, were two bronze laurel wreaths like the 
     wreaths that the Senate of Rome bestowed on generals with 
     whom it was pleased, when Rome ruled the known world--and the 
     Senate ruled Rome.
       From the well, the columns and pilasters behind the dais 
     were, suddenly, tall and stately and topped with scrolls, 
     like the columns of the Roman Senate's chamber, the 
     columns before which Cato spoke and Caesar fell, and above 
     the columns, carved in cream-colored marble, were eagles, 
     for Rome's legions marched behind eagles. From the well, 
     there was, embroidered onto each pale damask panel, an 
     ornament in the same pale color and all but invisible from 
     above--a shield--and there were cream-colored marble 
     shields, and swords and arrows, above the doors. And the 
     doors--those seven pairs of double doors, each flanked by 
     its tall columns and pilasters--were tall, too, and their 
     grillwork, hardly noticeable from above, was intricate and 
     made of beaten bronze, and it was framed by heavy, squared 
     bronze coils. The vice presidential busts were, all at 
     once, very high above you; set into deep, arched niches, 
     flanked by massive bronze sconces, their marble faces, 
     thoughtful, stern, encircled the Chamber like a somber 
     evocation of the Republic's glorious past. And, rising 
     from the well, there were the desks.

  Let me pause here because these desks have a lot of history. In fact, 
I think it is safe to say almost all of American history in some way or 
another has flowed through the Senate. I don't think that is an 
overstatement.

       The desks of the Senate rise in four shallow tiers, one 
     above the other, in a deep half circle. Small and spindly 
     individually, from the well they blend together so that with 
     their smooth, burnished mahogany tops reflecting even the dim 
     lights in the ceiling so far above them, they form four 
     sweeping, glowing arcs. To stand in the well of the Senate is 
     to stand among these four long arcs that rise around and 
     above you, that stretch away from you, gleaming richly in the 
     gloom: powerful, majestic. To someone standing in the well, 
     the Chamber, in all its cavernous drabness, is only a setting 
     for those desks--for those desks, and for the history that 
     was made at them.
       The first forty-eight of those desks--they are of a simple, 
     federal design--were carved in 1819 to replace the desks the 
     British had

[[Page S14582]]

     burned five years before. When, in 1859, the Senate moved 
     into this Chamber, those desks moved with them, and when, as 
     the Union grew, more desks were added, they were carved to 
     the same design. And for decades--for most of the first 
     century of the Republic's existence in fact; for the century 
     in which it was transformed from a collection of ragged 
     colonies into an empire--much of its history was hammered out 
     among those desks.
       Daniel Webster's hand rested on one of those desks when, on 
     January 26, 1830, he rose to reply again to Robert Hayne.

  I am not going to go into that story because it should be known by 
most people who follow Senate history, one of the more famous exchanges 
in the history of the Senate. Let me skip on to page 7 and talk about 
what I really think is important for us to consider this morning:

       The long struggle of the colonies that were now become 
     states against a King and the King's representatives--the 
     royal governors and proprietary officials in each colony--had 
     made the colonists distrust and fear the possibilities for 
     tyranny inherent in executive authority. And so, in creating 
     the new nation, its Founding Fathers, the Framers of its 
     Constitution, gave its legislature or Congress not only its 
     own powers, specified and sweeping, powers of the purse (``To 
     lay and collect Taxes . . . To borrow Money on the credit of 
     the United States . . . To coin Money'') and powers of the 
     sword (``To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal 
     . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and 
     maintain a Navy . . .'') but also powers designed to make the 
     Congress independent of the President and to restrain and act 
     as a check on his authority: power to approve his 
     appointments, even the appointments he made within his own 
     Administration, even appointments he made to his own Cabinet; 
     power to remove his appointees through impeachment--to remove 
     him through impeachment, should it prove necessary; power to 
     override his vetoes of their Acts. And the most potent of 
     these restraining powers the Framers gave to the Senate. 
     While the House of Representatives was given the ``sole power 
     of Impeachment,'' the Senate was given the ``sole power to 
     try all Impeachments'' (``And no person shall be convicted 
     without the Concurrence of Two Thirds of the Members 
     present''). The House could accuse; only the Senate could 
     judge, only the Senate convict. The power to approve 
     presidential appointments was given to the Senate alone; a 
     President could nominate and appoint ambassadors, Supreme 
     Court justices, and all other officers of the United States, 
     but only ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
     Senate.'' Determined to deny the President the prerogative 
     most European monarchs enjoyed of declaring war, the Framers 
     gave the power to Congress as a whole, to House as well as 
     Senate, but the legislative portion of the power of ending 
     war by treaties, of preventing war by treaties--the power to 
     do everything that can be done by treaties between nations--
     was vested in the Senate alone; while most European rulers 
     could enter into a treaty on their own authority, an American 
     President could make one only ``by and with the Advice and 
     Consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators 
     present concur.''

  I will skip to page 8. It is a discussion of James Madison, the 
primary designer of our constitutional system of government. Certainly 
it was a committee effort, but James Madison has been historically 
credited with playing the major role in its creation, in its design:

       How, Madison asked, is ``the future danger''--the danger of 
     ``a leveling a spirit''--``to be guarded against on 
     republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of 
     interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded 
     against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in 
     the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and 
     virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of 
     justice by throwing its weight into that scale.'' This body, 
     Madison said, was to be the Senate. Summarizing in the 
     Constitutional Convention the ends that would be served by 
     this proposed upper house of Congress, Madison said they were 
     ``first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly 
     to protect the people against the transient impressions into 
     which they themselves might be led.''
       ``The use of the Senate,'' Madison said, ``is to consist in 
     its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with 
     more wisdom, than the popular branch.'' It should, he said, 
     be ``an anchor against popular fluctuations.'' He drew for 
     parallels on classical history, which, he said, ``informs us 
     of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate.'' In two of 
     the three ``long-lived'' republics of antiquity, Sparta and 
     Rome, and probably in the third--Carthage (about whose 
     governmental institutions less was known)--senators served 
     for life. ``These examples . . . when compared with the 
     fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, 
     [are] very instructive proofs of the necessity of some 
     institution that will blend stability with liberty.'' Thomas 
     Jefferson had been in Paris during the Convention, serving as 
     minister to France. When he returned, he asked George 
     Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a 
     two-house Congress. According to a story that may be 
     apocryphal, Washington replied with his own question: ``Why 
     did you pour your tea into that saucer?'' And when Jefferson 
     answered, ``To cool it,'' Washington said, ``Just so. We pour 
     House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' 
     The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed 
     to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or 
     dissent.
       And to ensure that the Senate could protect the people 
     against themselves, the Framers armored the Senate against 
     the people.
       One layer of armor was bolted on to allay the fears of the 
     states with fewer people, that the more populous states would 
     combine to gain a commercial advantage or to control 
     presidential appointments and national policies; the small 
     states were determined that all states should have an equal 
     voice in the Congress, so, in what became known as the 
     ``Great Compromise,'' it was agreed that while representation 
     in the House would be by population, in the Senate it would 
     be by states; as a result of that provision, a majority of 
     the people could not pass a law; a majority of the states was 
     required as well. But there were other, even stronger, 
     layers. One was size. ``Numerous assemblies,'' Madison 
     explained, have a propensity ``to yield to the impulse of 
     sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious 
     leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.'' so the 
     Senate would, in Madison's phrase, be ``less numerous.'' Each 
     state, the Farmers decided, would be represented by only two 
     senators; the first Senate of the United States consisted of 
     just twenty-six men.

  Now I am going to skip to page 10.

       Senators would also be armored against the popular will by 
     the length of their terms, the Framers decided. Frequent 
     elections mean frequent changes in the membership of a body, 
     and, Madison said, from a ``change of men must proceed a 
     change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change 
     of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is 
     inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect 
     of success.'' What good is the rule of law if ``no man . . . 
     can guess what the [law] will be tomorrow?'' Guarding against 
     ``mutable policy,'' he pointed out, requires ``the necessity 
     of some stable institution in the government.'' Edmund 
     Randolph, as usual, was more blunt. ``The object of this 
     second branch is to control the democratic branch,'' he said. 
     ``It it not be a firm body, the other branch being more 
     numerous and coming immediately from the people, will 
     overwhelm it.'' Senators, he said, should ``hold their 
     offices for a term sufficient to insure their independency.'' 
     The term sufficient, the Farmers decided, would be six years. 
     Senators would hold office three times as long as the members 
     of the ``democratic branch.'' They would hold office longer 
     than the President held office. And around the Senate as a 
     whole there would be an additional, even stronger, layer of 
     armor. Elections for senators would be held every two years, 
     but only for a third of the senators. The other two-thirds 
     would not be required to submit their record to the voters 
     (or, to be more accurate, to their legislatures) at that 
     time. This last piece of armor made the Senate a ``stable 
     institution'' indeed. As a chronicler of the Senate was to 
     write almost two centuries after its creation: ``It was so 
     arranged that while the House of Representative would be 
     subject to total overturn every two years, and the Presidency 
     every four, the Senate, as a Senate, could never by 
     repudiated. It was fixed, through the staggered-term 
     principle, so that only a third of the total membership would 
     be up for re-election every two years. It is therefore 
     literally not possible for the voters ever to get at anything 
     approaching a majority of the members of the Institution at 
     any one time.''

  Now I'm going to skip to page 11.

       The coat of constitutional mail bolted around the Senate 
     was sturdy indeed--by design. Under the new Constitution, the 
     power of the executive and the power of the people would be 
     very strong. So to enable the Senate to stand against these 
     powers--to stand against them for centuries to come--the 
     framers of the Constitution made the Senate very strong. 
     Wanting it to protect not only the people against their 
     rulers but the people against themselves, they bolted around 
     it armor so thick they hoped nothing could ever pierce it.
       And for many years the Senate made use of its great powers. 
     It created much of the federal Judiciary--the Constitution 
     established only the Supreme Court; it was left to Congress 
     to ``constitute tribunals inferior,'' and it was a three-man 
     Senate committee that wrote the Judiciary Act of 1789, an Act 
     that has been called ``almost an appendage to the 
     Constitution.'' The Judiciary Act established the system of 
     federal and district courts, and the jurisdictional lines 
     between them, that endure to this day, and established as 
     well the principle, not mentioned in the Constitution, that 
     state laws were subject to review by federal courts. And 
     when, sixteen years later, this new creation was threatened 
     by a concatenation of the very forces the Framers had 
     feared--presidential power and public opinion--the Senate 
     saved the Judiciary.

  By the way, Mr. President, the Senate has a history of saving the 
judiciary in critical times. That should be a discussion for a later 
time. But there is no question that the Senate has served

[[Page S14583]]

as protector of the judiciary in our system of government.
       The desks (there were thirty-four of them by 1805) had been 
     removed for this occasion, and the Old Senate Chamber had 
     been arranged as if it were a tribunal. In the center of one 
     wall stood the chair of the presiding officer, Vice President 
     Aaron Burr, as if he were the chief judge, and extending on 
     his right and left were high-backed, crimson-covered benches, 
     on which the senators sat, in a long row, judges in a court 
     from which there was no appeal.

  Mr. Caro goes on to explain the impeachment trial of Supreme 
Court Justice Samuel Chase; here again, the rule of law and the fact we 
are a nation of laws and not men built up by the Senate. It is the 
Senate's tradition to stand up for our liberty and for our law.
  I wanted to bring this to the Senate's attention. I know my time is 
drawing to an end. At this point, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, thank you.
  The Democratic leader came to the floor and spoke, as many have on 
that side of the aisle, attempting to change the subject on the issue 
of jobs.
  The number keeps coming up about 3 million jobs being lost in this 
administration since this administration took office. I want to share 
with you a chart that looks at the survey of the U.S. employment level. 
This includes everybody. The numbers that the Democratic leader 
referred to do not include everyone. It was a different survey of jobs. 
This is the most comprehensive one. You can see from this comprehensive 
survey, here we are: the most jobs in the history of the United States.
  If these include all the jobs, whose jobs does the Democratic leader 
say don't count? What jobs don't count, according to the Democrats? If 
you are self-employed, if you are an individual doing work, you don't 
count. The Democratic leader is not going to count you as someone who 
is working. If you are a domestic worker or you work for a private 
household, you don't count--you are not a worker; you don't have a job. 
If you are self-employed, if you are a domestic worker for a private 
household, you don't count. If you work on a farm, you don't count. If 
you are someone who works--it is probably some of the hardest work that 
is done in this country--on a farm, according to the Democratic leader, 
your job doesn't count. If you work in a family-run business part time, 
you don't count. In fact, there are 8 million workers on farms, family 
businesses, households and self-employed, under the Democratic leader's 
survey, who don't count. We believe you do.
  By the way, when it comes to paying taxes, the Democratic leader 
counts your job. He makes sure we collect your taxes. But, as far as 
being employed or not, for political purposes, you don't count. It is 
138 million, a record and growing.
  Why are they coming up here and talking about this? Because they want 
to criticize the President's plan for turning this economy around. It 
probably says they do not have a plan.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania yield for a question? I want to talk about 
judges in a second.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Is the distinguished Senator familiar with some of the 
statistics that came out recently regarding jobs and growth in the 
economy?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I have seen some of them. In fact, they were revised a 
couple of months prior to the most recent report--I believe it was 
August and September--the net new jobs created on the original 
projection was 16,000. They have revised them up to almost I think 
150,000.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I believe about 50,000 double to over 100,000. As the 
distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is aware, 
that payroll employment increased by 126,000 jobs in October.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If you look at the last 3 months, almost 300,000 new 
jobs, net new jobs were created in this economy.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Is the distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania aware that the gross domestic product--by the way, the 
gross domestic product is the way we measure growth in this economy--
increased at a 7.2-percent annual rate?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I believe that is the highest rate of growth in almost 
20 years.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Is the Senator from Pennsylvania aware of the actions 
that this Senate has tried to take to grow jobs? One of the things we 
attempted to do was to pass a bill regarding class action reform. Does 
the distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania believe 
that class action reform, if it were passed, would help grow jobs?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I don't think there is any question that the drain on 
this economy is one of the major impediments to creating jobs, 
increasing the standard of living in America and giving a better 
quality of life for the average American.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, on the issue of 
malpractice litigation regarding doctors and the impact that has on the 
cost of health care, and the impact the cost of health care has on 
small business and growing jobs, does he see a correlation between the 
increased litigation costs and the impact it has on the condition of 
the economy?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The No. 1 crisis in my State with regard to health care 
is medical lawsuit abuses.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Would it be fair to say that our friends on the other 
side of the aisle have obstructed our efforts to pass malpractice 
reform?
  Mr. SANTORUM. They have blocked every form of reasonable and balanced 
litigation reform that balances the interests of those who rightfully 
have a plea before a court for compensation and the right of society 
not to have outrageous awards, which make us unproductive, which raises 
the cost of health care, and which limits the availability of health 
care to millions of Americans.

  Mr. COLEMAN. If the Senator will yield the floor--and I would very 
respectfully disagree with his last assertion that our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have no plan; they have a plan. The plan is 
to roll back the President's tax cuts. Listen to the candidates. They 
want to roll back that tax cut. The lowering of the tax rates has 
generated more income in the pockets of Americans.
  Mr. SANTORUM. They want to roll back the reductions that the 
President put in place. They do not like the dividend proposal. The 
stock market has added $2 trillion in value. What does that mean to the 
millions of Americans who now participate in the market? You are 
talking about real wealth. You are talking about retirement security 
for millions of Americans because of the economic plan of this 
administration passed by the Senate. And they would like to roll that 
back. I guess they do not like markets going up. I guess they do not 
like employment going up. I guess they do not like economic activity 
and job creation.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Has my colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
talked to small business owners about the impact of accelerated 
depreciation?
  Mr. SANTORUM. We saw in just the last few quarters the business 
community--which has really been lagging, and which is an indicator in 
all of the economy--as a result of the accelerated depreciation 
expensing provision in the tax package that we passed, is finally 
beginning to invest, and by doing so they are increasing productivity 
which means higher wages for workers. It is a little bit of a 
challenge. If productivity goes up, that means higher quality jobs, 
higher paying jobs, and more productive jobs. As growth continues, so 
will the employment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Is the distinguished Senator aware that business 
investment increased in the last quarter about 15 percent? Does that 
have a relationship to growing jobs?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Absolutely. The fact is that incentives for businesses 
to invest in capital and equipment and purchasing capital equipment for 
manufacturers here in this country means they are improving their 
productivity. They are being more competitive internationally. We are 
not losing those jobs. We are keeping those jobs here. They are more 
productive jobs and higher paying jobs. It is a win-win all across.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would respectfully suggest again that

[[Page S14584]]

our friends on the other side of the aisle have a plan. The plan is to 
roll back the tax cuts. Again, look at the statistics. Look at what is 
happening in the economy. Any American being out of work is a terrible 
thing. I am a former mayor. I always understood the best welfare 
program, the best housing program, and the best health care is jobs. 
But you have to plan a vision. The Bible said people without a vision 
will perish.
  This President has a vision, and that vision is producing results. We 
are seeing it. There is an increase in consumer spending as a result of 
tax cuts.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his questions. I 
think we settled this issue pretty clearly as to the importance that we 
have put on jobs and the response of the Republicans in the Senate and 
this President to grow the economy as a result of a recession which 
started in the Clinton administration and which was exacerbated by 9/
11. The President responded with certainty and with a dynamic plan, 
with an innovative plan, and it is working in our economy.

  Now we turn to another area where the Democrats have obstructed; the 
issue of Federal judges we are spending the evening here tonight on. I 
have said throughout the time I was going to be on the floor that we 
are going to ask for votes. We should be able to get votes--up-or-down 
votes.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration 
of Calendar No. 455, the nomination of Janice R. Brown to be a United 
States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; provided 
further that there then be 20 hours of debate equally divided for the 
consideration of the nomination; provided further that following the 
debate the Senate proceed to the vote on the nomination, and that there 
be no further intervening action or debate.
  Mr. PRYOR. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I have just asked that a justice who was elected in the 
State of California by 76 percent of the vote--no elected official from 
California in this Chamber can make that claim--76 percent of the vote 
in the State of California and we can't get a vote on her nomination, 
up or down; a judge who wrote more majority opinions than any other 
member of that court, who is a qualified African-American woman; we 
cannot get a vote on the floor of the Senate after 20 hours of debate. 
I will agree to 30 hours. I amend it to 30 hours of debate. I ask 
unanimous consent that the previous unanimous consent that I read be 
modified to allow for 30 hours of debate.
  Mr. PRYOR. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. This is not a matter of debate. This is not a matter of 
due consideration. This is a matter of not allowing a qualified judge, 
a justice of the supreme court of the largest State in this country, 
who was elected by 76 percent of the people in the State of California, 
who is now being assailed as not being within the mainstream. How small 
is the stream? How small is the stream that 24 percent of Californians 
are in compared to the rest of America? That is not mainstream? That is 
extreme. We are not talking about the mainstream judges. We are talking 
about fighting to only put on extreme judges. This is a travesty. If 
this woman were nominated 10 years ago, we wouldn't even have had a 
vote on the floor of the Senate; or 5 years ago, she wouldn't have even 
been voted on. We would have confirmed her with a voice vote, and 
everybody in this Chamber knows it.
  This body was once a place where sense of history and duty and 
responsibility meant something, to be a steward of this incredible 
body, this famed institution. It used to mean something to be a Senator 
to uphold the tradition of this body.
  That is why for 214 years no one put their partisan whim, their 
short-term political gain in front of the process that kept this 
institution whole. But tonight in this session of Congress we are 
throwing that all away. What is so important? What is so sacred to 
those who would contort the rules of the Senate as never done in the 
history of this Senate? Senators have a chance to do it. But there is 
some higher calling not to give in, not to give in to that notion, You 
know, I really do not like this judge--not to give in because of the 
consequences for the long-term future of this country is just too dire. 
What caused so many to be so willing to give up and give in and thereby 
fail the Senate and cause this body to become so rancorous?
  I ask my colleagues, as someone who never voted against a cloture 
motion--I have never voted against a cloture motion for a judge, judges 
who I thought would be the worst judges who are against everything I 
believe in. Paez and Berzon are two examples. I lost sleep because I 
knew the damage they could do with the Ninth Circuit and are doing. By 
the way ``under God,'' Paez and Berzon, stricken from our Pledge of 
Allegiance.

  These are radical activist judges. I knew it. They will destroy the 
very fabric of our Constitution. I knew it. I gave them an up-or-down 
vote because this body, this Constitution, the process by which we do 
business here is more important.
  No more. The puppeteers of the special interest groups around 
Washington, DC now carry much more weight than the Constitution. This 
is a sad time. People ask why we are doing this. Because we have a 
right to tell the public what is going on. This is ugly. This is the 
worst of our nature. I plead, as someone who wanted to do what you are 
doing worse than you could possibly imagine but didn't because there 
are bigger things than the next election.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. 
COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect and compassion for 
my colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and for his 
commitment to what this institution is all about.
  I don't know if I can find the words to describe the feeling that I 
have, elected just this year to the Senate, to these hallowed halls. I 
listened to the reading from my friend and colleague from Arkansas from 
Caro's ``The Master of the Senate.'' It is a humbling honor to be part 
of this body, to be part of the flow of history, a flow that has helped 
develop the greatest nation in the world. We got there due to divinely 
inspired guidance from the Founders of this great Republic who gave us 
a Constitution which provides a sense of clarity of our roles and 
responsibility. If we decide to only abide by it 98 percent of the time 
and the folks who follow us decide to abide by it 98 percent of the 
time, we are in trouble. My colleagues across the aisle have a sign 
that says 168 to 4. They are proud of that. I am stunned. I am 
absolutely stunned. If the airline I flew back and forth to Minneapolis 
would advertise 98 percent of the time they would get me there safely, 
I wouldn't fly.
  Think about the Constitution. I could walk you through it. First 
amendment of the Constitution; Congress shall make no law respecting 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. If there were 172 
newspapers in the United States and I said 168 of them are going to 
have freedom of the press, but not the other 4, where would we be?
  Second amendment to the Constitution: Right to bear arms.
  In Minnesota, we bear arms. A lot of folks were out deer hunting last 
weekend there. If I were to tell a group of 172 Minnesotans that 168 of 
you have the right to bear arms, but not 4, 98 percent, I don't think 
they would be happy Americans.
  I could go through every amendment. Third amendment: no soldier shall 
in a time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of 
owner, nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law, the third 
amendment to the Constitution. If I went to a group of homeowners and 
said, you are going to quarter soldiers, 2 percent of you are, they 
wouldn't be very happy, and they shouldn't be.
  We took a solemn oath to preserve and defend and abide by the 
Constitution of the United States. That is how we got here. That is our 
obligation once we got here. It wasn't a partial thing. It wasn't an 
almost thing. It wasn't a but-for thing, and it wasn't a 98 percent 
thing. It was to preserve the Constitution.

[[Page S14585]]

  The fifth amendment to the Constitution: Individuals cannot be 
compelled to testify against themselves. Can you imagine if we said 
that applies 98 percent of the time? It doesn't work that way. It 
should not work that way. There is a reason why. You have to think 
about this. Again my colleague read the history of the Senate. It is a 
magnificent history. But the public out there has to ask the question: 
Why in the over 200 years of this Republic has there never been up 
until now a partisan filibuster that has stopped judges from being 
confirmed.
  Yes, we have the right to advise and consent. The Constitution gives 
the President the opportunity to appoint judges. We are then to advise 
and consent. He nominates. We advise and consent. But we do it by a 
simple majority. We cast our vote. If you don't agree, you vote them 
down. If you agree, you vote them up. But for the history of this 
Republic, we have a process which we abide by, the Constitution. That 
was reflected in the readings from my colleague from Arkansas. 
Treaties, as he noted in his comments, require in the Constitution a 
supermajority, but not judges.
  Mr. TALENT. I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.
  Mr. TALENT. I wonder if the Senator knows how many court of appeals 
appointments Presidents on average have gotten over a 4-year term since 
Jimmy Carter? It is 40. There were 10 per year. I went back and looked. 
Does the Senator know how many court of appeals judges the other side 
has filibustered or will filibuster by Friday? It is six. I11Does the 
Senator know how many more they have threatened to filibuster? It is 
another six. I wonder if the Senator is aware of the fact that out of 
40 court of appeals judges President Bush figures to get in a 4-year 
term, the other side has filibustered or threatened 12. So it is not 
four out of 168. It is 12 out of 40, or 30 percent. I don't know how 
the Senator feels about that. I wonder if he doesn't think that is a 
more relevant figure that maybe we should be using.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Even if it was 2 percent, we don't disregard the 
Constitution. Certainly if you are looking at 30 percent, that is 
outrageous. That is outrageous. One of the things that troubles me as a 
new Senator, as is my colleague from Missouri, as is my colleague from 
Arkansas--I think we still have this great kind of sense of awe, but 
one of the things that troubles me--and I haven't been here, but I have 
heard so much of the debate--they say, they did it to us in the past.

  Let the record be very clear. Of the past 11 Presidents' judicial 
nominees, there were 2,372 confirmed. None were stopped by a 
filibuster. This whole thing about what you did to us in the past, of 
course, now we are doing to you. Then what will those who follow us do? 
What are the consequences of that?
  I will tell you, I will stand on the floor of the Senate and say I 
will apply the same standard to judges with a Republican President that 
I will if there were ever to be a Democratic President and I am serving 
in this institution. Are they competent? Are they committed to 
preserving and upholding the Constitution? That is what the judges we 
are talking about all have said.
  You have to get right to it. They are being opposed because there are 
special interest groups who don't like their position on a particular 
issue, most probably abortion. Judge Pickering, by way of example, is 
somebody. When I ran for the Senate, I had a debate with the former 
Vice President of the United States, Walter Mondale, a magnificent 
American, a great public servant, who I simply disagreed with on 
certain issues. But in the debate that came up, I talked about it at 
that time, saying: We can't obstruct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to start with a little bit 
of perspective on the judiciary, and I would like to respond a bit to 
the economic arguments I heard discussed over the last 30 minutes which 
are sort of not in touch with reality, certainly not in touch with the 
reality of those folks who live and work in New Jersey and those across 
the country.
  Let's start with a simple proposition that there are 172 nominations 
before the Senate. The commonsense reality is, 168 have been confirmed, 
4 have been held up. I hear this view that people should not have the 
ability to express their point of view about judicial philosophy, 
temperament, the perspective of the individual judges. But I don't know 
what we are here for if we are not supposed to exercise our judgment 
and work within the rules as established. One hundred sixty-eight to 
four seems to be a pretty favorable ratio by most human standards 
anywhere across America, when you look at judgments about the quality 
of folks you would interview for a job. It is sort of common sense.
  In my own State of New Jersey, we are six for six, including a 
circuit court judge. We worked very carefully with the folks at the 
White House about background, worked in a cooperative sense. That has 
not happened across all of America. That is what people are arguing is 
now the case with the four who are on this board. There is a legitimate 
right to debate one's judicial philosophy. The rules of the Senate are 
very clear and have been used many other times.
  This idea that there have been no filibusters is blatantly false. We 
can go back to the Abe Fortas situation, and there are other situations 
where it may not have been the end game but it was certainly the 
starting point for holding back, going forward with judicial 
nominations. There are a number of them. I am sure these have been 
identified here on the floor, whether it was the Fortas nomination for 
chief justice; Rosemary Barkett, a judicial nominee, had a similar 
situation; Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer, Judge Paez, Lee 
Sarokin, and Marsha Berzon.

  It has been argued and researched that 63 judicial nominees of the 
committee and 6 judicial nominees on the floor have been filibustered 
in the past. It is not something that is new. But what is really 
hypocritical, in my view, is we are focused on a technique that has 
been used to stop four judges many of us on this side of the aisle find 
extreme, when 55 Clinton nominees were not given hearings to be even 
discussed, 55. I could read the list of them. That is about, if my 
mathematics are correct, relative to the number, 30 percent stopped, 
cold dead stopped, without even having an opportunity to be reviewed, 
55 Clinton nominees against 4 Bush nominees.
  I don't know that it serves a useful purpose to say, we did this and 
we did that. The fact is we need to have a serious review of judges, 
and people ought to be able to express their opinions within the rules 
about whether they think they are qualified on the basis of standards 
that are generally accepted: Judicial philosophy, whether they will 
uphold the Constitution, settled law, all those kinds of issues.
  The fact is in another time or another place, people primarily used 
the committee process to keep judicial nominees from even being 
reviewed.
  What is the result? I want to reconfirm that 98 percent of those 
nominees President Bush has put forward have been confirmed. Only 2 
percent have not. Again, that is an overwhelming commitment to moving 
judges through this process and significantly better than has occurred 
in previous administrations.
  Again, the filibuster has been used as well. I just don't think we 
are reciting facts properly and history right.
  There is another very fundamental situation here. Contrary to the 
claims we hear, we think there is some kind of vacancy crisis in our 
Federal courts. I would like to have 100 percent myself, but 95 percent 
of Federal judicial appointments are now filled. When we had a change 
of administration, because of that 55 and the process that went 
through, it was only 75 percent. There was a distinct process of 
holding back, pushing back with regard to what the folks on the other 
side were prepared to do when working with another President. That is 
why when people talk about 168 to 4, that perspective is not being 
brought to the discussion.
  It is very simple: 55 folks stopped in the last 4 years, and there 
has been 4. People can argue that somehow from their perspective those 
55 were outside the mainstream. Some were not brought up for discussion 
in the committee. But the process we are using here is to make sure the 
debate on the

[[Page S14586]]

floor brings out these extreme views, operating within the rules. I 
think we have facilitated a significant improvement in the ability of 
the courts to fulfill their function. That is what is the practical 
element. Those 168 are real because they are dealing with the issues 
the American public has to deal with. Our court system is actually 
functioning better than it has because we have been very facile in 
making sure judicial appointments have gone through. It is just a 
matter of perspective.

  Mr. TALENT. Will my friend from New Jersey yield for a question?
  Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.
  Mr. TALENT. Are you aware with regard to any of those committee 
actions or inactions to which you refer, was there ever a case where a 
majority of the committee expressed a desire to vote up or down on 
those nominees?
  Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Missouri maybe has reviewed all of the 
transcripts from those committees. I have not. I do know the President 
of the United States sent nominations here and in most instances they 
were. The 55 that I have, and there are a number of them I haven't 
reviewed, there was an attempt to try to get a number of those before 
the committee, and they were not allowed to be debated. It never got 
started. I can't speak to all 55. I have not reviewed all of the 
transcripts.
  Mr. TALENT. I am not going to intrude on the Senator's time. He 
referred to a lack of respect. I think the reason is because I don't 
believe there has been a situation where a majority of the committee or 
body wanted to vote up or down on a nominee when they didn't have that 
chance. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the discussion with the Senator from 
Missouri.
  What we have here, in my view, at 20 minutes of 4 on a Thursday 
morning, is a view that there were different techniques used by the 
folks on the other side of the aisle to restrict a President from 
having the kinds of judges and the number of judges they wanted to put 
into the courts which actually led to something that wasn't good for 
the American people; that is, a much higher vacancy rate in the Federal 
district courts than is the case today. I know in my own case and in 
the State of New Jersey, we are five for five on district judges and 
one for one on circuit judges, because we are working in a cooperative 
manner to try to get to a result that will allow the courts to have the 
judges to be able to deal with the cases. I think 168 is showing that 
happened across this country. So because there are three or four judges 
people believe are outside the mainstream--the special-interest stuff I 
have a hard time understanding. I am not a lawyer, but I read some of 
these cases where people don't believe in the incorporation of 
businesses and want to take away fundamental purposes of how that works 
in this world. That is outside the mainstream. That is difficult for me 
to understand. Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable to 
question whether that is an appropriate appointment to one of our most 
important appeals courts.

  So, again, one of those four--or maybe it will be six, as the Senator 
talks about, by the time we get to whatever hour in the morning we vote 
on this stuff on Friday; maybe that will be the case. But I think it is 
important we as Senators review the record and, within the rules, use 
our judgment to decide whether someone is in the mainstream of judicial 
philosophy. Apparently, that was happening in previous administrations 
for 55 folks; they were just using a different technique as opposed to 
this particular one.
  Again, I go back to the fundamental issue. It left a gaping hole in 
the ability of our courts to deal with the American public's needs in 
the Federal courts--the 75 percent fill ratio, or 25 percent vacancy 
ratio. Now we have a 4.8 percent vacancy ratio. I think, ultimately, 
somebody is going to say what is going on here? Are we actually dealing 
with the issues the American people need, which is having the judicial 
system that actually works.
  I have to talk a little bit about the economy because I heard some 
other questions, and we talked about payroll employment versus other 
measures. Frankly, I don't know a single serious economist in America 
who doesn't say we measure the standard job performance of this 
economy, this country, by looking at payroll employment. It is accepted 
as the base standard by economists across the country. The kinds of 
comparisons to other standards, those are all well and good. I think 
they reflect, frankly, the growth in the population.
  We are not creating jobs rapidly enough to actually reduce the level 
of unemployment. That is why payrolls have always been used as a basic 
issue, because it takes into account the growth of the population as 
well, which, by the way, we are at about the lowest--I think we had a 
little uptick, a minor uptick in the last 2 months in the percentage of 
Americans who are working out of the total population. The fact is we 
have lost something approaching 3 million payroll jobs under this 
administration. What is more important is to get to the basic fact, 
which is 9 million Americans are unemployed. That is the real deal. It 
is not whether it is growing--certainly, it is a painful experience for 
those who lost jobs, but there are 9 million Americans who want to work 
and cannot do it. It is up by 3 million since this administration took 
hold. Nobody is pulling that number out of the air. That is why we are 
trying to talk about those jobs versus the four judicial jobs within 
the perspective I tried to relate.
  When you have 95 percent of the positions filled in the judiciary, I 
think somebody is doing their job filling those holes. But we are not 
doing the right things about creating jobs for Americans. That is just 
fact. It is not hyperventilation. Nine million Americans are looking 
for work and they don't have it. By the way, 2 million of them have 
been unemployed longer than 6 months. One could ask what are we doing 
about that. You know, we have not passed a minimum wage, we have not 
extended unemployment insurance for people who are now coming on the 
rolls of the long-term unemployed. We are not really creating a jobs 
program in a serious sense. We have certainly cut taxes and I guess--to 
go back to Econ 101, at some point if you throw enough money into the 
system, we will create some jobs. We have about a $300 billion budget 
deficit and a 1 percent interest rate, and we have had them for a very 
long period of time, at these stimulative levels. At some point, you 
are going to get job growth. Was it an efficient way to do it? I 
wonder, when we have created about $5,000 in debt for every individual 
in America. That doesn't seem to jibe with an efficient use of 
resources. It certainly is not a rampage of growth or a booming economy 
that we have for most Americans.

  The latest economic statistics came out and everybody said how 
wonderful they were. They weren't too good in New Jersey. We lost 
another 11,800 jobs--11,800 manufacturing jobs in the month of August. 
We have a little bit of lag between when the State numbers come out and 
the Federal numbers. We are about to close our last two auto plants in 
New Jersey. We are closing the Ford plant for sure, in Edison, and we 
have the GM plant, which they are going to extend at about half 
production for the next 2 years, and they are going to look at shutting 
it down.
  Every week, we get another major employer laying off manufacturing 
jobs in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey probably has had as strong 
an economy as anyplace because we have the pharmaceutical industry, 
which is growing. But our manufacturing base is out the window.
  We don't talk about those 9 million jobs. We are talking about four 
jobs here, and I don't get it. I don't see what our priorities are. We 
are trying to talk about minimum wage and about transportation and we 
are trying to talk about a whole host of things that would allow us to 
have the opportunity to get this economy going and create jobs for 
those 9 million people--not these 4 folks, where we have already 
approved 98 percent of those interviewing for those jobs.
  I don't know. I am sort of simple, but I think a 98 percent positive 
conclusion out of 172 folks interviewing for these jobs is pretty good. 
We have actually filled in the holes in the Federal judiciary, and we 
have a major problem with 9 million Americans who are looking for work. 
We don't spend any time talking about how we are going to create jobs 
here, except we are going to

[[Page S14587]]

have tax cuts every hour on the hour between now and the next decade, 
which will put debt on my kids and then their kids to follow. We may 
get some job growth as a function of doing this, but was it efficiently 
provided to the American people? I think that is very hard to say.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 224

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to 
legislative session and proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 3, 
S. 224, a bill to increase the minimum wage, that it be read a third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CORZINE. Again, I think we have our priorities mixed up here. 
There are a whole bunch of folks in this country who benefit enormously 
from the minimum wage. When they go out and buy things, that will 
stimulate the economy. One of the great opportunities for us is to deal 
with some of these economic issues that we have, instead of haranguing. 
I think, unfortunately, about these four folks, about whom I think 
there is legitimate reason to have a debate--where they stand on 
judicial philosophy, and how their history is, or how their writings 
fit with settled law and from a constitutional perspective.

  Again, we have put 98 percent of the nominees to work. We have not 
done anything about the 9 million Americans who don't have a job, who 
want to work. There are a whole bunch more who have dropped out of the 
system--I think about 4 million, if memory serves me correctly. It 
strikes me we have our priorities mixed up. I don't understand it. By 
the way, I will go through some other statistics. It is actually mind-
boggling to me that we are spending so much time on four people, when 
the unemployment rate is 6 percent, and 9 million folks are without 
jobs. That is up from 4.1 percent 3 years ago. The poverty rate is up 
from 11.3 percent to 12.1 percent; I think that is 4 million people. 
The percentage of uninsured has gone up from 14.2 percent to 15.2 
percent. About 2 million people have lost their health insurance in the 
last 3 years. The deficit has gone from a $236 billion surplus to a 
$304 billion deficit.
  If somebody was running my company and they had a negative cash flow 
of 500 some odd billion dollars, I think I would find a new CEO. The 
national debt went from $5.6 trillion to $6.8 trillion. I guess that is 
for my grandkids to worry about, and it will be explosive. And judicial 
vacancies have gone down from about 10 percent to 4.6 percent. What is 
this picture? I just don't know where our priorities are in the scheme 
of things. We are talking about four people and we have 9 million 
Americans and a whole bunch who haven't had an increase in the minimum 
wage in 7 years. We cannot even get a vote on it and haven't been able 
to get a vote on it. They are not interested. Does that make any sense? 
I don't get it.
  This is not the right priority where I come from, or for most 
Americans. I would rather fight like crazy for the 9 million people who 
want to work than just four judicial nominees out of the 168 judges who 
have already been approved. It is very important, in my view, that we 
have a proper prioritization and perspective on what is going on here, 
particularly when you look at it in the context of other techniques 
being used to hold up a whole bunch of judges at another period of 
time. We are talking about four here. I am no great legal 
constitutional scholar, but 168 to 4 is a pretty real number, and 55 
folks left out by the other side is a real number.
  I see my very good friend from Arkansas. It looks like he is chomping 
to go to work here. I would very much appreciate it if he has a comment 
on either of the things I have said, or I am sure he has more brilliant 
remarks to make.
  I yield the floor to my friend from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am not sure we have anybody in this 
Chamber or in this body who is more knowledgeable about the economy and 
economic principles than our colleague from New Jersey. He has proven 
himself on the field of battle on these economic issues.
  How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. I want to spend the next few minutes talking about a man 
who was one of President Bush's nominees for a judicial post in the 
Eastern District of Arkansas. He is from Arkansas. While I was not 
consulted on his nomination, I do support his confirmation. Actually, 
this ties in a little with Senator Talent's question of a few moments 
ago. I notice Senator Talent did not accuse the Democrats of being 
obstructionists. Some have, of course, but I know he did not do that 
tonight.
  This is, as Paul Harvey might say, the rest of the story, or at least 
a part of the rest of the story. Leon Holmes is a very distinguished 
lawyer in Little Rock. His academic accomplishments and his love of 
academia are more than evident when you look at his background and 
qualifications for office. He has been a clerk for the Arkansas Supreme 
Court. He has worked for some very prestigious, very well known Little 
Rock law firms. He has been appointed judge on a couple of occasions 
for the Arkansas Supreme Court. In fact, I had the privilege of 
practicing with Leon Holmes in Little Rock in a law firm called Wright 
Lindsay & Jennings, which is truly a wonderful place to practice law. I 
got to know Leon well there and saw his legal acumen up close.
  I understand Leon's qualifications for office. He has won different 
awards. The American Bar Association gave him a well qualified/
qualified stamp. He and I may differ on some issues; nonetheless, he is 
very broadly supported by members of the Arkansas bar, and I support 
him.
  Let me tell you a little bit about the nomination. He was nominated 
by President Bush on January 29 of this year. He went to the Judiciary 
Committee. He got out of Judiciary on May 1--over 6 months ago. He got 
out of Judiciary and he has been languishing on the Executive Calendar 
ever since. In fact, today I sent a letter to the Senate majority 
leader, Bill Frist, and the Judiciary chairman, Orrin Hatch, inquiring 
about the status of Leon Holmes' nomination, asking them to bring his 
nomination forward. If I may, I would like to read a portion of this 
letter into the Record. It says:

       I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 
     nomination of Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court for the 
     Eastern District of Arkansas.
       Mr. Holmes has garnered overwhelming support from the 
     Arkansas State Bar, of which I am a member, and received the 
     rating of Qualified/Well Qualified from the American Bar 
     Association. He possesses the skill, ability, and experience 
     to enable him to serve as a member of the judiciary. While 
     Mr. Holmes and I may differ on some issues, I believe he is 
     well able to carry out his duties according to the 
     Constitution and that he will apply established precedent as 
     judicial canons require.

  The letter goes on basically asking the majority leader and chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee to bring his nomination to an up-or-down 
vote. There is no effort on the Democratic side to filibuster Mr. 
Holmes' nomination, even though I have no doubt a number of my 
Democratic colleagues will vote against him. I remain perplexed as to 
why he has not come to the floor yet.
  I am puzzled why the Republican leadership has yet to bring up his 
nomination. I hope I will receive a response to the letter soon. So as 
Paul Harvey says, that is the rest of the story.
  One reason I wanted to tell this story is because I receive phone 
calls in our office from Arkansas and around the country asking me to 
vote for certain of President Bush's nominations. Our staff will tell 
them: Senator Pryor already voted for 67 of President Bush's judicial 
nominations, and their response is, ``no, he hasn't.''
  Well, sure I have. See, the rest of the story is not being told. I 
think a lot of people around the country perceive we are blocking every 
single judicial nomination that comes down the pike, but that is not 
true. As Senator Corzine mentioned a few minutes ago, the 168 
nominations is a historically high number, just like the 98 percentage 
number is a historically high percentage for approved judicial 
nominations. I don't think you will find that repeated in American 
history.
  We need to keep this in context. Here I am from Arkansas, and I 
support one

[[Page S14588]]

of the President's nominees, but I cannot get him to the floor. There 
is no obstruction on Mr. Holmes, and there is not going to be a 
filibuster. I have talked to many Senators on our side and on the 
Republican side. Yet he has not come up for a vote yet.
  There is one other thing I want to mention in the time I have 
remaining, and that is, back in April, I signed a letter with a number 
of my Republican colleagues, freshman colleagues, about this judicial 
nomination process. I asked the leadership, Senator Frist and Senator 
Daschle, to try to work together with the White House to try to make 
sure we don't get to this point where we are this morning--that is, 
gridlock over some of these nominations.
  There is enough blame to go around, and the last thing I want is a 
30-hour blame-a-thon. I don't want to participate in that. But I do 
think we need to revisit what we are doing. I think we need to put 
things in the past and leave them there and move forward on these 
nominations. If it is payback upon payback, we are never going to get 
anything done. Both sides have some responsibility there.
  Also, I say I believe a big portion of the responsibility rests with 
the White House. After all, the White House starts this process. The 
President is the one, under the Constitution, who does the nominating, 
and I know many of my Democratic colleagues feel they have not been 
consulted--I know I have not been. They feel they have not been 
consulted and, in fact, they have been deliberately shut out of the 
process. I think we need to work with the White House to try to make 
this better.
  I think the White House has a responsibility. We all have some 
responsibility. I think if we work hard, we can make this process work 
much better.
  How much time do we have on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I wish I could say it is a pleasure to be 
here with you at 4 o'clock in the morning. It is certainly always 
enjoyable to see you. This is a subject that is certainly worth 
discussing and it is extremely important. I have not been all that 
involved in it before. There are a number of other issues on which I 
have been working.
  I am here this evening because, when I look at the qualifications of 
the four nominees we are considering, Judge Owen, General Pryor, Judge 
Kuhl, and Justice Brown, those qualifications to me seem so outstanding 
that it seems that, had these nominees come up in the past, they would 
not only have been voted on but they would have been approved, and not 
only approved but approved by an overwhelming majority; as the Senator 
from Pennsylvania said a little while ago, approved by a voice vote. 
Now they are being filibustered.
  For the first time in the Nation's history, court of appeals 
nominations by the President of the United States are being stopped on 
the Senate floor by a minority using the filibuster. It never happened 
before. They filibustered four to this point. I hope that the minority 
will not filibuster two more on Friday.
  I understand there are six other nominations the President has made 
to the court of appeals for whom there is a threat of a filibuster. So 
it is quite possible that by the end of the year a minority of this 
body will have filibustered and stopped on the Senate floor, 12 court 
of appeals nominations, and that has never happened, not even once, in 
the history of the United States.
  Then there are some who stand here and say this is nothing new. It is 
not only new, it is unprecedented. It is not only unprecedented, it is 
action on a scale that nobody even contemplated before. You cannot look 
at the total number of nominations; you have to look at the nominations 
for the courts of appeals. You have to compare apples to apples and 
oranges to oranges if you want these figures to mean anything.
  The President of the United States has nominated 46 people for the 
court of appeals so far; 29 of them have been confirmed, 6 of them have 
been filibustered or very probably will be filibustered by Friday; 
another 6 are threatened to be filibustered. I certainly invite my 
friends who have been part of this filibustering minority to stand here 
and tell us tonight if they don't intend to filibuster any more besides 
the six we are talking about. I don't think they are going to do that. 
That will make a total of 12 filibustered or threatened to be 
filibustered, 12 out of the 46 nominations the President has made to 
the court of appeals.
  One-quarter of the nominations the President has made to the court of 
appeals have been or are threatened to be filibustered. In the past 200 
years, not one was successfully filibustered. It is an unprecedented 
usurpation or attempt to usurp the President's power from the 
Constitution, and the traditions of this body, to nominate people and 
get them appointed to the court of appeals.
  I heard the senior Senator from New York speak. He is my friend and I 
work with him on a number of issues. I find him to be delightful--well 
maybe not delightful, but he is my friend. He is a delight.
  He said the problem is, if they just come to me, I am the ranking 
member of the courts subcommittee, if the White House will just come to 
me before they make these nominations and consult with me. What he was 
saying is that together we could come up with good nominees. I think 
this is what the minority here is aiming to do. When I say the 
minority, I mean the group of people who are filibustering. They want a 
co-Presidency, as far as this is concerned; they hope the President 
will consult with them before making the nominations.
  I love my friend, the senior Senator from New York. Nobody from 
Missouri had a chance to vote for him. We have one President. He makes 
the nominations. The Senate's job is to vote to confirm. How has that 
job been conducted in the past, and exercised in the past? It is worth 
looking at. I say this not as a person who has been a Member of this 
body before this year, but as a citizen of the United States. I have 
looked at what happened in the past when we had these vacancies.

  When the President nominates, what do Presidents traditionally look 
at? What do you think? They look, first, at personal integrity. They 
want to nominate people who have integrity and a reputation for 
integrity. They look for people who they know or people who they know, 
know. In other words, if you want to be nominated to a judgeship, you 
try to talk to people in the administration you know or talk to people 
who know people in the administration. So you contact your Senator or 
you contact somebody in the Department of Justice, just like applying 
for any other job. If you know somebody, you contact him.
  And, of course, Presidents look at qualifications. They look at the 
achievements of prospective nominees in particular fields and then they 
look at relevant biographical information that may be specific to that 
appointment. Perhaps they are looking for a particular ethnic diversity 
or geographic consideration. Then the President and Department of 
Justice put all that together and they nominate somebody and send him 
down here. And then the Senate votes to confirm.
  How has the Senate done that in the past? The Senate has acted as a 
kind of check. The Senate looks at these nominees to make certain they 
have the positive qualifications that the President has said they have. 
The Senate looks at nominees to make certain they have minimum 
achievements and experience so that a lawyer, looking at a nominee, 
would say, yes, that is what a person ought to have to be on the 
Federal court bench.
  The nominee may have been a law professor. They may have been a 
practicing lawyer or a public official. Have they been out of law 
school long enough, received awards, published in their fields, 
litigated enough cases? The Senate looks at that for a minimum. We 
don't want to confirm somebody where the bench and bar around the 
country would look at that person and say, no, they haven't been out of 
law school long enough to serve on the Federal bench.
  Then, of course, the Senate looks at integrity. That is really a 
negative check: to make certain what they don't have. To make certain 
that they don't have stains on their record such that they should not 
serve on the Federal bench. They didn't cheat in law school. They have 
not been found guilty of ethics violations in the practice of law. 
There are not any notorious examples of incompetence in their 
background.

[[Page S14589]]

  That is what the Senate has looked at in the past: where nominees 
have met those qualifications; had that minimum that the Senate looks 
for; have not had the negative things the Senate wants to make certain 
they have not had. In the past, those nominees got a hearing. They were 
voted out of committee. They not only were put on the floor, but they 
got a vote on the floor. They not only got a vote on the floor, but 
they were confirmed, and they were not only confirmed, they were 
typically confirmed by overwhelming majorities, even by Senators who 
were of a different party, who disagreed with their jurisprudence. That 
is what has happened in the past and we have had a tremendous break 
from that precedent and that tradition in this Senate.
  Of that action in the past--some here have said that the Senate 
should not be a rubberstamp. Was the Senate a rubberstamp for 200 
years? No, it was not. What the Senate did was show a respect for the 
constitutional separation of powers, which a minority of this Senate 
now refuses to show.
  Let's suppose families have, in their own way, constitutional 
arrangements just as this country does. Let's suppose that in some 
family the husband and wife have talked about who is going to handle 
the finances. They have decided that because the wife is maybe better 
at those things, or better able to handle those things, that the wife 
is going to handle the finances. If this is beginning to sound like my 
family, the analogy is pretty apt. So the wife in this specific family 
makes decisions regarding investments, and then goes to the husband and 
says: What do you think, I would like to put some money in this? Or I 
would like to invest in this thing.
  The wife gives him the benefit of the doubt. Is that a rubberstamp? 
That is a recognition, then, of the tradition of that family. The wife 
in that case has traditionally done this because that is how it is set 
up. It is not a rubberstamp; it is giving the benefit of the doubt, 
when appropriate, according to the arrangements that have traditionally 
prevailed in that family. That is what the Senate did for 200 years and 
that is what the minority is not doing now. That is why we are losing 
perspective about it.

  I will say this to my good friend from New Jersey, who is accusing us 
of losing perspective: Yes, we are losing perspective because about a 
quarter of the President's nominees to the court of appeals have been 
filibustered or threatened to be filibustered; because the Members who 
are filibustering want to be consulted. They want to be the ones who 
make the nominations when nobody had a chance to vote for them for 
President. That is enough to cause us to lose perspective.
  Why has it changed? What is causing this to happen?
  My friend from Pennsylvania asked that: Why? Why are we doing this? 
It's disrupting this body, it's dividing us, and it's an injustice to 
these people. I am going to get to that at the end if I have time. The 
worst thing about it is these people, who should be confirmed, or would 
have been confirmed 10 years ago, deserve to serve. They worked hard 
and millions of people around the country are going to wonder what is 
wrong with them because we can't even get a vote. It is not right. Why 
has it happened?
  I hear different things. I don't know. I talked to some people. I 
hear things that maybe Members on the other side at some point went to 
a retreat and a bunch of law professors met with them and told them if 
they didn't do something like this there would be an imbalance in the 
Federal courts. If that is true--I hear this, I don't know--I can 
immediately see a basic part of the problem, because we have law 
professors giving advice about something besides the law. I have a rule 
that when law professors give advice about something besides the law, 
it is almost always wrong. I say this as a person who used to be a kind 
of law professor. I never actually made it. I was a fellow, an adjunct 
professor. And they are brilliant and you get them out of their field 
and it is risky to take their advice about anything.
  Let's go back to imbalance. Going back through the Carter Presidency, 
which is back about 26 years--the last generation in the modern era. In 
the last 26 years, there has been a Republican President 14 years, a 
Democratic President 12 years. By the way, I am going to give overall 
figures for district court and court of appeals numbers but they don't 
vary. If you break them out and separate them, they don't vary that 
much.
  President Carter had confirmed 265 nominees to the bench; President 
Clinton, 377, for a total of 644, which is about 53 confirmed per year. 
President Reagan had 384. He was there for 8 years. The first President 
Bush had 195. Up to this point the current President Bush has had 168, 
for 747 over 14 years which is, Mr. President, about 53 per year.
  Where is the imbalance? That a Republican President for 14 years, 
Democrat President for 12 years, they each got about 53 per year and it 
is the same basically whether you break it out for court of appeals. 
They each got basically 10 court of appeals judges per year. There is 
no imbalance.
  We have had balance for the last 200 years, and the reason it has 
worked pretty well, is that the people have elected Presidents from 
different philosophies and different parties. That is how you get 
balance. The only way you get imbalance is if you have Presidents of 
one particular philosophy or one particular party elected year after 
year, term after term after term, and that has happened and there is a 
technical term for that. It is called representative government.
  Yes, if you lose a lot of Presidential elections in a row, there is 
going to be an imbalance on the Federal bench. That is the way it 
happens. The only time it has happened in the 20th century, by the way, 
is when the Democrats had the White House more than 20 years in a row, 
through President Roosevelt, and then through the only President ever 
from Missouri, our great Harry Truman. I don't recall hearing 
Republicans filibustering and claiming imbalance at that time.
  How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 minutes.
  Mr. TALENT. I have 16 minutes.
  What is the other argument I hear over and over? This is why I think 
it is really working, and I respect this because it reflects a sincere 
philosophical conviction. I respect that. One of the things I tell 
people as I travel around and talk about the Senate and about the 
Congress is that I am not an institution guy. I don't stand up and wax 
on and on about how great the Senate is, although it is a great honor 
to be here.
  But I will say about my colleagues, that most people who believe out 
there that people in the Senate don't have convictions are wrong. That 
is why we are here at 4 in the morning. That is the one thing that 
unites us. We are here because we have convictions. We all have other 
places we could be--in bed. We are here because we have convictions.
  The other reason, which is what I really think is working here, is 
out of conviction, the sense that these nominees they are filibustering 
or threatening to filibuster are somehow too extreme. We all know what 
they mean when they say that. We use codes here. It means they are too 
extreme on social issues. Those who are filibustering disagree with 
these nominees on the social issues, and particularly, let's say it, 
that one big social issue: abortion. They disagree with them on that. 
So they are too extreme to be confirmed, too extreme to vote for, too 
extreme even to have a vote because they disagree with them on the 
social issues.
  I have to say, because I have convictions on this, too, that we ought 
to look at what a definition of extreme is here. A lot of folks who are 
saying this voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion. I respect 
their conviction an awful lot but that is a pretty heinous procedure 
and I think America is entitled to ask: Who is extreme?
  The truth is, for this process, for the purpose of confirming Federal 
judges, that is not the kind of analysis either side should be using. 
Because the truth is, if we are honest about it, on the social issues, 
there is not a mainstream. There are tens of millions of Americans who 
are on both sides of those social issues and they are good people, they 
are honest people, and their views deserve respect. People who hold 
those views deserve not to be disqualified, held as unfit for office 
under the Constitution of the United States, just because we disagree 
with them.
  My wife and her law firm visited Washington over the weekend so I

[[Page S14590]]

stayed in town with her. Normally I go home every weekend. There is a 
reason for this digression. Members of her firm visited around town, 
had a great time, and visited the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer was 
kind enough to speak for a few minutes to them. And wasn't it great of 
him, Mr. President, to take his time to do that? He is an able jurist, 
one of the smartest people on the Federal bench.
  He wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court striking down a partial-
birth abortion ban. I couldn't disagree with him more on his 
jurisprudence on that issue. It wouldn't occur to me not to vote to 
confirm him for the Supreme Court. It would not occur to me to say his 
view is extreme on that, because his view is shared by millions and 
millions of people who are part of this political community, too.
  This is one of the reasons why I feel so motivated to be here. Can 
the Senate contain the disagreements that we conscientiously have on 
issues such as this or will those disagreements blow up this process 
that has allowed us all to live together and legislate together for 200 
years? That is the question. It will do that, unless we start treating 
these people we disagree with, with respect.
  We can't force people to come around to our view on these issues, as 
passionately as we may feel. We have to persuade them. You can't 
persuade people unless you can talk to them and listen. And that means 
you can't treat them as if they are pariahs. You can't say to Janice 
Rogers Brown, who served for years as a justice on the California 
Supreme Court, and has overcome obstacles in her life that would have 
stopped 99 percent of other people--and you can't say to her: We 
disagree with you about this so you don't even get a vote. We don't 
respect you enough even to give you a vote. Let's not do that.
  In the past, this body has debated a whole lot of difficult issues, 
issues that were tearing at the fabric of the country. But we have to 
continue as one body and we can't do that unless we treat people with 
respect. We have to understand there is not a mainstream on this.
  We may wish everybody would agree with us, but they do not. We can't 
make that a litmus test. That is what is happening here. That is I 
think what is underlying a lot of things.
  I want to focus on the human element a little bit.
  How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. TALENT. Ten minutes left to inflict myself on the Senate at 4:20 
a.m. I think I will talk a little bit about Judge Kuhl. I have gone 
over her background. It is really extraordinary. I am a lawyer. I 
actually clerked on the court of appeals for a great judge, a good man, 
Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. I know something about Federal 
judges and how they get there. I don't mean any disrespect. I am 
trained well enough as a lawyer not to do that. I guess we are 
protected by the speech and debate clause here. They couldn't come 
after me if I didn't respect that. I respect Federal judges. I wish 
they all had the qualifications these people have.
  There are some of them who got on the court of appeals because they 
knew somebody; in some cases, because they knew somebody in this body.
  Judge Kuhl has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit. She has been a 
judge since 1995; before that, for 9 years she was a partner in a 
prestigious Los Angeles law firm. She was a litigator. We can forgive 
her that. From 1981 to 1986, she served in the Department of Justice as 
Deputy Solicitor Attorney, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and as 
Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. She argued 
cases before the Supreme Court and supervised work of other attorneys. 
She clerked for Judge Anthony Kennedy, then a judge in the Ninth 
Circuit and now a member of the Supreme Court. In 1977, she graduated 
from Duke Law School. She has extraordinary bipartisan support. Listen 
to what people say about her.
  Vilm Martinez, former Director of the Mexican American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, said:

       I'm a lifelong Democrat. . . . Even though we don't share 
     the same political views, necessarily, I consider her 
     mainstream. . . . She's careful and she's thoughtful. She's 
     been an excellent [state court] judge, and I think she will 
     be an excellent 9th Circuit judge, one who will approach that 
     job the way I think that job should be approached: with great 
     care and deference.

  I wish everybody in this body had the broadmindedness of Vilma 
Martinez. Congratulations, Ms. Martinez.
  Twenty-three women judges on the Superior Court of Los Angeles say:

       Judge Kuhl is seen by us and by members of the Bar who 
     appear before her as a fair, careful and thoughtful judge who 
     applies the law without bias.

  She can't get a vote. Don't tell me the Senate has operated this way. 
It hasn't operated this way in the past. They have filibustered, or 
they are threatening to filibuster, about a quarter of President Bush's 
nominees to the circuit court of appeals. Not one ever before 
successfully filibustered on this floor; not one ever before 
filibustered with the support of the leader of either party. It isn't 
right.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. TALENT. I will yield, and the Senator is probably doing the 
Senate a favor by getting me to yield.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I want to review what the Senator talked about. See 
this chart: 168, but that 168 includes district court judges.
  Mr. TALENT. Absolutely.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Explain the difference between a district court judge 
and a circuit court judge when it comes to matters of law and the 
impact of those decisions.
  Mr. TALENT. I am happy to comment on that. Everybody knows what is 
going on here. They are filibustering the court of appeals judges 
because, yes, they are appellate judges. They are the more important 
ones. They are letting the little fish go. They are filibustering, or 
threatening to filibuster, about a quarter of the court of appeals 
judges. Another reason is they think some of these people might get 
nominated to the Supreme Court.
  Mr. SANTORUM. At the District of Columbia level are trial court 
judges who basically preside over trials and the circuit court or 
appeals courts decide matters of law that apply across the circuit, and 
it can have an influence in other circuits. Is that correct?
  Mr. TALENT. That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Most decisions that are appealed from the trial court 
go to the appellate court, or the circuit court, but very few go up to 
the Supreme Court. Is it not true the appellate court makes the final 
decision in a lot of these cases?
  Mr. TALENT. I have read about a group of law professors concerned 
about an imbalance on the court of appeals. That imbalance just doesn't 
exist. The same statistics I read before show Presidents back through 
Jimmy Carter have had each around 10 court of appeals appointments per 
year. It is a little bit more for the Republican Presidents; a little 
over 10, and a little under 10 for the Democrats, but there is no real 
difference. That is why it is very balanced, and we are just coming off 
two terms of a Democrat President. We are now in one term of a 
Republican. The next election is probably going to be close. I think 
that is probably what is working here. I hope my friends on the other 
side of the aisle who are filibustering don't continue to compare 
apples to oranges. Let us at least be fair. If you want to talk about 
how many were filibustered, it isn't 4 out of 168. If they follow 
through on this threat, it will be 12 out of 46, which is about a 
quarter. That was not a high point, even though that is just about a 
quarter. That means that only around 75 percent of them are going to be 
given an up-or-down vote.
  My friend from Arkansas and I work on a lot of things together. She 
is a great Senator. She was saying if her kids brought home 98 percent 
in math, she would be pretty pleased about it. I would, too, if my kids 
brought that grade home. I have three kids. If they brought home 75 
percent in math, I would be a little bit concerned, particularly when 
in the past it has been 100 percent.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think the analogy of the Senator from Minnesota--the 
Senator from Minnesota says if we are forcing what the Constitution 
requires 98 percent of the time, or much worse, 75 percent of the time, 
I think the American public would have a right to throw us out on our 
ears. I think they expect the Senate to enforce the Constitution 100 
percent of the time. Anything less than 100 percent is an abdication of 
that oath we walked over

[[Page S14591]]

there right there on those steps before the Vice President and took. 
The oath has something to do with defending the Constitution--not 98 
percent of the time, not 75 percent of the time, 100 percent of the 
time. That is not what is going on.

  Mr. TALENT. I certainly thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  How much time do I have left, if any?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator has 2 minutes 22 
seconds.
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the Senator for his clarification. I think that 
it is very important.
  In the remaining time, I will just close by reading a little bit more 
about Judge Kuhl. These are real people who are getting unjustly 
treated in this body which is supposed to be about justice.
  Here is what Gretchen Nelson said. She is the officer of the 
Litigation Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and a 
prominent plaintiff's attorney. She probably gave money to my opponent 
in the last election. Here is what she said:

       I am a life-long Democrat. I am also a plaintiff's 
     attorney. My political views are and always have been 
     liberal. I firmly agree with U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in 
     Roe v. Wade, and I trust that the decision will remain 
     viable. I am opposed to the appointment of any judicial 
     nominee who is incapable of ruling based upon a considered 
     and impartial analysis of all the facts and legal issues 
     presented in any matter. Judge Kuhl is not such a nominee and 
     she is well-deserving of appointment to the Ninth Circuit.

  That is what Senators would have said 5 years ago on this floor. 
Don't say it hasn't changed.
  Anne Egerton, former law partner of Judge Kuhl:

       I understand some have raised concerns about Judge Kuhl's 
     commitment to gender equality and reproductive rights. I 
     don't share those concerns.

  Anne Egerton goes through her background with the Arizona Women's 
Political Caucus.

       I have been a registered Democrat for 30 years, and I have 
     supported [Democratic legislators]. I have no reservations in 
     recommending Judge Carolyn Kuhl for appointment to the Ninth 
     Circuit. I know her to be committed to the rule of law and 
     the application of governing precedents in the area of 
     reproductive freedom; that precedent, of course, includes Roe 
     v. Wade and the many cases which have applied.

  I don't think there is anything more to be said. I wish we could get 
consent to vote on these nominees and then we could go on to other 
business of the Senate. This is important.
  What is happening to these people is wrong. What is happening to the 
Senate is unfortunate and bad for the country. That is why I am here 
and that is why we are all here at 4:30 in the morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here this morning to discuss the 
status of judges. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
been rather adamant in claiming they may have been mistreated. I think 
there is a contradiction in their argument. Frankly, what I witnessed 
here as a Member of this body over the last several years in the 
Clinton administration was a process of systematically denying the 
nominees of President Clinton--qualified, indeed, very qualified 
nominees in their positions on the Federal bench--doing it not on the 
floor as we are doing here openly, but using what I would describe as a 
pocket filibuster. We are all aware of the notion of a pocket veto. The 
Constitution allows the President a certain number of days to exercise 
his veto, but at the end of a session he doesn't have to exercise that. 
He simply has to put the bill in his pocket and it will not become law. 
That is essentially what the Republican majority did here to so many of 
President Clinton's nominees. They refused to give these individuals 
hearings. They refused to take up the nominations or to seriously allow 
a process for the committee to deliberate and to consider and to 
recommend them for an up or down vote.

  Today, for the majority to come and claim they are being mistreated 
and that the Constitution is being violated is to me a profound 
contradiction because they have very determinedly and consistently 
denied even a hearing to so many well-qualified individuals who were 
nominated by President Clinton.
  That is not to suggest we are in any way trying to match their 
conduct. The fact we are here on the floor exercising our rights under 
the rules of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States to 
make a statement about judges, to make a statement about individuals 
who we feel for many reasons lack either the qualifications or the 
judicial temperament to serve successfully on the Federal bench, makes 
the record quite clear. That is in contrast to the pocket filibusters.
  We have been very active and cooperative in moving 168 judges through 
the committee process to the floor of the Senate and to ultimate 
confirmation by the Senate. It is a remarkable record.
  In the last year alone, I believe we have confirmed more judges than 
were confirmed under President Reagan's tenure with a Republican Senate 
at the time. This is not a record of evasion of our constitutional 
responsibilities. This is a record of meeting our constitutional 
responsibilities, one of which is to exercise our individual judgment 
as Senators as to the qualification of anyone to serve on the Federal 
bench. But as I mentioned before, what we saw so consistently and so 
persistently under the previous President was a Republican strategy of 
blocking judges by a pocket filibuster; not here on the floor, but off 
the floor, denying them right to a hearing.
  Let me suggest this has a very pernicious effect on so many women who 
were nominated by President Clinton. This is a report of some of the 
judges nominated by President Clinton for consideration by this Senate:
  Kathleen McCree-Lewis for the Sixth Circuit--again, my colleagues 
have been going on and on about the importance of the circuit judges. 
They are important. What happened when President Clinton nominated 
Kathleen McCree-Lewis to the Sixth Circuit? She never got a vote; never 
got around to the process of hearings, a debate in committee, a 
recommendation to the floor of the Senate; never got through to us for 
a vote. Helene White to the Sixth Circuit, never got a vote; Elena 
Kagan to the D.C. Circuit, never got a vote.
  By the way, Ms. Kagan is today dean of the Harvard Law School. Is 
there anyone who would suggest she was not qualified to be a Federal 
judge? I think that would be quite an extreme statement. She was more 
than qualified to be a Federal judge, but she never got a vote.
  Elizabeth Gibson to the Fourth Circuit, never got a vote; Christine 
Arguello to the Tenth Circuit, never got a vote; Bonnie Campbell to the 
Eighth Circuit, never got a vote; Patricia Coan to the District of 
Colorado, never got a vote; Valerie Couch to the District of Oklahoma, 
never got a vote; Rhonda Fields to the District Court for the District 
of Columbia, never got a vote; Dolly Gee to the Central District of 
California, never got a vote; Marian Johnston to the Eastern District 
of California, never got a vote; Sue Myerscough to the Central District 
of Illinois, never got a vote; Lynette Norton to the Western District 
of Pennsylvania, never got a vote; Linda Riegle to the District of 
Nevada, never got a vote; Cheryle Wattley to the Northern District of 
Texas, never got a vote; Lynee Lasry to the Southern District of 
California, never got a vote; Wenona Whitfield to the Southern District 
of Illinois, never got a vote; and Anabelle Rodriguez to the District 
of Puerto Rico, never got a vote.
  That is the record of the pocket filibuster; nominated by the 
President of the United States; qualified; and, indeed one of these 
individuals I point out is now the dean of the Harvard Law School, but 
they never got a vote of any kind.
  That is what we saw: The rules of the Senate being used by the 
majority to frustrate the nominees of the President of the United 
States. Then to come to this floor and claim this is now unprecedented 
and a usurpation of the Constitution of the United States when we are 
simply exercising our rights on the floor under the rules of the Senate 
to express our opinion as to the quality and qualifications of nominees 
to the Federal bench is I think certainly a contradiction.

  With respect to some of these judges, I think the key issue here is 
judicial temperament. Indeed, there is a certain degree of sensitivity 
about judicial

[[Page S14592]]

temperament as one goes from the district court to the court of 
appeals. It is often the case that a district court judge is younger 
and the thought is that person will mature on the bench and maybe in 
future days will be of such experience and demonstrated judicial 
temperament that she or he would be promoted to the circuit court of 
appeals, and then there are direct nominees to the circuit court. But 
again, you have to look at someone's breadth of experience, maturity, 
and intellect, and again their judicial temperament.
  The nominees who have been identified and have been questioned by 
Democrats are individuals by and large whose judicial temperament is 
quite questionable.
  Priscilla Owen has had a long history of putting her own personal 
opinion above the law, of injecting political ideology into the law, 
rather than following precedent.
  One of the things about a circuit court judge is you have to follow 
precedent. The Supreme Court can try to create law, but a circuit court 
must follow precedents of the Supreme Court. In case after case after 
case, there were such situations in which she just defied precedent. 
There is a case of medical malpractice, Weiner v. Watson, when one of 
our colleagues, the junior Senator from Texas, was on the Texas Supreme 
Court Justice, and he unequivocally rejected Judge Owen's argument, 
stating it was contrary to the Texas State Constitution.
  Are we going to put people on courts of the United States who have a 
predilection to not follow the Constitution? I think not. That is one 
example.
  You can see the same with Justice Brown who is a justice of the 
California courts. She has been criticized on the bench for injecting 
her own personal views and not following precedent. On a number of 
occasions, Republican colleagues have criticized her dissenting 
opinions for their judicial activism. In one case, Brown was 
``chastized for imposing a personal theory of political economy on the 
bench contrary to established precedent.''
  In another, she was chastized for refusing to accept acknowledged 
previous judicial precedent. That charge is extremely serious when you 
are dealing with a judge who is charged with following the precedent, 
following the Constitution, and following the law.
  The same may be said about Judge Kuhl; again, ideology rather than 
legal temperament and legal reasoning seems to be her forte.
  There is case after case after case. There are reasons, solid reasons 
to question these nominees. Our job as Senators is to raise those 
questions.
  There have been 168 judges confirmed by the Senate for President 
Bush, a record number, a remarkable number. In fact, vacancies on the 
Federal judiciary are the lowest they have been in recent memory. It is 
because we have been working together. But that does not mean we 
surrender our obligation to question and challenge those judges who do 
not meet the test of judicial temperament, nonpartisan application of 
the law, and nonideological application of the law. And there are those 
whose nominations have failed.
  That is what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they created a 
system of advise and consent. It is not advise and approve. It is 
advise and consent. The Senate plays an active role. There is no group 
of people who played a more active role in considering the nominees, 
certainly of President Clinton, than the Republican majority today. 
They did it persistently. They did it deliberately. They did it 
consciously. We are exercising constitutional powers.
  One of the examples that was used and one of the judges who was an 
eminent jurist in California, nominated for the Ninth Circuit, is Judge 
Richard Paez. He was subject to cloture votes. He was subject to 
situations in which he was challenged. That is the rule. You get to do 
that. In fact, Judge Paez waited 1,500 days even to get a vote. That is 
not the case with these nominees. There were 1,500 days in which he was 
nominated to the Ninth Circuit. His nomination was in limbo. Finally, 
there was a vote and people rose up. Some supported a motion for 
cloture; others rejected it. So this notion that it is unprecedented to 
challenge a nominee for the Federal judiciary through the cloture 
process is fanciful. It has happened very recently. It happened with 
Judge Paez.
  He is not the only one. Sixty-four of President Clinton's nominees 
never received a floor vote. One nominee, Ronnie White, was defeated on 
a floor vote.
  We have a situation where the deeds and actions are not wrapped in 
the dim mist of history. These nominations were before the Senate 2 or 
3 years ago. The deeds don't match the words we are hearing today. All 
of the outrage about the constitutional challenge and crisis. That 
outrage was certainly not manifested a few years ago when Judge Paez 
was waiting 1,500 days for a hearing and then was subject to a cloture 
vote just as these nominees are being subject to cloture votes.
  That is one point. But there is a larger point. We are spending hours 
and hours and hours to demonstrate a supposed crisis, the fact that 4 
individuals out of 172 have not been confirmed by this Senate, when in 
fact there are much greater problems facing this Nation. We have an 
unemployment rate that continues to hover around 6 percent, a budget 
deficit that is exploding and inhibiting appropriate action by this 
Senate on so many important issues--education reform, worker training, 
dealing with issues both large and small.
  We have a crisis internationally that is costing us the lives of our 
soldiers and military personnel and billions of dollars from our 
Treasury. We are spending all night, long, precious hours conducting a 
demonstration, when we should be working on appropriations bills and we 
should be dealing with the issues that confront the families of 
America. I think it is really a demonstration of listen to what I say, 
don't watch what I do. Because when we watch what the Republicans do, 
the record is remarkable, the high number of President Bush's judicial 
nominees who have gone through. It is extraordinary compared to the 
treatment President Clinton received.
  I would hope when we finish this exercise, we can in fact go forth 
and deal with the issues which are essential and should be dealt with. 
We have a minimum wage that has been stuck for years now. It should be 
increased. We have a host of other issues that need addressing. I hope 
we can.
  I yield to my colleague, Senator Corzine.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Rhode Island has complained about how 
the Clinton nominations were treated. Does the Senator from Rhode 
Island know there were 42 judges who were not brought forward out of 
committee. But at the end of the Bush presidency, Bush 1, there were 54 
judges not brought forward out of committee? Under a Democratic Senate, 
President Bush 1 had 54 that were not considered. Under a Republican 
Senate, President Clinton only had 42 nominees. I would just suggest 
the record by the Republican Senate was actually better than the last 
Democratic Senate.

  Mr. REED. Let me reclaim my time. I would simply say regardless of 
the residue of judges in the Bush administration versus the end of the 
Clinton administration, the point I am making is there was apparently a 
very consistent effort on the part of Republicans to deny votes to all 
manner of judges. I think 64 of President Clinton's nominees never got 
a vote, never got to the floor. I have the time. I think what it 
amounts to is a very deliberate protest, which the majority has the 
power to do, of using the committee process to deny hearings and to 
deny votes.
  It is a contradiction then to come to the floor and say: We can use 
the rules of the Senate. We can use these rules and we can deny judges, 
but if the Democrats choose to use the rules of the Senate to challenge 
a judicial nominee of the President, Bush or otherwise, that represents 
a violation of the Constitution.
  That is my point. The point is borne out regardless of the residue of 
judges of either administration. The record today, this Senate and the 
Senate under the leadership of Tom Daschle, shows we have done a 
remarkable job in confirming this President's nominees. That was not 
suggested in the treatment of President Clinton's nominees.
  I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

[[Page S14593]]

  Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the discussion my colleague from Rhode 
Island brought up. I wanted to clarify one point of questions about an 
individual. Did you suggest Elena Kagan is now the dean of the Harvard 
Law School?
  Mr. REED. I suggested it because that is my understanding, that she 
was nominated for the District of Columbia circuit and she is now the 
dean of the Harvard Law School. She is a remarkable dean. I am somewhat 
prejudiced since I graduated from Harvard Law School, but she is a 
remarkable personality.
  Mr. CORZINE. Was she unable to get a hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee when President Clinton nominated her for circuit court?
  Mr. REED. Let me just say my recollection is she was not given a vote 
after being nominated to the court.
  Mr. CORZINE. So she suffered from what you were suggesting, a pocket 
veto.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORZINE. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Do you know when the nominee you are talking about was 
nominated for that position?
  Mr. CORZINE. As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, I was just 
inquiring myself to try to find out more about this. This is not one of 
those I was aware of. I have a whole list of folks who waited 1,454 
days, 1,000 days for a hearing, 602 days. If somebody looked at one of 
those nominees who was not allowed to come to the floor of the Senate 
for a vote, at least a broad group of folks who review the 
qualifications of an individual, you are qualified enough to be the 
dean of Harvard Law School but somehow not qualified to have a vote on 
the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield for a point of information.
  Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.
  Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is the nominee you are referring to 
was nominated in August, 2 months before the election.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania would 
allow, I don't know what elections have to do with confirming nominees, 
if they have gone before the Judiciary Committee and they are 
qualified. That seems disingenuous in the context of, we have qualified 
folks. They ought to be dealing with the circumstance of having an 
opportunity to be reviewed and brought to the floor. What we are 
debating is what is the technique that has been used at different times 
in our history--by the way, the pretty immediate history--to deal with 
a very simple question that some people want to understand the judicial 
philosophy and actions, how an individual will deal on the court. 
Sometimes when Republicans are not controlling the White House, they 
are willing to use the committee system to make that happen. Some of us 
on our side of the aisle sort of wouldn't mind debating folks on the 
floor, using the rules to make sure we bring out extremists' points of 
view.

  I point out, 168 to 4. I will go through the circuit courts in a 
minutes.
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CORZINE. Yes.
  Mr. REED. A question has come up about Elena Kagan's nomination. I 
have some information. Ms. Kagan was nominated in June of 1999. For 18 
months, there was no action on her nomination. I believe her nomination 
was certainly available for action by the committee and by the relevant 
bodies of the Senate for 18 months, yet she never received a hearing 
and there was no floor vote.
  Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the Senator from Rhode Island helping me 
respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania's question: 18 months, not 2 
months; no hearing; no floor vote; someone who at least some folks who 
look at legal capacity and qualifications thought enough of, after she 
was not reviewed by the Senate either with a hearing or floor vote, to 
become the dean of the Harvard Law School.
  Again, my point is, we seem to be talking out of a sort of surreal 
context. One hundred sixty-eight to four is on the face of it an 
important statement of how there has been cooperation. I went through 
in New Jersey five for five on district court judges and one circuit 
court judge. When people work together, you can get the positive 
results in this whole process.
  The 168 to 4 shows we can have a positive result. Ninety-five percent 
of all judicial positions are filled. That, by the way, is in contrast 
with only 75 percent at the end of the Clinton administration, because 
there had been such a limited number of folks who had been able to 
actually get a hearing and ultimately a floor vote.
  There is also the statement that we are somehow or another being far 
more restrictive. I do want to review that it is 10 times the number of 
nominees blocked by the technique of not giving hearings or allowing 
for nominations to be reported to the floor that occurred in the 
Clinton administration. It was 63 nominees blocked in the 1995-to-2000 
period, against 2 percent so far in the 2001-to-2003 period of Bush 
nominees. There is something about the raw numbers of this that don't 
make sense and wouldn't to anyone if they actually focused on them in a 
commonsensical way.
  I want to get to the circuit court judge issue. If you look back to 
the Carter administration on through, we heard it is roughly 10 circuit 
court judges a year per individual. This is sort of like figuring out 
when the best rate of return in the market is over the last 50 years. 
You can pick certain sections and everything looks wonderful. I would 
just like to look in this 1995-to-2000 period when Clinton nominees 
were languishing in the hearing room. Hearings held for judicial 
nominees averaged for the Clinton administration 9 versus 22 with 
respect to what is going on in the current situation. Judicial nominees 
given hearings, 43 versus 81. Circuit court judges, nominees given 
hearings, 9 under President Clinton, 19 circuit court. That is on 
average. The confirmation is 68 judges confirmed on an annual basis 
versus 38 in the Clinton years. That is 1995 to 2000. Circuit court 
judges, it was only 7, not 10 as we heard before, if you look at that 
1995-to-2000 period. It is 12 judges under the current administration.
  We can pick these numbers, any number you want, to try to make cases. 
But the fact is, we are approving more judges, we are dealing with the 
situation on a much more legitimate basis, on an ongoing basis than 
what occurred in the previous administration.
  I just happen to have the yearbook of those folks who were left out 
in 1995 to 2000. There could be four we would have here supposedly 
under the current situation.
  By the way, I happen to know one of these judges, Stephen Orlofsky, a 
district judge in New Jersey who was unanimously confirmed for district 
court judge and then never got a hearing. I happened to know the 
specifics of that because it was closer to home. Ultimately we just 
filled this position with Michael Chertoff who seems to me to be a fine 
appointment, one I recommended, stood by and pushed very hard for 
because people worked together. They cooperated, the White House, the 
folks in the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators from the area. I 
think this can be done. I think 168 to 4 shows it is being done. I 
would contrast that with the over 50 nominees, 1995 to 2000, who never 
got a hearing.

  I am just going to point out two of these. Judge Helene White of 
Michigan was nominated to the Sixth Circuit, waited in vain 4 years, 
1,454 days for a hearing. It may not be a filibuster on the floor, but 
for 1,454 days she couldn't get a hearing. I think it gets to the same 
result. We are not dealing with Presidential nominations. The fact is, 
there were 55 of these folks. In fact, we have only identified four who 
seemed to be so far out of the mainstream that a number of us are 
concerned about how that fits.
  I could go through this. There is a James Beatty from North Carolina 
nominated to the Fourth Circuit. He didn't get a hearing either, waited 
3 years, 1,033 days, never got a hearing. This went on. You could get 
on down into the weeds on a whole series of these folks. But these 
people never got a hearing. It is just a different technique. We are 
talking about four people. There is a legitimate view that their 
actions were outside the mainstream. Maybe they got votes once they got 
to the floor, but they never got out of committee. I think that is a 
major issue.

[[Page S14594]]

  The other thing I will segue off into is the issue the Senator from 
Rhode Island talked about. What is really hard about this is there is 
an incredible agenda for America to be discussing. I think we could 
afford to spend 30 hours talking about how we put 9 million Americans 
back to work. I think it is pretty hard to understand how we got the 
priorities. We have 168 positive elements with regard to our judicial 
nominations accepted and only 4 turned down, but we have had 3 million 
lost jobs, 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs. We have had the deficit 
go from a $236 billion surplus to a $304 billion deficit. We have seen 
a $500 billion plus negative cashflow because we are managing the 
economy poorly. We have seen it hurt and bite real individuals, 9 
million. Two million people have been unemployed longer than their 
unemployment benefits would allow; 4 million people have dropped off 
the rolls.
  It is an incredible misprioritization, in my view, that we are 
talking about four judges when there are 9 million people that we ought 
to be figuring out how to get back to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. We will be back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to respond to what the Senator 
from New Jersey has said. I think to put it into the proper context, 
the Senator from New Jersey is talking about people who were nominated 
by President Clinton who didn't get hearings. Most of the people who 
didn't get hearings had blue-slip problems. Democrats, right now, are 
holding members of their States in committee--right now--with blue 
slips. That has been done.
  In fact, there are a whole bunch from Michigan being held by the 
Senators from Michigan for the circuit court, by blue slips. Democrats 
are holding up judges right now. So the idea that we are going to 
compare that, which has been a historical right of Senators, to the 
home State being consulted on nominations for the district court--
speaking as a Senator from Pennsylvania, I can certainly suggest to the 
President who I would like him to look at for the circuit court from my 
State. But I don't get a right to tell him who it is. The precedent has 
not been that way. The Senators from Michigan are blue-slipping these 
nominees and they have blue-slipped others.
  Some of the nominees pointed out by the Senator from New Jersey, held 
by the Clinton administration, were actually pulled by the Clinton 
administration. The number that were actually not pulled because of FBI 
problems were 42, not 63; 42 did not receive a hearing. Some of them 
had blue-slip problems.
  Members were not properly consulted from the States. Some were 
Democrats and some were Republicans. This has been a practice 
throughout Senate history. The question is not whether that practice 
should be changed. Some suggest--and, in fact, there has been a 
movement by several people to try to change that process. But this is 
something that is a prerogative of home State Senators, which has been 
a prerogative of home State Senators throughout the tradition of the 
Senate. It is one that I think most Members would say is probably a 
good thing.
  Home State Senators are consulted by the President before people from 
their State are nominated. They should have some advice and consent 
into the process. When they don't, some Senators get very upset about 
that and they sign a negative blue slip.
  So let's talk about apples to apples. We have 42 Clinton nominees not 
acted upon for a variety of different reasons; some the committee 
didn't like, some were blue-slipped, some were submitted late in the 
process. So there were 42, after 8 years. There were 377 confirmed 
nominees and 1 was defeated on the Senate floor. There were zero 
filibusters on the floor.
  Under President Bush 41, there were 54 nominees not considered by the 
Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee--more than President Bush, 
substantially less number of nominees confirmed by the Senate.
  Now, we don't know how many George W. Bush nominees are not going to 
be confirmed by the end of this year or next year, but there will be 
some. Some will be nominated late in the process, and it takes a while 
for the process to work. There will always be some in the pipeline. 
That is the way the process works. So the idea that we are going to 
take the normal process of processing judges here and say we have not 
considered every one of them and that sort of makes everything all 
equal, no it does not.

  The issue here is that, once the Judiciary Committee has done their 
job, just as every committee here does their job--lots of committees 
have nominations. It is their job to scrub them and find out whether 
they are qualified and capable to do the job and report them to the 
Senate floor if they think they are.
  I was on the Armed Services Committee. We reviewed thousands of 
nominations; some we didn't report out because we didn't think they 
were proper for promotion or appointment. That is the obligation of the 
committee.
  We get lots of bills in these committees. Is every bill that we don't 
report out somehow as a result of a filibuster in the Senate? I don't 
think so. That is the job of the committee. Once the committee makes 
the determination and the majority of the committee--whatever it is, 
Democrat or Republican, or a combination--reports a nominee out, 
reports a bill out, the question is, what happens on the floor of the 
Senate?
  With respect to nominations, since the filibuster rule was put into 
place, 2,372 nominations have come to the floor of the Senate, and not 
1 has ever been stopped from an up-or-down vote. Not one. All of them 
received up-or-down votes.
  This idea that 168 to 4--we keep hearing that is a good percentage. 
Is it? Is it a good percentage when the four are subjected to a process 
that has never been done before? It is soon to be 6, promises to be 12. 
All of a sudden, 4, 6, 12--exponential growth here. Why? Because we are 
going down a very twisted and tortured path, with the logic that is 
being followed by the minority in the Senate. What is happening here 
has never happened in the history of the Senate.
  This is a great body. Incredible debates have occurred here in the 
past. This is the greatest deliberative body in the world. It should 
be. We should talk about these issues. It is great that we are here all 
through the night talking about this. But in the end, our 
responsibility, according to the Constitution, is what every other 
Senate for 107 sessions of the Senate, for 214 years, has done. Our 
responsibility under the advise and consent clause of the Constitution 
is to consider judicial nominations and give them a vote up or down. 
That is what every Senate leader, every Senator who had the opportunity 
to have an impact on this process--they all came down with the decision 
that that is what this constitutional provision meant--until this year.
  Some have suggested, well, these judges are so far out of the 
mainstream; they are so bad; there have never been judges this bad; 
these guys are really bad; they are not just bad, they are really bad, 
worse than we have ever seen in 214 years; nobody has ever been this 
bad; therefore, we have to change the rules.
  Let's talk about a couple of judges. One who I voted against--I will 
use one of them--was Judge Paez, who was referred to on the other side. 
I voted against Judge Paez. But I voted for cloture. I thought Judge 
Paez would be one of the worst judges this country would ever see. I 
didn't want him to be a judge. He was already a judge in district 
court, but I would loathe to put him on the Ninth Circuit because I 
thought he would absolutely take the Constitution and set a match to it 
and throw it in the trash can and do whatever he damn well pleased.

  Well, they are saying that Judge Pickering is so far out of the 
mainstream that he would light a match to the Constitution and throw it 
away and do whatever he pleases. That is pretty much what they are 
saying. Well, let's look at Judge Pickering and Judge Paez and see what 
they did with two similar cases.
  Judge Paez and Judge Pickering both had cases before them having to 
do with sentencing guidelines. Judge Pickering didn't like the 
sentencing guidelines that were before him in a case. The other side 
has used this case

[[Page S14595]]

as their principal reason--one of them--of opposing Judge Pickering. 
They didn't like the way he dealt with this case because he didn't like 
the sentencing guidelines. So what did Judge Pickering do that they 
really don't like? They find it deplorable conduct that this judge 
would do this. What did he do? He complained about it. He complained 
about it. That is it. Judge Pickering complained about it.
  What did Judge Paez do? He struck it down and said it was 
unconstitutional.
  Now, who is the judge that is throwing the Constitution in the trash 
can? What was the provision that Judge Paez struck down and said was 
unconstitutional? The three strikes and you are out provision, which 
was voted in by the people of California. What happened to Judge Paez? 
His decision was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Who is the mainstream and who is the extreme? Every time you hear 
mainstream over there, put an X in front of it. It has nothing to do 
with mainstream. It is extreme. It is dangerous.
  Let's talk about some of other Judge Paez's decisions. He was one who 
tried to stop the California election a few months ago. Yes, he was one 
of the ones who said it is unconstitutional for them to do that. Oh, by 
the way, he was also on the Pledge of Allegiance case and said ``under 
God'' should not be in the pledge. Oh, he is very mainstream, the kind 
of guy we really want. The Senator from New York said tonight, ``I 
think he is in the mainstream.'' Understand, folks, what mainstream is: 
``Under God'' not allowed in the pledge, the three strikes and you are 
out law is unconstitutional, and the California election is 
unconstitutional. If I don't like it, it is unconstitutional. That is 
mainstream? A government of men, not of laws is mainstream? This is 
very dangerous, folks.
  People ask me all the time: Senator, why should this matter to us, 
what is going on here? Why does this matter? What do judges have to do 
with my life? Well, the answer to that question should be: not much. 
That is what the answer should be--not much. Unless you get into 
trouble one way or another, it should not matter that much to you at 
all.
  What a judge should do is as little as possible. They should try to 
make decisions based on the narrowest law possible, not try to make 
pronouncements and change the law from the bench or amend the 
Constitution from the bench. They should do as little as possible.
  See, that bothers a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. They don't want judges who will do as little as possible. What 
they are concerned about with Judge Pickering is not that he will do as 
little as possible. They are concerned he will do as little as 
possible, that he will make decisions based on the narrowest grounds, 
not broad, sweeping grounds, the grounds that change laws and create 
new rights or responsibilities. No, they want someone who will put 
their world view in the law that they cannot accomplish through the 
legislative process. They want judges who will do it through the 
judicial process. That is what they are getting. They don't want 
anybody who will say we are going to stop doing that.

  That is not what the Founders wanted us to do here. If they wanted us 
to respect the legislative branch and presume that what they pass is 
constitutional--if in fact it is not, we have problems--then decide the 
issue on the narrowest grounds. That is what we want. That is not what 
they want.
  I am really troubled. I am really troubled by what I see going on in 
the Senate of people who are willing--for what? For what cause? Are 
they willing to take the Constitution of the United States, when it 
comes to the confirmation of judicial nominees, which has been upheld 
by every Congress in history, and turn it on its ear to accomplish some 
goal?
  My question is--and I asked it earlier--in 214 years, no group of 
Senators ever decided that it was what they cared about, with respect 
to the courts, that it was so important that they were willing to go 
against the Constitution, which says a simple majority for advise and 
consent. It did not require a supermajority. They were going to go 
against the Constitution and raise the bar. No Senate in history said 
we were going to raise the bar and require a supermajority vote, given 
all of the incredible issues that we had to deal with in the Senate; no 
Senate has ever said the issue today is so important that we need to 
raise this bar, that it is best for our country to do that. Why? 
Because most Senators always felt, as I deeply feel, that we are a 
Nation of laws, and this Nation of laws and of constitutional law is 
important to preserve. We should not just throw it over for an 
immediate political whim, or policy whim, because once the process is 
corrupt, once the law is violated, once the procedures are changed, you 
cannot put the genie back into the bottle.
  What this debate tonight is all about, this process we are going 
through is is a plea. Someone suggested it is not a very effective plea 
because the chances of getting a vote up or down on the judges is not 
very high. Yet it is a plea. It is a plea to those who have done 
something unprecedented in the history of this Chamber to stop. If they 
stop and they admit this was wrong, that this was not the way to deal 
with judicial nominations, that this is not a precedent they want to 
set--not 4 times, or 6 times, or 12 times but probably many times after 
that--and that this is not the right way to handle judicial 
nominations, maybe then we can bring some civility back to this 
process. Maybe we can say to the people who want to serve this country 
in one of the most honorable ways they can--to be a judge--a very 
important function in our society, maybe we will be able to attract the 
best and brightest to come here and offer up their services and not 
feel they are going to be put through a washing machine or, worse yet, 
maybe somebody who cares about the long-term health of our judiciary, 
that we don't politicize it by applying litmus tests. Let's just lay 
the cards on the table. What is this cause? What is this cause that the 
other side is so passionate about that they had to change the rules? 
The cause is the right to privacy. That is the cause--Roe v. Wade.

  I have given many talks on abortion on the floor of the Senate. I 
said the right to privacy under Roe v. Wade has had its tentacles reach 
out and corrupt so many areas of our culture: abortion, eugenics, 
euthanasia, stem cell research, cloning, the right to same-sex 
marriage--all of these rights come from this right to do whatever you 
believe is right for you to do. You are the law. You have the right to 
do whatever you want to do. That is where this right comes from.
  I said it has infected and poisoned the culture beyond what people 
even today realize: the cheapening of the value of human life, the 
debasement of the family, the basic social structure of our country. It 
is corroding and eroding who we are. But I forgot one, it is now 
corroding and eroding the Senate.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HATCH. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator, we have 
seen this poster they have over there: 168, and only 4 stopped. But 
isn't it true that there are at least 12 circuit court of appeals 
nominees, ones who correct lower courts who many times make mistakes, 
who are being held up in filibusters here--not just four?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, there have been 28 or 29 circuit court judges 
confirmed. Out of that 168, there are 29.
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So as the Senator from Missouri said further, the 
little fish they let go through the nets but they catch the big fish, 
the folks who rule on the law, who have the ability to influence the 
character of the law in this country, the appellate level. They catch 
the big fish in the net. They have let 29 go through. But 29 to 12, 
that is about a third of the nominees that the President has put up for 
the circuit court who have been caught.
  I ask the Senator from Utah if he knows what is the usual percentage 
of circuit court--by the way, let me state this. Never have circuit 
court judges ever been filibustered, ever. But let's set aside the 
unconstitutional filibuster occurring right now, the unprecedented 
abuse of the Senate rules that is occurring here right now. Let's go 
back as if this were being done on an up-or-down vote.

[[Page S14596]]

  What percentage of Presidential nominees for the circuit court get 
through and are approved in a normal course?
  Mr. HATCH. Normally in the Reagan-Bush I-Clinton years, 80 to 85 
percent--85 to 90 percent.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So 85 percent are approved; the rest are held in the 
committee.
  Mr. HATCH. By the end of the third year.
  Mr. SANTORUM. By the end of the term. Can you recall, let's say, what 
is the percentage in the first 2 years of an administration? What was 
the percentage in the last few years under Clinton, under Bush I, and 
under Reagan?
  Mr. HATCH. Well, in the case of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, 91 
percent, if I recall correctly.
  Mr. SANTORUM. It was 91 percent.
  Mr. HATCH. People don't realize how important these circuit courts of 
appeals are. We have shown this chart that they have is not only 
inaccurate, it is a bold-faced lie. Because they can't really come out 
here with a straight face and admit they are going to filibuster at 
least 12 circuit judges and some district court judges.

  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the chairman, my understanding is they are only 
putting four up so they are suggesting they are not filibustering 
Janice Rogers Brown and they are not filibustering Carolyn Kuhl.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration 
of Calender No. 455, the nomination of Janice Brown to a United States 
Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Circuit, provided further 
that there be--pick a number--50 hours of debate equally divided for 
the consideration of the nomination, provided further that following 
the debate the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the 
nomination with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I object.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So that is 168 to 5. Let's go to the next.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration 
of Calendar No. 169, Carolyn Kuhl to be a United States Circuit Judge 
for the Ninth Circuit, provided further that there be 100 hours of 
debate equally divided for the consideration of the nomination, 
provided further that following debate the Senate proceed to a vote on 
the confirmation of the nomination with no further intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I object.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think we need to change the chart. It has to be 168 
to 6 now. Anytime the chart comes up I think everybody here, for the 
record, should make it clear, 168 to 4 is now an outdated chart.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. It is a total misrepresentation is what it is.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator concede that there is a difference 
between a Senator objecting to a unanimous consent request which had 
not been presented before on the Senate floor and the stage of a 
filibuster?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator that in normal cases I would say 
that may be the case. But it is clear we are going to have a cloture 
vote on Friday on this nominee. It is abundantly apparent to everyone 
who has been listening to these proceedings that the chances of the two 
gentlewomen from California, Ms. Kuhl and Ms. Brown, being given the 
record 60 votes to defeat cloture, or to get cloture, is highly 
unlikely. So we are not going to be able to get cloture. That is at 
least what we have been hearing from the other side. We are not going 
to get cloture. We can't get unanimous consent. It sounds like a 
filibuster to me.
  So I agree in part getting a unanimous consent is not in and of 
itself a grounds for saying it is being filibustered but voting against 
cloture certainly is. Other than the Senator from Georgia, that has 
seemed to be the order of the day on that side of the aisle.
  I am a very optimistic person so I am hopeful I am wrong.
  Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. ALLEN. When my colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
talks about what makes this different for the Democrats, the difference 
is really about 3 years and a different President. I have looked at 
previous statements made by Senators on these issues, though I was not 
a Member of the Senate until 2001, and I am listening to all of these 
arguments being made now. I was earlier in the day quoting--much 
earlier in this day----
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yesterday.
  Mr. ALLEN. Yesterday. Time really passes when you are having fun--I 
feel as if I should be singing like Faron Young: ``Hello Walls.''
  As I was saying, Senator Levin is quoted as saying in 2000:

       We should not be playing politics with the Federal 
     judiciary. Candidates for these vacancies deserve to have an 
     up-or-down vote on their nominations.

  Earlier this morning, I listened to Mr. Reed, the Senator from Rhode 
Island and the Providence Plantation. But in 2000 he said:

       I ask my colleagues to take their constitutional duties 
     seriously and vote for these nominees on the basis of their 
     objective qualifications, not on the basis of petty politics.

  Another quote from Senator Reed of Rhode Island, this is from the 
March 9, 2000 Congressional Record. He said that there is 
``considerable attention'' being paid to various nominations

       . . . especially among members of the Latino community 
     because the Senate is not doing its job. This is troubling. 
     In regards to nominations the public rightly expects us to 
     move judiciously and expeditiously and without regard to 
     politics.

  Those are the prior statements. The statements we hear from our 
Democratic colleagues on this floor--whether late last night or early 
this morning, are inconsistent with previous statements. It is a double 
standard within their own ranks.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Virginia that he is 
absolutely right. The Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia is 
right. But I will tell you who has been consistent. Senate Republicans 
have been consistent. We said all along we are not going to filibuster 
judges. When holds are put on a nomination--a hold meaning I need to be 
notified for a unanimous consent and I may want to talk some on this 
nomination or this bill--we said we are not going to mess around with 
that. We are going to vow to wipe out holds, everything else. We are 
going to move nominations. We are going to get up-or-down votes. We are 
not going--we are going to have cloture. We are going to get the 
people's business done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for a few minutes on this 
issue that brings us here at this early hour and then also talk about 
another issue that I think also deserves some serious attention by the 
Senate; that is, the health care crisis that we face in the country. 
But let me first talk about this process for nominating and confirming 
Federal judges.
  The obvious question is, How is the system intended to work under our 
Constitution, under article II of our Constitution?
  As I understand it, based on my reading of article II of the 
Constitution, the President has the authority to nominate judges and it 
is fairly clear from the language of that document that the intent is 
that he will consult with the Senate, that he will make a nomination 
based on that consultation, that then the Senate will review the 
nominee and confirm or not that nominee--then either go forward or not 
with that nomination.
  In fact, with regard to most nominees I would say the system works 
very well. In fact, it has worked with previous Presidents. It is 
working with this President.
  Yesterday I was present at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee where 
we had a nominee from New Mexico who has been nominated for our 
district court, Federal district court there. I

[[Page S14597]]

support that nomination, the nomination of Judith Herrera for that 
position. Senator Domenici strongly supports that nomination. He 
recommended her to the President for that position.
  Frankly, the White House consulted with me--consulted, I am sure, 
with Senator Domenici but consulted with me as well--and asked if I 
would support this nomination.
  I had the chance to meet with the nominee, to talk with her, and of 
course I have known her for many years, and I was very glad to support 
her nomination. That is essentially the process we have followed with 
regard to all of the nominees for Federal district court positions in 
my State of New Mexico and with regard to the court of appeals position 
which is reserved for our State, New Mexico, on the Tenth Circuit Court 
of Appeals.
  There again, the President and Senator Domenici both consulted with 
me before a nomination was sent forward. I had a chance to review the 
nominee and concluded that I would strongly support that nominee.
  So the system, in fact, generally works the way it is intended to 
work. We get very good people serving on our Federal courts as a result 
of that.
  But for some reason as regards some of these judges we are arguing 
about, the President has chosen not to follow this approach. In some 
cases the President has chosen to nominate people without consulting 
with the Senators from the States those individuals hail from and has 
done so in many cases over the strenuous objection of Senators from 
those States.
  There is strong opposition from the States, for example, to the two 
nominees I was hearing about a few minutes ago from the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Judge Kuhl and the other is Judge Brown, from California.
  In both of those cases, as I understand it, the President has 
determined to go ahead with nominations. He has nominated those 
individuals and he has done so over the strenuous objection of both 
Senators from the State from which those two nominees come. To my mind, 
it is somewhat unprecedented in the Senate that both Senators from a 
State would object strenuously to a particular nominee and the 
President would say, that's your problem; I am going to go ahead and 
nominate them anyway.
  What's more, the Judiciary Committee would go ahead and confirm or 
recommend those two nominees for confirmation over the strenuous 
objection of the two Senators from the State I involved--to me that is 
unprecedented. We have all this talk about a blue-slip procedure. That 
is out the window as far as I can tell. The blue-slip procedure used to 
mean that unless you got--unless the judiciary had returned to it a 
blue slip signed by each Senator from that State, there would not even 
be a hearing on the nominee. That was the system that prevailed.
  Not only are we to the point where, even if the Senators from the 
State where the nominees come from do not return a blue slip would they 
be voted out, they can even affirmatively object to those nominees and 
the Judiciary Committee goes ahead and votes them out at any rate. They 
put them on the Senate floor and they file a cloture motion and they 
say we are going to have a vote on the Senate floor on these 
individuals; we could care less what the Senators from the State 
involved think about these nominees. That, to me, is an unprecedented 
procedure. I am not familiar with that.
  I think about my own situation. As I have indicated, I have been 
pleased with the courtesy and consideration I have received from the 
White House and, of course, from my colleague, Senator Domenici, with 
regard to nominees by this President for Federal judicial positions. I 
have always been consulted before the nomination was sent forward. I 
have been given a chance to meet with those nominees and have 
been given a chance to get back and say: Yes, these are people I would 
support.

  I have assumed in going through that process that, if I had come to a 
different conclusion, if I had determined that I had a strong objection 
to one or more of these nominees, that would also be honored and that 
the President would find someone else who was acceptable to, of course, 
the President but to the two Senators from the State as well before 
going forward with the nomination. I have assumed that. I still assume 
that. But that has not happened in the case of some of these 
nominations.
  As I understand it, tomorrow we are going to have a vote on a cloture 
motion on the two judges I mentioned. You can argue about the merits of 
the positions that these judges have taken, but the thing that sticks 
in my craw, the issue that I want to focus on is the process. Why would 
I want to vote in favor of going forward to confirm a judge when I know 
the two Senators from the State that the judge comes from strenuously 
object to that judge being confirmed?
  If the shoe were on the other foot, if in fact I was the Senator who 
was objecting, I would hope my colleagues in the Senate would support 
my right to object and to keep that person from being confirmed as a 
Federal judge. I am not sure they would do that, but I would certainly 
request they do that. That is exactly the request we have received from 
the two Senators from California, one of whom serves on the Judiciary 
Committee, and both of whom have spent extensive time looking into the 
records of these two judges. Why in the world are we not willing to 
defer to their view on this and hold up on confirming these judges? It 
seems to me that is the tradition of the Senate and we ought to adhere 
to that tradition. I think the President ought to adhere to that 
position.
  We are talking here about what might be wrong with the process for 
confirming judges.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. ALLEN. If I may question the Senator, using the criteria which he 
set forth insofar as the two judges being opposed and which we are now 
debating. My colleague said that the reason or a rationale for him to 
vote against them is because the two Senators from California are 
opposed to these two nominees? In the case of Priscilla Owen, both 
Senators Cornyn and Senator Hutchison are strongly in favor of Justice 
Owen. Does that mean that when we get to a vote on Justice Owen the 
Senator from New Mexico will then vote to move forward to at least 
allow a fair up-or-down vote on Judge Owen since both Texas Senators 
are strongly in favor of her?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first say I think that is a very 
good question. The answer is, no, I would not vote to move forward with 
a vote on Judge Owen because of the other problems that have surfaced 
with regard to her views and her judicial record. But I think as I 
approach this issue we have a threshold question. The threshold 
question is: Do the Senators from the State that is affected support 
these nominees? If they don't, the President shouldn't nominate them, 
and the Judiciary Committee should not report their nomination to the 
Senate floor. If they do support these nominees, there is still an 
obligation on each Member of the Senate to review the nominee and to 
determine whether in fact we believe that nominee should be confirmed 
for a Federal judgeship. That is the process we are going through.
  I would say I do not think just getting the support of the Senators 
from a particular State entitles a person to a lifetime appointment to 
the Federal bench, but I do think that absent the support and in the 
face of strong opposition from the Senators from the State that is 
affected, the Senate should not be considering the nominees under these 
circumstances.
  To criticize those of us who do not want to move ahead with an up-or-
down vote on that on the theory we know how an up-or-down vote will 
come out on these issues, the President has very good ability to line 
up Republican Senators to vote for virtually anything, so far as I can 
tell--not just on judicial nominations, but virtually anything he 
opposes around here. I am amazed, frankly, at some of the willingness 
of some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to march 
down to the Senate well and cast a vote in favor of positions the 
President is advocating regardless of how it would affect our 
constituents. We know what the outcome will be if we go to an up-or-
down vote. I think it would be a disservice to the Senators from the 
States affected for us to go

[[Page S14598]]

ahead and confirm these individuals over their strenuous objections.
  I hope when we get to these votes on cloture tomorrow on these 
particular judges we have talked about that we will not move ahead and 
invoke cloture.
  I do not think, as far as I know, based on the information I have, 
none of them are individuals I would favor promoting to the positions 
they have been nominated for.
  I know my colleague is here and may wish to speak as well. I don't 
want to use all of our time.
  Let me just talk for a minute about another issue. In many ways, this 
is a very unusual process we have gotten into here with a 30-hour 
diversion from the other business we could be pursuing here in the 
final weeks of this legislative session. There is other important 
business. Frankly, when I go home to my State of New Mexico, it is 
difficult for me to explain to people in my State who I represent why I 
am not dealing with some of the issues that directly affect them in 
their daily lives. Instead, we are here talking through the night about 
judicial nominees in many cases who are strongly opposed by the 
Senators from the States they come from.
  I want to speak for just a few minutes about the health care crisis 
in the country. Earlier this year, I introduced the first part of a 
series of proposals to try to strengthen our Nation's health care 
safety net. That bill is entitled Strengthening Our States, or the SOS 
Act, of 2003. It seeks to protect the Medicaid Program, to improve the 
Medicaid Program. That is a program that is under severe stress and 
pressure because of the budgetary problems in our States. Dianne 
Rowland and Jim Talin of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid say that:

       Medicaid is the glue that helps hold our health system 
     together. It takes on the highest risk, the sickest and most 
     expensive populations from private insurers and from 
     Medicare.

  That is a lot of people in my State who depend on the Medicaid 
system. We need to take steps to strengthen that system. Like a 
waterfront community that seeks to set up barricades against a rising 
river, defending the Medicaid Program from attacks such as the idea of 
a block grant is a top priority. This administration began this year 
recommending we adopt essentially a block grant approach to Medicaid. 
That concept is one which I strongly opposed. I am glad to see many of 
our Governors have now come out in strong opposition to that concept. 
It would be extremely adverse to those who depend upon this very 
important system in our States.
  It is critical to maintain Medicaid, as it has correctly responded as 
a safety net program by adding coverage to millions of people as the 
country has slipped into recession. We are now pulling out of that 
recession--at least we all hope we are. Certainly the economy indicates 
we are. But as we have been in this slow period of economic growth, it 
has been clear the Medicaid system has been extremely important. The 
total number of individuals who are uninsured in this country have 
increased. Nearly 44 million people are without any coverage. Once the 
future of Medicaid is assured and protected, we also need to take some 
additional steps to confront the fact this nearly 44 million people--or 
15.2 percent of the population--is without health insurance for the 
entire year of 2002. That is an increase of nearly 4 million people 
over those who were uninsured in the year 2000. The numbers for 2003 
undoubtedly have gotten even worse.
  The report of the National Coalition on Health Care says the 
confluence of powerful economic forces fueled by terrorist attacks of 
September 11 have unleashed a perfect storm that increases dramatically 
the number of uninsured in the United States with as many as 6 million 
people in total losing their coverage.
  In light of this, I just make the point again it is somewhat shocking 
to me that we are spending 30 hours--essentially that means this whole 
week. The truth is our ability to get work done this week has been 
substantially impaired by the decision of the majority here in the 
Senate to devote 30 hours to talking about this handful of judicial 
nominees they would like to have confirmed for Federal judicial 
positions in spite of the serious problems that have been found with 
regard to that program.
  The number of people in our country who need health care is 
staggering. New Mexico ranks second only to Texas in the percentage of 
its citizens who are uninsured. In New Mexico, we are the only State in 
the country with less than half of our population currently covered by 
private health insurance. That is a rather shocking statistic when you 
think about it. But it is true. Forty-two percent of the Hispanic 
population has employer-based coverage; that is, nationwide. That is 
not in New Mexico. That is in comparison to 67 percent of non-Hispanic 
whites who have employer-based coverage. To address the growing crisis, 
we have been working with the American College of Physicians since last 
fall on a legislative proposal we are calling the Health Coverage 
Affordability Responsibility and Equity Act of 2003. This legislation 
does a variety of things which I want to educate my colleagues on at 
some time when we have more opportunity to do so.
  Our colleague from New Jersey wishes to speak again on the issue that 
brings us here at this early hour, so I will yield to him, but I think 
the course we are following with regard to judges is not a course any 
of us would choose at this point. If we could get the President back 
into the consulting mode with regard to all judges he has pursued, with 
regard to most judges, I think the problem would be eliminated and we 
would not have the difficulty and confrontation which has been required 
as a result of nominations so far this session.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. ALLEN. The Senator brought up the two Senators from California 
opposing two judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as if the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is only in California. That court of 
appeals covers many States--I believe even the State which the 
Presiding Officer is from, Nevada, but also Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 
Hawaii, Montana Arizona and Alaska. It is not just the Senators from 
one State that are affected when you have a circuit as large as that. 
This is the same court that almost hijacked the Constitution of 
California. Three of these judges attempted to do just that until they 
were all overruled so they could go forward with the California recall 
election. It is not just one State that is affected when you are 
talking about a circuit.
  Let us talk about the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. There 
are no Senators from the District. I will not get into that debate on 
this issue.
  Who is the President to consult in the case of the D.C. Circuit Court 
of Appeals? The President consulted many people and put forth a person 
of impeccable credentials, Miguel Estrada, who is actually a resident 
of Virginia. Senator Warner and I presented him to the committee. I 
will not speak about that wonderful day at this time. The President 
looked for people from all across the country and presented Miguel 
Estrada's nomination to the Senate. Seven times we tried to get an up 
or down vote on Miguel Estrada. The reason we are still fighting this 
right now is because the minority is denying me, as a Senator, and 
other Senators, the ability to advise and consent and fair up or down 
vote. I am not saying people have to vote for any particular judge. But 
we all have a responsibility to vote. From the perspective of the 
Senator from New Mexico, who is the President supposed to consult for 
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals when he put forward a 
superbly qualified and exemplary individual who was held up for over 2 
years and finally could not continue with the years of delay and 
obstruction?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, it is a very good 
question. My own view would be we clearly have in the Senate for well 
over a century now delegated the initial responsibility for reviewing 
judges to the members of the Judiciary Committee. I would suggest the 
President should be consulting with members of the Judiciary Committee, 
both Republicans and Democrats, and if he determines he can't get a 
single Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to support his nominee, that 
should be a signal to him he should find a nominee who could be 
supported by Democrats, as well as Republicans.

[[Page S14599]]

  It is true the Democrats are in the minority at this point. But a 
great many Members of this body are Democrats and a great many members 
of the Judiciary Committee are Democrats. If to a person they are 
opposed to the nominee after they learn of the qualifications and the 
positions taken by the nominee, I think that is a signal to the 
President he should find someone else. Clearly, that is not the course 
he has chosen to follow.
  I see my colleague from New Jersey. Let me yield the balance of my 
time to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
what I think is a very appropriate underscoring of the unprecedented 
nature of not working with the Senators from the State which the judge 
has been nominated.
  I concur with the Senator from New Mexico. In New Jersey's case, we 
are 5 for 5 on district court judges because there has been strong 
cooperation back and forth between the White House and Senators from 
New Jersey. We are one for one on the circuit court judges where people 
work together to try to move things. That is how we ended up, frankly, 
in general with 168 to 4 because this process has worked a lot more 
smoothly than I think this 30-hour talkathon has indicated.
  I want to use the last few minutes of my time this morning to talk 
about priorities.

  One hundred sixty-eight to four--scratch that and make that six, if 
you want. The fact is that is about 97\1/2\ percent if it were 6 of all 
of the judges who come up have been approved. When there is an outreach 
toward cooperation, things work pretty well around here. For some 
reason that has worked pretty well in most instances, and we are trying 
to look at a very narrow segment of something I think reasonable people 
can have differences of view about--the qualifications of the 
individuals. That is exactly why the rules are being used the way they 
are.
  I want to place this in context. It is really more important in how 
it plays off of what the Senator from New Mexico said.
  We have real issues in this country right now. The fact is we have 9 
million Americans unemployed. We can spend 30 hours here talking about 
four or six judges when we have 9 million people unemployed.
  By the way, the statistics going down in national terms don't seem to 
fit New Jersey. The latest statistics we have show we have had 11,800 
jobs lost in the last reported period. Unemployment has grown by about 
258,000 since the year 2000. New Jersey has brought 55,000 
manufacturing jobs in the Nation.
  These are real people. At least when I go back to the streets of 
communities I represent, people are more interested in what is going on 
with their jobs and what is going on with the economy than whether we 
have a difference of opinion about four judges or five judges when we 
have confirmed 168.
  It seems to me we have our priorities all messed up here when there 
are 9 million Americans left out of the economic system.
  It is hard for me to understand why poverty is growing in this 
country. The number is up almost 1 percent--from 11.3 to 12.1 percent. 
In New Jersey, that is 69,000 people who have gone onto the poverty 
rolls who weren't there before the current administration's economic 
policies were put in place, and 148,000 New Jerseyans have gone off the 
rolls of those who have health care. These are real issues. These are 
the things that impact people's lives.
  These 4 judges out of 172--it is pretty hard to understand why we are 
spending all night and all day talking about that when we ought to be 
doing something about health care in this country; when we ought to be 
doing something about prescription drugs, while we have been waiting 
for somebody in the dark of night to try to put together a bill. It 
doesn't make sense that we have the focus on something that is so 
narrow and is not even in the context of actual reality because we are 
actually filling those jobs. But we are not doing anything about the 9 
million Americans who are losing jobs.
  We can't get, by the way, an increase in the minimum wage. It has 
been 7 years since we increased the minimum wage around here. We can't 
get a debate on that.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative 
session to proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 3, S. 224, the 
bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read a third time 
and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. ALLEN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator's time has expired. 
The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, we are now entering the 13th hour of this 
debate. The reason it has taken so long is because some Democrats have 
denied a fair up-or-down vote on many nominees. The sun is rising, of 
course, along the eastern seaboard from Miami and Jacksonville. It is 
rising in Charlotte and Myrtle Beach and Virginia Beach, all the way up 
to Maine. I am sure there are truck drivers from Bangor, Maine to 
Bakersfield, California who have been listening very intently to this 
debate. It is nice to be here this morning with my Senate colleagues, 
but surely we did not start this day as advised by the great country 
singer Charlie Pride, ``to kiss an angel good morning.'' I do not see 
any angels around here. My angel is at home with our children getting 
them ready for school.
  You hear arguments from the other side that they just have to stop 
these nominees as in the case of Miguel Estrada. In the case of Miguel 
Estrada, he even had the support of several Democrats. There were four 
Democrats who did vote for moving Miguel Estrada's nomination to an up 
or down vote. But the minority is setting a new standard, and I dare 
say not a constitutional standard. This new standard has crept into the 
Senate. While the Constitution says you are supposed to advise and 
consent and a nominee is confirmed by a majority vote, my colleagues on 
the other side have set a new standard for a supermajority. Because of 
that, a majority of us in the Senate have been denied our opportunity 
to act responsibly for our constituents and have the guts to stand up 
and vote yea or nay after examination, deliberation, exploration, 
inquisition, in some cases, interrogations of judges to determine their 
judicial philosophy.
  I care a great deal about judicial philosophy. I believe strongly 
that judges should be interpreting and administer the law, as opposed 
to inventing the law.
  Earlier the Senator from New Jersey was talking about economic 
matters. I clearly want to say, for all those who are bright eyed and 
listening this morning, the number one goal of us on this side of the 
aisle is to make sure America is competitive--to have the right tax 
policies, the right regulatory policies so businesses can invest, 
whether in New Jersey or Virginia or elsewhere in this country, and to 
help create more jobs. We have to have the right policies in place for 
this to occur.
  And America's competitiveness directly relates to our courts. We have 
to make sure there is class action fairness so as a nation we make sure 
those who have grievances or injuries due to negligence have access to 
the courts, while helping to reduce frivolous lawsuits. Obviously, this 
is something that means a great deal for jobs.
  What happened to the class action bill that was going to help create 
jobs and defend against junk lawsuits? We had obstruction on that. We 
were able to get 59 votes, but we had to get 60. This reform is 
important for jobs and the retention of jobs. We want to pass an energy 
bill, an energy bill that will help create 500,000 new American jobs 
with clean coal technology, advancements in hydrogen fuel cells as well 
as hopefully development of our domestic reserves of oil and gas. We 
want to create more jobs by passing an asbestos bill that ensures that 
people who have asbestosis or asbestos-related diseases can actually 
get compensated as opposed to the lawyers.
  We successfully passed the Small Business Administration bill that 
will help create 3 million jobs. We want to make sure we get homeland 
investment or repatriation of profits to come back into this country. 
We have to pass a

[[Page S14600]]

variety of other measures so families, individuals, and businesses can 
prosper.
  We have done a lot so far, and you are seeing the results of it. I 
was listening to the Senator from New Jersey. He seems not to have been 
listening in some regards to recent economic facts. We have had great 
gross domestic product growth in every quarter since we passed the 
economic growth and tax relief package in 2001. This most quarter we 
had the biggest growth in almost 20 years as far as gross domestic 
product. You are seeing in the beginning more jobs being created--
126,000 net new jobs. The reason for this is businesses and individuals 
are reacting favorably to tax cuts. The Senator from New Jersey did not 
vote for those tax cuts. If it were up to the Senator from New Jersey, 
taxes would be higher on individuals, on families, and on small 
businesses. You would have less investment, fewer jobs, and less hope 
for opportunity, prosperity, and jobs in the future.

  We are going to continue working to make sure our economy is running 
as strongly as possible. Are we satisfied with where it is? No. There 
are people still looking for work, and we need to make sure we address 
those issues. But it does not mean we ignore the issues of the third 
branch of our Government, the judicial branch. What we have here is an 
abrogation of our constitutional responsibility. What we have here is a 
diminishment of the accountability and responsibility of Senators. What 
we have here is a perpetuation of unfairness and an injustice to many 
judges.
  The Senate has a clear responsibility in the judicial nomination 
process, as seen in Article II, section 2 of the Constitution. It is to 
advise and consent. It is not to obstruct and delay. Senators can be 
expected to examine different nominees in a fair method. We can have a 
debate. I don't expect any Senator to be a rubberstamp for any 
President. The Senate can properly give thorough and honest 
consideration of a nominee prior to a vote in deciding whether consent 
should be granted. That means every Senator has every right to vote 
against a nominee if they feel that person is unsuited to the bench.
  The advise and consent in our Constitution does not, though, give the 
Senate the right to deny a simple up-or-down vote to a nomination once 
that nominee has been thoroughly debated and evaluated in the Judiciary 
Committee of the Senate and brought forward to the floor. The 
Constitution requires fairness and accountability from the Senate in 
confirming nominees. Without a proper up-or-down vote, I am afraid what 
you are finding here is the judicial nomination process, as laid out in 
our Constitution, is being hijacked by the minority--not every single 
Democrat, but a majority of the Democrats. Their position is one that 
is irresponsible and an obstruction of our constitutional 
responsibilities. There is no accountability. There is no fairness.
  For over 214 years, the President has had the responsibility of 
nominating persons to vacant positions on federal courts. That is 
spelled out in the Constitution. This is essential to maintaining the 
constitutional framework of a separation of powers.
  Five years ago, the New York Times said the Senate should ``rise to 
the occasion and address the institutional responsibilities of the 
Senate rather than surrendering to the petty tactics of the blockading 
few.'' This was in 1998. On this rare occasion, I agreed with the New 
York Times.
  I would say to my colleagues, if you do not like Judge Janice Rogers 
Brown, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, Justice Priscilla Owen, or any other 
judicial nominee for whatever reason that may be, whether I consider it 
justified or not, vote against their nominations, but vote. Take a 
stand up or down. Show your constituents where you stand. Don't hide 
behind the arcane procedural maneuvers of the Senate.
  What we have here is justice being delayed and being denied. It is 
beyond me how some Senators can continue to practice blatant political 
maneuvering at the expense of these well-qualified, respectable 
nominees, when the administration of justice is so important to our 
country. They cannot continue to use these machinations and procedural 
rules to perpetuate this obstructionist agenda. I believe Americans are 
astute. They can see these arguments being made are to avoid an up-or-
down vote. They are not based on reason but rather petty partisan 
politics.
  It is not just the people's work and business that is being made a 
victim when the other side denies these nominees a fair up-or-down 
vote. It is justice in our courtrooms that is also a victim to this 
obstructionism. Justice delayed is justice denied. It means cases that 
need to be litigated are delayed longer. It means in criminal cases, it 
may take a longer period of time for cases to be heard and decisions to 
be made. It affects victims of crime, as caseloads back up. Access to 
our courts for legal disputes and an expeditious decision making 
process by the courts are both important.

  Let's consider Miguel Estrada. This is a gentleman I feel very 
passionately about because I got to know him in the midst of his 
consideration before the Senate. Miguel Estrada now lives in Virginia. 
He came to this country as a teenager, unable to speak English. He 
applied himself. He worked hard. He is the modern day Horatio Alger 
story and exactly the model we tell our children about. If you work 
hard, apply yourself, do well in school, get a good education, then you 
can have great opportunities in life. That is what Miguel Estrada did 
when he came from Honduras as a teenager.
  He worked hard, learned English, and ended up going to Ivy League 
schools. He clerked for a Federal judge. The American Bar Association, 
after looking at his record when working in the Solicitor General's 
office and a variety of other positions, gave him their highest 
unanimous rating. Indeed, he argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court 
of the United States, winning most of them.
  I remember that hearing in the Judiciary Committee, as my good friend 
and colleague John Warner and I presented him. His sister was there. 
His wife was there. His mother was there, so proud of Miguel. I was 
thinking, this is just a wonderful day in America to see that dream of 
America, the land of opportunity for people of qualifications and 
performance, is still there. I remember speaking for all Virginians, 
congratulating Miguel Estrada.
  Then to see what happened to him, the injustice of holding it up, not 
just for consideration for 3 months, not consideration for 6 months, 1 
year, but over 2 years, with repeated efforts to bring it to a fair up-
or-down vote on the Senate floor--not once, not twice, not three times, 
four times, five times or six, but seven times. Finally after 2 years, 
this wonderful gentleman decided that he had to get on with his life 
and that this process was too stressful to him and to his family. 
Undoubtedly you could understand why being held up this way in such an 
unfair and unjust matter that he finally decided that he had to go on 
with his life.
  To me that was a very sad day in the history of the Senate. It does 
not reflect on the views of the majority of the Senators because we had 
a majority of Senators for Miguel Estrada. We just didn't have 60. To 
me that is an injustice.
  Some of my colleagues will talk from time to time about Miguel 
Estrada. I see that the Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, is 
here. Senator Schumer called Mr. Estrada ``a far right stealth nominee, 
a candidate who will drive the Nation's second most important court out 
of the mainstream.'' Mr. President, we cannot allow the politics of 
personal destruction, evident by this statement by the Senator from New 
York, to continue to infiltrate our judicial nomination process. After 
2 years of refusing to vote, that was enough injustice without these 
gross mischaracterizations.
  I will tell you what Virginians across the Commonwealth are saying. 
The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star said that ``the filibusterers are 
abusing the Senate's advice and consent role under the Constitution'' 
and that ``Senate Democrats need to stop snacking on sour grapes and 
give this President his due.''
  The local newspaper in Staunton, Virginia, said: ``Regarding 
filibustering engaged in by Democrats in the U.S. Senate to block 
Bush's judicial picks, either vote them up or vote them down, then live 
with the consequences. Filibustering is one of the least palatable 
tactics politicians can engage in, one which only serves to bolster the

[[Page S14601]]

public's lack of confidence in our elected representatives. It's no 
accident that the word ``filibuster'' derives from a Spanish term for 
pirate--``filibustero.'' It's an apt description for a process whereby 
politicians seek to board and hijack the legislative process.''
  The Richmond Times Dispatch said: ``According to the ``gold 
standard,'' each [of President Bush's] candidate's ability to serve on 
federal appellate courts is impeccable. Yet [Senator] Leahy and his 
calculating cohorts presume the judicial nominees' perceived ideology 
to be more important than their ability--and have resorted to stall 
tactics perfected decades ago on the Carolina hardwood.'' That is 
basketball terminology for those who don't remember the four corners.

  From the same newspaper:

       Miguel Estrada did not deserve such shabby treatment. No 
     one does.

  The Manassas Journal Messenger argues:

       The worst part about the Democrats' continued stonewalling 
     on Federal judicial nominations is the legacy that it leaves.

  The Winchester Star, a newspaper owned by a former Senator who served 
as a Democrat and an independent, Harry F. Byrd, Jr., predicted that:

       The precedent set here is ghastly. If this threat continues 
     to go unchallenged, advice and consent in the future will be 
     tantamount to obstruct and destroy.

  And just last month that same paper said:

       The constitutional prescription of a simple majority for 
     confirmation no longer applies. A 60-vote supermajority . . . 
     is now standard operating procedure in a process held hostage 
     by a liberal minority.

  They went on to call the Democrats' actions ``lamentable'' and 
``reprehensible.''
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator has talked about Miguel Estrada and his 
admirable qualities, the fact he emigrated here as a young man at 17, 
barely spoke the English language, and yet rose to the top of his 
profession and, indeed, represented the United States Government before 
the highest Court in the land in 15 cases, which is a remarkable 
professional accomplishment. But you also alluded to the comments made 
by our colleague from New York, and you gave us some quotes about the 
nature of President Bush's judicial nominees. I believe at another time 
he accused the President of loading up the judiciary with rightwingers 
who want to turn the clock back to the 1890s and warning that America 
is under attack from the hard right, the mean people. They have the 
sort of patina of philosophy, but underneath it is meanness, 
selfishness, and narrowmindedness.
  If I may ask the Senator, how in the world can you reconcile the 
public record of Miguel Estrada and this sort of characterization? Do 
you have an explanation for what is happening here?
  Mr. ALLEN. There is no justifiable explanation. Miguel Estrada is a 
person of very calm demeanor. He is very mild mannered and soft spoken. 
He is one who, throughout the entire nomination process, was willing to 
subject himself to whatever written interrogatories submitted to him by 
Senators. He was willing to and did meet one on one with Senators. So 
that characterization is not accurate.
  Do you know what that characterization is? It is pure politics. It 
doesn't matter what the truth is because they have not justified it. 
What is unfortunate about statements such as that is that it is the 
politics of personal destruction. We should rise above that.
  I say to the Senator that my very first speech on the Senate floor 
was about judges. I said that I care about treating people as 
individuals rather than partisans. I spoke about Roger Gregory. 
President Clinton had appointed him as an recess appointment. This had 
many Republicans, understandably, infuriated. I examined and talked to 
Roger Gregory to determine his judicial philosophy. I studied his 
records of accomplishment, considered his temperament, and all of the 
attributes judges who are appointed for life should have. You have to 
be sure you are not going to end up with some judge who is a radical 
one way or the other, an activist, but rather one who interprets the 
law and applies the facts of the case, rather than inventing or 
creating laws. My first speech was to say, ``let's rise above that and 
to be statesmen.''
  I found Roger Gregory to be very qualified. The first thing I said to 
President Bush when he asked me my thoughts on this nomination was that 
I had interviewed judges for various positions when I was Governor and 
that one can never be absolutely sure about a nominee. But I told 
President Bush that I felt that Roger Gregory truly had the right 
philosophy and capabilities, and I hoped he would appoint him. And 
President Bush did.
  That is an example of rising above partisanship, rising above this 
picky, partisan process in the Senate, which denies an opportunity for 
me, as a Senator, to vote up or down. But it also denies the American 
people the accountability and responsibility they expect for their 
Senators.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for one other question?
  Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator has characterized what he thinks is happening 
here in terms of these attacks on qualified nominees, such as Miguel 
Estrada. I just wish to ask the Senator this. We all know, in order to 
get to the Senate, we have to run for election; and I just ask the 
Senator what his reaction is, or whether he would include this in the 
category of petty partisan politics that he just described in terms of 
the way Miguel Estrada has been attacked.
  Most recently, in a fundraising electronic newsletter to potential 
donors, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 
our colleague from New Jersey, recently acknowledged--he boasted that 
the current blockade of judicial nominees is ``unprecedented.'' But the 
context in which he used that is to raise money for Democratic 
candidates to the Senate and the statement we are hearing on the floor 
regarding the figure 168 to 4, that they have only blocked 4. But at 
the same time we see they are using these unprecedented filibusters to 
block the highly qualified nominees of the President. Is that what you 
would characterize as a political use of this obstructionism of 
President Bush's nominees?
  Mr. ALLEN. It is worse than that. I was not aware of that, I say to 
the Senator from Texas. That is more than just petty partisan politics. 
That is disgusting. This will lead to a continual downward spiral of 
our constitutional responsibilities. You can say you are against a 
judicial nominee, but to use it to brag and to admit that it is 
unprecedented in an attempt to raise money--to me, that is the sort of 
retaliation and retribution that is a real loser, and not just to 
Republicans or Democrats; the real loser is the justice system of the 
United States, which has been the pinnacle of the protection of our 
liberties and freedoms under the Constitution, which was created and 
designed to protect our God-given rights.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question? I know his time is 
running out.
  Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have been observing this all night long and all of 
these legal scholars. I admire you so much, although I have to admit I 
have often said that perhaps one of my best qualifications for being a 
Senator is that I am not a lawyer. When I read the Constitution, I know 
what it says. It is very clear what it says. It says advise and 
consent. It is a very important process.
  The reason I wanted the Senator to yield is you have been justly 
talking about the qualities of Miguel Estrada. I have met him, too. He 
is such a humble man. When you hear the horrible things said about him, 
it makes you cry inside. There was one thing that all of these nominees 
the President nominated have in common, and that is they are also 
eminently qualified. You have talked about his qualifications. Besides 
that, he worked in both the Bush and Clinton administrations.
  Also, look at the rest of the nominees. William Pryor is the youngest 
attorney general at the time he was appointed and was nominated by the 
President. He has the highest ranking of the American Bar Association. 
Priscilla Owen has the highest ranking of the ABA. In 2000, she won 84 
percent of the vote. She was supported by three former Democrat judges 
from the

[[Page S14602]]

Texas Supreme Court. Judge Pickering--99.5 percent of his cases were 
affirmed and not appealed.
  I think we are talking about people who the President has done such a 
great job of singling out and finding, the most highly qualified 
people. I wanted to ask you that question. Isn't it true that 
everything you have said about Miguel Estrada and his qualifications is 
true about all these nominees?
  Mr. ALLEN. It is. I very much agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. 
Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Judge Pryor, Judge Brown, and Judge 
Kuhl--they all have impeccable records. They have different experiences 
but great experience, and they are highly recommended by the people who 
know them best. This is a great way of judging their capabilities. 
Nonetheless, the facts don't seem to matter.
  I close and say we need to act in accordance with the Constitution. 
The Constitution is important. Accountability is important. Fairness 
and justice are important. As a matter of principle, our judicial 
nominees deserve a fair and simple up-or-down vote. These nominees are 
individuals who are important for the function of justice in these 
various courts. And it is not just these three; there are others being 
obstructed.
  I ask my colleagues to show some guts. Stand up and vote yes or vote 
no. Act responsibly. Since I started off with a Charlie Pride 
admonition and, unfortunately, we have not been able to ``Kiss an Angel 
Good Morning'' here on the Senate floor, why don't we follow Aaron 
Tippin's advice that ``you got to stand for something.'' So why don't 
you stand. Vote yes or no on these judges but vote.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first compliment my colleague 
from Virginia for his vast knowledge of western song lyrics. I think he 
has recited several of his favorite lyrics. I always preferred the 
famous western song ``Who Drank My Beer While I Was in the Rear.'' That 
always seemed to be one that isn't played near enough. I am sure that 
is part of the Senator's repertoire.
  Let me comment on a few of the things the Senator said. First, he 
said that justice delayed is justice denied; there is a terrible burden 
we are putting on the American people by not filling these judgeships.
  Let me call to the attention of my colleagues what has happened as 
far as judicial vacancies during the last 8 years. You can see from 
this chart that, in January of 1995, there were 63 judicial vacancies. 
That was when the Republican majority was here in the Senate. That 
number increased to 110 judicial vacancies by January of 2002.
  At that time, the Democrats took the majority in the Senate and the 
number came down precipitously, down to 60 vacancies by the time the 
Republicans gained control in the Senate and, at that point, of course, 
it has continued to go down. So now, in January of 2004, the 
expectation is that we will have 40 judicial vacancies.
  This is the best record as far as filling judicial positions, 
vacancies, of the Senate in many years. We have fewer vacancies today 
and will have fewer by the end of this year than we have had for a very 
long time. So we do not have this problem that the public is being 
denied judges, judgeships.
  I am very proud of the record of accomplishment that we have achieved 
so far in this Congress. I think we have approved a great many judges. 
We have approved a great many of this President's judges. This other 
chart, which has been up several times during last night's discussion 
says the whole thing. It basically makes the point that we have 
approved 98 percent of the judicial nominees who have been sent to us.
  In my State, we have approved several very good nominees for Federal 
judicial positions. I have supported those. As I indicated earlier, 
those nominations were brought forward, in my view, in the way the 
system is supposed to work. That is a system whereby the President and 
the White House--the President's legal counsel--essentially contacted 
me, as well as, of course, Senator Domenici, my colleague, and assessed 
our views with regard to people they were intending to nominate. That 
is the way the system is supposed to work. That is what advice and 
consent has come to mean and should mean in our system. The President 
seeks advice, the Senate gives its consent, or withholds its consent.
  I have been very pleased to give my consent to the nominations that 
the President has chosen to send forward with regard to nominees for 
judicial positions in New Mexico. I also know and would like to say 
that I have assumed--and I continue to assume--that after my advice is 
requested and after my consent is sought, that if I had strenuously 
objected to some of those nominees and had stated so, the President at 
that point would decide to go ahead and choose someone else.
  In my State, we have a great many people who are practicing 
attorneys, who have held key positions in our State in various 
capacities, who are qualified to serve as Federal judges. That is one 
of the great strengths of our legal system. I am sure that is true of 
every State in the Union. If one of those individuals, for some reason, 
is not the appropriate choice and Senators from the State involved 
determine that, then the President should take that into consideration.
  My colleague from Virginia talked about being consulted by the 
President about Roger Gregory before the President made a decision on 
that appointment. That is entirely appropriate. That is the way the 
system ought to work. The President and his legal counsel should be 
consulting Senators about the appropriateness of various candidates for 
judicial office before the nominations are sent to the Senate for 
consideration.
  I think the reason we are here tonight, the reason there is angst 
about this issue about these four judges who have not been confirmed, 
the 2 percent, is because as to those 2 percent we did not have that 
consultation. The members of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, the other members of 
the Judiciary Committee on the Democratic side, did not have that 
opportunity to be consulted, and nominations were sent forward that, in 
fact, were not acceptable, were not strongly supported, had no support, 
and had strong opposition to them. Accordingly, we have agreed not to 
move forward with those nominations, which I think is entirely 
appropriate.
  The notion that the Senate should have the right to consent--and that 
is contained in article II, section 2 of our Constitution--implies in 
it the idea that the Senate should have the right to withhold its 
consent, and that, in fact, we have exercised that right with regard to 
4 of the 172 nominees who have come to the Senate floor so far for 
consideration. That is a pretty good record for this President. I think 
this President has done much, much better than the previous President 
in getting his nominees confirmed.
  There was great frustration on the part of many of us in the prior 
administration, and it has been expressed here on the floor, that very 
good nominees were being sent forward by President Clinton and were not 
afforded a hearing. It was not as though there were objections that 
would be expressed, there were not articulated objections. It is just 
that they would not be given a hearing because of some view by some 
Member that the person should not be entitled to a hearing before the 
committee.
  That practice has not been followed with regard to President Bush's 
nominees. We did not follow that when the Democrats were in the 
majority in the Senate, since President Bush has been in office, and, 
of course, it is not being followed at this time.
  Let me put this in a larger context, which is something we have tried 
to do here during the recent hours; that is, the context that we have 
major issues facing our country today. There is significant work--
undone work--still crying out for attention in the Senate before this 
session of Congress is over. The majority leader tells us we will 
adjourn on November 21. That is a week from tomorrow. I don't know if 
we will make that deadline or not. We have had other deadlines that 
have not been made. But that is the schedule as we now know it. We will 
adjourn a week from tomorrow, and we are essentially

[[Page S14603]]

wasting this week talking about a set of issues that have been talked 
about and talked about and talked about during recent months.
  I hope that before we leave this year, we will not only finish the 
appropriations bills, which clearly need to be done to keep the 
Government functioning; I hope we will also conclude work on a Medicare 
prescription drug bill, which will preserve the Medicare system but 
which will provide a genuine benefit to Medicare recipients. I am 
informed that some time--perhaps by the end of the week--we will have 
some better indication as to what resolution is finally coming out with 
regard to those issues that have been in conference.
  I hope, also, we get a decent Energy bill. I have complained 
repeatedly about the process that has been followed with regard to the 
Energy bill because Democrats have been excluded from those conference 
meetings. But I still hold out hope that the final product, which we 
have been assured we will be able to see 48 hours before the final 
meeting of the conference--I am informed--I still hold out hope that 
final product will be something that will be good for the country and, 
on balance, will be a step forward. I don't know that that is the case. 
Until we see the bill, we will not know that is the case. We don't know 
what is being put in the bill that was not in the Senate-passed bill. 
We don't know what is being put in the bill that was not in the House-
passed bill. But clearly there is important work the Senate needs to be 
doing.
  We have very few days in which to accomplish that work. I regret that 
we are spending so much time on this single issue. Frankly, in my 
State, if I go around New Mexico and ask people what do they think we 
ought to be having all-night sessions to resolve here in the Congress, 
this would be a very distant item on the list of priorities. I think 
the first priority would probably be, Why don't you do something 
significant on the health care crisis? Why don't you do something about 
the 44 million people who have no health care coverage in this country? 
That number continues to rise.
  I have served in the Senate now for a little over 20 years, and that 
number has risen during most of that time. We have not acted 
effectively to deal with that health care crisis and, accordingly, we 
have a great many people in my State who do not have access to quality 
health care, do not have access to affordable health care. We need to 
do something about the cost of health care. We need to do something 
about the availability of health care.
  Of course, we need to do some things to try to maintain our job base, 
the jobs about which we all are concerned. We have lost over 3 million 
jobs since this President came into office. I am glad to see we are 
finally, now, in the last month, beginning to see some jobs created on 
a net basis. We created more jobs last month than we lost. I hope that 
will continue. It is going to have to continue for some period before 
we are at a break-even point. But I hope we are at a break-even point 
in the near future because, clearly, there are a lot of people looking 
for jobs, looking for good-paying jobs, and we see too many of those 
jobs going overseas, too many of our better paying jobs, particularly 
manufacturing jobs, leaving for other parts of the world.
  My colleague from New York is here. He is a member of the Judiciary 
Committee and has been intimately involved in these issues related to 
judicial nominations. I know he spoke last night. He is ready to speak 
again and give his views on this issue, so I will yield the remainder 
of my time to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for, 
as usual, his thoughtful, balanced, and fair remarks.
  We have, I guess, now been debating 13 hours 45 minutes here. I don't 
think too many new arguments have come out. I don't think we have 
accomplished anything. But let's proceed, although I couldn't agree 
more with my colleagues that we could have devoted some of this time to 
speaking about issues we have not debated on the floor at length--jobs, 
the yearning of the average American to have a secure and good job; 
health care, and the millions who are not covered and millions more who 
are covered and cannot afford health care; even a debate on the war in 
Iraq, where we are going and what we should be doing. It would be far 
more instructive and illuminating to the American people than what we 
have done here.
  But we are here, and I think we should be talking about the judicial 
nominations. One point I make, just before getting into the substance: 
We heard some paeans to Miguel Estrada; Horatio Alger, we heard. He is 
a bright man of accomplishment, but let's be fair here. His father was 
a banker in Honduras. He came from a privileged background. America 
welcomes people of all backgrounds. That is wonderful. But the bottom 
line is he was not typical of an American immigrant. His father was a 
banker, they were part of the Honduran elite. The Senator from the 
other side said he didn't speak English when he came here. We think he 
probably did.
  But Horatio Alger? No. Horatio Alger was somebody who started off 
poor. There are indeed, I would like to inform my colleague from 
Virginia, millions of immigrants who came here poor as church mice and 
struggled and worked their way up. It is sort of interesting that the 
hero to those on the other side is a wealthy Honduran who became a 
wealthy American--that is the modern-day Horatio Alger story. So let's 
be straight here.
  Miguel Estrada, to be fair, is a very bright man. But just because he 
is bright and just because he came from a good background doesn't give 
him carte blanche to become a judge. He didn't answer any of our 
questions. How many Americans would get a job if they told the boss: I 
refuse to fill out the questionnaire. I don't want to answer that 
question.
  These were not esoteric questions; these were not demeaning 
questions; they were very simple questions: What is your view of the 
first amendment and how expansive it ought to be? What is your view of 
the commerce clause? The very things on which he would opine as a 
judge.
  These have been regarded as legitimate questions from the day of the 
founding of the Republic. Let me say, why are my colleagues so appalled 
that we would ask such questions? I will tell you why. It is very 
simple. Because this President, George Bush, despite his wanting his 
image to be moderate, on the issue of judicial nominations has been the 
most hard right President we have seen. His nominees are not 
mainstream, many of them.
  People on this side of the aisle have voted for many of them with 
whom we do not agree. But when some go so far, we believe the Founding 
Fathers almost importune us to question them thoroughly, and to block 
them if necessary.
  Again, this chart, I would say to the American people, says more than 
all the words and rhetoric and name calling we have heard from the 
other side: 168 to 4.

  Is the process broken down? No. Is the process so much so that a 
reasonable judge can't get through? Obviously not, unless you think 
George Bush is not nominating any reasonable judges.
  What has happened here? There is such anger on the hard right that 
they can't get every single judge they are pushing many on the other 
side, against their own will, to engage in performances like we have 
seen over the last 14 hours. We want every single judge approved. That 
is their goal. That is the goal. And then we come up with the 
arguments.
  So we went through this last night. Filibusters are OK, as long as 
they fail. That makes no sense. We have had filibusters in the past. We 
have had six of them, four by the Congresses in the 1990s and 2000. If 
a filibuster is wrong, it should be wrong whether it passes or it 
fails.
  But then look at the other argument. Over 50 judges were blocked by 
the other side. We didn't hear any speeches about Constitution in 
crisis. They weren't even giving hearings.
  The logic defies me: It is OK to block judges by not giving them 
hearings, and it is OK to filibuster as long as you fail; the only 
thing that is wrong is to have a filibuster succeed and that brings the 
Constitution in disrepute and brings the Republic to its knees.
  My colleagues, that argument does not hold up in first year law 
school. It

[[Page S14604]]

is just totally hypocritical and contradictory. It is saying, I want my 
results so I am making whatever argument it takes. Sort of like the 
judges we don't want. A little like Justice Brown's way of arguing--of 
deciding cases. Blocking is not bad because they blocked 50 of them and 
there was no outcry. Filibusters aren't bad because they filibustered 
six of them, or four of them, and that was just fine.
  So let's be honest here. For some reason, there is white hot anger 
among a small, narrow group of people that they can't get every judge. 
Again, I welcomed--I don't think this serves our time well--but I 
welcome it, in the sense that all of those talk shows and all of those 
radio programs and all of those editorial boards leave out the one 
overwhelming fact, which is 168 to 4.
  I will march in parades in conservative parts of my State and once in 
a blue moon--most people don't care about this issue, to be honest, 
compared to the things that make their lives better, compared to the 
relief American families want when they sit down at the dinner table on 
Friday night to figure out how to pay these bills. But the occasional 
time somebody called out, ``Why are you blocking the President's 
judges?'' because they listen to the radio or read a biased article in 
the editorial pages, I would say: ``We approved 168 to 4,'' whatever 
the number is, and they say, ``Oh, OK.''
  You can do all the sophistic arguments you want, how many angels are 
on the head of a pin, say this way to block judges is OK.
  By the way, I would like one of my colleagues to defend, in the 30 
hours we have, was it all right to block the 50 judges of President 
Clinton? Was that OK? Do we ignore that fact? It is not ancient 
history; it was in the last decade. Was that OK? I would ask any of my 
colleagues to answer that.
  Then I would ask them to point out to me when Senators on the 
Republican side of the aisle launched filibusters, who got up and 
complained and said the Constitution was being violated?

  No, no, no. The arguments here, again, are outcome determined. There 
is no internally consistent logic. It just says: We want all the 
judges; we will take whatever argument it takes. When they originally 
put forward Miguel Estrada, they said he was a rags-to-riches case, and 
then of course the facts came out. Now he is Horatio Alger: Honduran 
banker's son becomes successful American lawyer. I don't know if that 
is going to tug at the heartstrings of most Americans. Most, I think, 
would say Horatio Alger is the person who came here penniless and 
worked in a factory, who tried to struggle to provide for his family, 
who started a small business and struggled, the whole family worked in 
it and then they got a little money, and they got richer and God bless 
America. That is what is wonderful about this country.
  But again, whatever argument fits. Is there a solution to this 
conundrum? Obviously, there is. There is. It is to follow the 
Constitution, not to come up with this idea that somehow, buried in the 
Constitution--by the way, that is not being literalist. When my 
colleagues say the Constitution says you can't filibuster a judge, they 
are reading words into the Constitution. I believe in a flexible 
Constitution. I think most people do in the 21st century. But if you 
want literal reading of the Constitution, find the word ``filibuster.'' 
Find me the number 60. Find me the sentence that says everything in the 
House and Senate, or just the Senate, should be supported by majority 
rule.
  If majority rule were so important, then we should not have 
committees because when committees block judges, as they did, we don't 
even know what the majority thinks. The Senate has a very important 
function in this Republic. It has had for 200-some-odd years. It is to 
be, as Madison put it, the cooling saucer.
  As I mentioned last night, I didn't have qualms about some of my 
colleagues trying to stop Judges Paez and Berzon. The Ninth Circuit is 
a very liberal circuit. It is too liberal for my taste. To put more 
liberal judges on there probably didn't increase the balance. That is 
why this year I supported the nomination of Judge Bybee, Jay Bybee. I 
don't agree with him on almost anything, but on the Ninth Circuit to 
have a hard right conservative is probably a good thing.
  My view is there ought to be moderation on the courts. And probably 
it is great to have one Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court and one 
Justice Brennan. You should not have five of either. Judges should not 
be at the extremes because they are the ones who tend to make law.
  We have a nominee coming up Friday, Justice Brown, who wants to go 
back and reratify the Lochner decision that has been in disrepute for 
70 years. Is that justice, someone who is interpreting the law? 
Lochner, which said a State couldn't pass a law that said bakery 
workers could work only 60 hours a week? We have come a long way since 
then.
  But it is true, there are some in America who say: We don't want the 
Government doing anything. If I am a businessman, I should be able to 
do whatever I want. I should be able to pollute the air. I am a self-
made person. Or I should be able to take my property and do exactly 
what I want with it--no zoning.
  That is a view, certainly a view that can be argued in this Chamber 
or anywhere else. It is not the view close to the mainstream of the 
American people.

  So the bottom line is a very simple one. We believe--it may drive 
some crazy, but we believe we are defending the Constitution. We 
believe that through whatever sophistry and sophistic arguments we hear 
that every one of the President's judges should be approved does not do 
justice to this wonderful document, this living, breathing document, 
the Constitution. We believe that if the only way you were to reject a 
judge was because the judge didn't have high enough grades in law 
school or because they smoked marijuana when they were in college, it 
would demean the process. We believe that asking questions about a 
judge's judicial philosophy--that is what is at the core of what makes 
a good judge. We believe that when a President brings ideology into the 
nominating process--we didn't, he did, and he said it. To his credit, 
he was honest. He said he is appointing judges in the mold of Scalia 
and Thomas. That wasn't about their law school grades or diversity; it 
was about a philosophy: Let's take the courts and change the way they 
view things.
  We believe that our examination of these nominees and their views, 
and what they do as judges, is not only appropriate but obligatory.
  I say this to the American people, to those of you who may be 
watching here at 7 in the morning. Judges have a tremendous effect on 
all of our lives. It is hard to see because it is not like a debate 
here in the Senate, this wonderful institution, or the President 
deciding a policy. It is done on a case-by-case basis. That is the 
beauty of this country. But that can determine, if you are a woman or a 
minority or disabled, what kind of discrimination might be allowed to 
exist against you. They can determine, if you are a worker, what kind 
of structure there is to protect your rights.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the minority has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have to give my colleague from New York 
credit. He is a determined, articulate advocate of his point of view. 
The problem is the facts just don't sustain that point of view. This 
has been refuted time and time again, but we see the same charts being 
trotted out time and time again that just are proven not true by the 
facts that we all know. I want to talk a little bit about those facts. 
I want to talk a little bit about what Democrats in the past have said 
about filibusters and their conviction that they should never occur and 
that they are, in fact, unconstitutional. In fact, those are the 
arguments we are making today, and we will use their own words to prove 
it.

  My colleague from New York time and time again trots out a chart that 
claims that a number of judicial nominees have been filibustered by 
Republicans when in fact, those same nominees have been confirmed and 
are today sitting on the Federal court. How he can claim that what a 
Democrat minority is doing to Miguel Estrada or Priscilla Owen, Janice 
Brown, Carolyn Kuhl, Bill Pryor, and

[[Page S14605]]

Charles Pickering is somehow the same thing Republicans did in the past 
is just disingenuous at best.
  He claims that Stephen Breyer was filibustered. The last time I 
checked, Stephen Breyer sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. You go down his 
list, and, frankly, the chart is not worth the paper it is printed on.
  Don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of Tom Daschle on 
January 30, 1995. The minority leader said:

       The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances 
     in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A 
     veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an 
     impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is 
     taken by majority vote.

  That is our position. They are denying those very words here today.
  I just hope the American people are listening, even though the hour 
is early and even though we have been talking for a long time now.
  My question is, should we believe you today or should we believe what 
you said in 1995, Senator Daschle, when you said, other than a veto 
override, a treaty, or a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding, 
every other action in Congress is taken by majority vote?
  I believe he was correct then and because of the politics of the 
moment he is not correct today.
  Senator Tom Harkin, in 1994, said:

       I really believe that the filibuster rules are 
     unconstitutional. I believe the Constitution sets out five 
     times when you need majority or supermajority votes in the 
     Senate for treaties, impeachment.

  We could go down the list:
  Lloyd Cutler, White House Counsel under President Carter and 
President Clinton; Senator Biden; Senator Boxer; Senator Feinstein; and 
Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy said: ``Nominees deserve a vote.'' He 
is not saying that here today. He is voting to obstruct a vote where a 
bipartisan majority of the Senate stands ready to confirm these 
nominees. Senator Kennedy said: ``Nominees deserve a vote. If our 
colleagues do not like them, vote against them.''
  I would prefer the Senator Kennedy of that era because I think he was 
right then. None of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
made any explanation for why they have changed their position on what 
the Constitution means. But yet we have heard from Senator Allen and 
others that the characterization we are hearing from the other side 
about these fine judicial nominees is nothing more than politics.
  The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, in a moment of stark 
candor, had this to say. This was an e-mail he sent to prospective 
donors to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He said:

       Senate Democrats have launched an unprecedented effort.

  How he could call it unprecedented if, in fact, as Senator Schumer 
and others have said, it hasn't happened in the past? Senator Corzine, 
I guess, is guilty of telling the truth here. He said:

       Senate Democrats have launched an unprecedented effort by 
     mounting filibusters against the Bush administration's most 
     radical nominees. Senate Democrats have led the effort to 
     save our courts.

  Of course, we understand what is going on. This is about raising 
money. This is about stirring people up by throwing them some red meat. 
We all understand what is going on. The American people understand what 
is going on, that this is about politics. This is not about politics as 
usual, this is about politics at its worst.
  The reason I say that is not because it is unusual for us to disagree 
in this body. In fact, that is one of the things I love about this 
body--that any Senator can stand up and talk about what they truly 
believe to be in the best interests of this country. We know many times 
there are disagreements. But then ultimately we have a vote because we 
believe in majority rule in this country. That, in fact, is what 
distinguishes this form of government from others--that sooner or 
later, after we have talked--and we have talked about some of these 
nominees for 2\1/2\ years or more--but sooner or later, we vote. Sooner 
or later, we vote. That is what democracy is about. That is not what is 
happening with regard to these filibusters, and it is wrong.
  The thing that really concerns me--there are a lot of things that 
concern me about this process. I believe it is not simply in need of 
tinkering. I think the system is broken down completely and we need a 
fresh start.
  Together, myself along with my colleagues who are new Members of this 
body who have been here now for just about a year, we sent a letter to 
the majority leader and the minority leader, the chairman and ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, and said: We are really not 
interested in this game of tit for tat or recrimination, pointing to 
the past and saying we were entitled to treat President Bush's nominees 
today badly because we believe you treated President Clinton's nominees 
badly. Frankly, I wasn't here then. I don't endorse treating any 
nominee badly. These are honorable men and women who have been chosen 
by the President to serve in positions of important public service, and 
they deserve to be treated better than the nominees we are talking 
about today have been treated. Perhaps there were excesses in the past. 
I regret that. Unfortunately, I wasn't here to do anything about it. 
But I am here today.
  What I believe is that we need a fresh start. We need to agree among 
ourselves that what has happened in the past in terms of the way 
judicial nominees have been treated does not reflect credit on this 
institution, and the people we are talking about, people who have risen 
to the very top of the legal profession and who should be treated with 
honor, it is wrong to treat them as common criminals. It is wrong to 
treat them as a caricature of their true selves. It is wrong to call 
them names. We can disagree with them. We can have a great debate. But 
ultimately, we need to treat them respectfully.
  That doesn't mean a Senator has to vote for them. Every Senator has a 
clear right to vote their conscience--to vote up or down. That is 
really all we are asking for today and last night and for the remainder 
of this day, and as long as it takes to make clear that what is 
happening is wrong. It is unconstitutional, as Democrat leaders have 
said in the past--a fact which they have apparently forgotten, to put 
it charitably.

  But I think the thing that really concerns me more than anything 
else--and as I have said, there is a lot to be concerned about--is the 
tactics used against some of these nominees, and the way they are 
treated after they have volunteered to offer their services to the 
American people on the bench.
  We have seen charts that say 168 to 4. As we pointed out before, the 
real number, if we are being honest, should be zero to 4, zero being 
the number of filibusters against judicial nominees from 1789 to 2002. 
That is right. It never happened before--never in the history of the 
United States of America. It has never happened before, until this 
year. This year we have seen four filibusters. What has changed? Has 
the Constitution somehow changed? For those Senators who decried 
filibusters in the past and who now embrace them, what has changed to 
cause their change of opinion and change of view? I think we know what 
has happened.
  That is why the number should be zero to 4--zero filibusters since 
1789 until 2002 and 2004, in this last year, in an attempt to block 
President Bush's highly qualified nominees.
  But as I was saying, where I come from we don't treat people as 
statistics. Where I come from, if you are going to attack someone and 
call them names, you at least give them a chance to meet with you and 
sit down and talk face to face. Yet obstructionists have time and time 
again refused to even meet with these nominees. Any Member of the 
Senate who would like to meet with these nominees and talk about their 
concerns and to see if they are justified, to listen to the response, 
has that right, and indeed every Senator has had that opportunity, but 
many have turned it down rather than take advantage of that opportunity 
and reach understandings and then vote.
  We have even had this process sink to a new low when it comes to 
embracing the idea that a nominee's personal views on religious issues 
should play a role in determining whether or not they are fit to serve 
as a judge.
  I strongly disagree with that concept, and I think all of us should 
reject

[[Page S14606]]

it. I believe that when a nominee's personal theological beliefs become 
a legitimate course of debate before the judiciary and before the 
Senate, when we insert ourselves somehow between the relationship 
between an individual and their God, we violate both our conscience and 
our Constitution.
  I have sensed in the Judiciary Committee that some of my colleagues 
are genuinely alarmed and uncomfortable when a nominee speaks about his 
or her faith in honest terms in the public arena. Indeed, it is so rare 
today where people feel free to talk about things that are most 
important to them.
  I would like to read a comment that unnerves some of these folks, who 
are uncomfortable with such frank and honest discussions.
  We are inspired by a faith that goes back through all the years to 
the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. God created man in his own 
image. We on our side are striving to be true to that divine heritage. 
We are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine 
that all men are equal in the eyes of God. There never has been, there 
never can be, a successful compromise between good and evil. Only total 
victory can reward the champions of tolerance and decency and freedom 
and faith.

  This was not the comments or the testimony of a nominee to the 
Federal bench. These were the words of President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt. I seriously doubt that anyone in this body at that time took 
President Roosevelt to task for speaking frankly and honestly about his 
deeply held personal religious beliefs. President Roosevelt was 
certainly within his rights to say that in 1942, and it is just as 
right and proper that our nominees today express their deeply held 
religious beliefs when they are talking about things that concern them 
in response to questions, whether it be about abortion or any other 
issue. I wonder today if, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, 
President Roosevelt himself would be challenged for these very remarks.
  We have most recently witnessed the strident animus directed toward 
Judge Carolyn Kuhl and Attorney General Bill Pryor who have faced 
challenges over their religious beliefs, particularly concerning the 
matter of abortion. Both nominees have, from a legal scholar's point of 
view, criticized the legal analysis used to support the Roe v. Wade 
decision. These nominees personally hold beliefs that are absolutely 
consistent with their faith and the doctrine of their church. Their 
understanding of religion holds to the doctrine that abortion is wrong. 
Yet, still, the obstructionists have argued that for both of these 
nominees--and Bill Pryor, in particular, who is repeatedly challenged 
over his philosophy and deeply held views above all those arising from 
his religious beliefs, rendered them simply unqualified to be 
confirmed.
  I would point out that these nominees are hardly alone in criticizing 
the Roe decision as a legal matter. Numerous legal scholars and jurists 
across the political spectrum who call themselves pro-choice and pro-
life have publicly criticized the legal analysis in Roe, and indeed 
that is what lawyers do and judge us do. They parse words. They 
challenge an analysis to try to sharpen legal thinking. But Supreme 
Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was overwhelmingly approved by 
the Senate, has described Roe as ``heavy-handed judicial intervention'' 
that was ``difficult to justify.'' Allan Dershowitz, a law professor 
from the Harvard Law School, described Roe as a ``case of judicial 
activism more appropriately left to the political process.'' Edward 
Lazarus, former law clerk to Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, said 
that ``Roe borders on the indefensible as a decision and, at its worst, 
is disingenuous and results oriented.''
  I read these quotes not for any other reason except to show that 
there has been over time serious scholarly concern about the legal 
justification for that decision.
  But perhaps more to the point, even though Attorney General Pryor and 
Judge Kuhl have criticized the reasoning of Roe, they recognize that 
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Indeed, one of the things I admire 
most about Attorney General Bill Pryor, as the Senator from Tennessee 
noted in his comments last evening, is that he has said: ``No matter 
what my personal beliefs are, I believe in the morality of enforcing 
the law.''
  Indeed, I believe as a public servant, as attorney general, as a 
judge, it is the obligation of a judge to interpret the law as written, 
not as I would have it be. Indeed, some of the problem we have had is 
judges who have elevated their personal beliefs, their political agenda 
above the law. I submit that a judge who is a lawmaker is, in fact, a 
law breaker.
  We understand in this country what was settled well over 200 years 
ago at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia; that is, we have 
three branches of Government. We have the Congress or legislative 
branch, which everyone understands. That is the reason we run for 
election, tell people what we believe, and then we are either accepted 
or rejected by the public because they believe that same way or not. 
But then we have a President, the executive branch, whose job it is to 
execute the law that Congress has written. Indeed, they are servants of 
the law as well because we recognize they, too, must comply with the 
law and that no President is above the law; that we are a nation of 
laws, not of men.
  Then there is the judicial branch of Government. The Federalist 
Papers refer to the judicial branch as the ``least dangerous branch.'' 
I wonder whether James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are spinning in 
their graves today when they see what the Federal judiciary has become 
in too many instances, where judges have assumed the role of lawmaker, 
something that was anathema to the Framers.
  My point is simply this: People such as Priscilla Owen, with whom I 
served for 4 years on the Texas Supreme Court, understand that no 
matter what their personal beliefs are, when they put their hand on the 
Bible and they take an oath to uphold the law of their State and of the 
United States of America, they have a sacred obligation not to elevate 
their personal views above the law. Indeed, the judicial philosophy we 
should all embrace is that of a judge who interprets the law and not 
makes law.
  As I said earlier, a judge who is a lawmaker is indeed a law breaker 
because they violate the fundamental commitment that all of us have 
made to enforce and uphold the law, including the Constitution that 
dictates those respective roles for the various branches of Government.
  When I see people such as Priscilla Owen, who received 84 percent of 
the vote in her last election by the people of Texas and who has been 
twice selected to the Texas Supreme Court; when I see people such as 
Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who was supported by 76 percent of 
Californians in the last election in 1998, the highest of four justices 
on the ballot; these are not out-of-the-mainstream judges, unless words 
no longer have meaning.
  I agree with Senator Santorum who has said, to many it appears that 
their definition of ``mainstream'' is extreme. But these are mainstream 
judges who have received the support of the people they currently 
serve, both in Texas and California, because they have faithfully 
interpreted the law. They have been true to their oath. They have been 
true to the Constitution.
  We live in a pluralistic society. People across this country have a 
variety of different beliefs on a variety of different matters. Indeed, 
that is what makes this country so great and so strong because we 
believe everyone is entitled to believe as they wish, to speak and say 
what they want, but that ultimately we are all governed by the 
same rules: the rule of law.

  It does my heart great sadness to see that people who have dedicated 
their life to upholding the law are treated so shabbily in this, the 
world's greatest deliberative body, and that reputations that have been 
earned with a lifetime of public service are degraded and denigrated to 
the point that we would not recognize them; that their families, who 
listen to these unfair and, in some instances, scurrilous attacks, must 
certainly suffer when they hear the name calling and the unfair 
characterization of these good and decent human beings.
  Just one example of this, perhaps, has taken us to a new low. This 
cartoon appeared in the Black Commentator on September 4, 2003. This 
was displayed at the hearing of Janice Rogers Brown before the 
Judiciary Committee, someone who currently serves

[[Page S14607]]

on the California Supreme Court. I had the honor to introduce her to 
the committee because her two home State Senators refused to do so. But 
it was my honor to do so.
  This is the kind of scurrilous, mean attack that is embraced by some 
who oppose these nominees. I know it is not necessarily easy to see, 
but this depicts a caricature of President Bush, a picture of Janice 
Rogers Brown in the most extreme sort of racial stereotype you can 
imagine, Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and 
Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser to the President. The 
President is saying: ``Welcome to the Federal bench, Ms. Clarence . . . 
I mean, Ms. Rogers Brown. You'll fit right in.''
  Our colleagues on the other side would do well to disavow this kind 
of support for the obstruction of these judicial nominees. Indeed, I 
would think every fairminded and decent human being would decry and 
denounce these sort of vial and loathsome tactics. We can disagree. We 
can have different points of view. Indeed, I think that is what makes 
this body so unique and so important. But we should agree to maintain a 
certain minimum level of civility in our discourse and, indeed, when 
there are those who inject this sort of scurrilous attack on President 
Bush's nominees, or anyone else for that matter, we ought to stand up 
and say: Unfair, unjustified, and we repudiate it.
  Frankly, I have not heard the kinds of repudiation that I would 
expect for those who are joining in this obstruction against Janice 
Rogers Brown and denying her the right to a vote.
  That is all we are asking for, an up-or-down vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have said often what a great 
privilege it is for me to be here and to represent the State of 
Florida. Little did I think 3 years ago when I came into the Senate 
that I would be speaking to an empty Chamber at 7:30 in the morning. 
But, indeed, it is a privilege to be here and to offer the ideas of 
this Senator and the perspectives.
  It is pretty clear to me that when I vote for 172 judges and only 4 
of 172 are rejected, I am doing my duty. It happens to be this Senator 
from Florida. Of those 4 who were rejected, I voted for 1 of those 4. 
But the notion that somehow this is not being fair for the Senate to 
advise and withhold consent on 4 judges out of 172 just seems to me to 
be something that we in the South would say is ``just beyond me.''
  Mr. President, 172 judges have come in front of this Chamber. I have 
voted for 169. I have voted against 3 of those judges. Now why? Why did 
I?
  Well, because what I want is a judge, particularly at the level of 
the appellate court, but for that matter any Federal judge because they 
are there for a lifetime appointment, they are there beyond any kind of 
influences that would remove them from the bench save for skulduggery 
and unethical behavior, they are there to be free to exercise their 
judgment--in so doing that, I want a judge who is open-minded, who 
approaches the bench in a fairminded way. I don't want a judge who 
comes to the bench and his mind already made up.
  In the South we have a phrase for that. It is a ``know-it-all.'' I 
don't want a know-it-all as a judge. I want a judge who has an open 
mind, who is going to listen to the facts, and apply the law. That is 
what the security and sanctity of this judicial system is based on: 
Fair and equal justice for all.
  That means that a judge ought to have judicial temperament to open 
their mind and not have all the answers as they approach the bench.
  So for this Senator, it is pretty clear, when I vote on 172 judges, 
and 3 of those 172 don't meet my test, and in the will of this body, 4 
of those 172 don't meet the test, it seems to me that is a fairly 
reasonable point of view. That is inserting the check and balance of 
the constitutional system that is so unique to our system of 
government, where a legislative branch offsets, and checks and balances 
the executive branch, and so, too, a judicial branch offsets and checks 
and balances the other two branches.
  I am delighted to be here with my colleague from Oregon today and to 
share the floor as we give some of our ideas about this all-night 
session. It was quite a challenge getting here. There is a real wind 
storm in Washington today. Fortunately, since the power went out at my 
residence, my stopwatch and also alarm clock wristwatch went off, and I 
had to stumble around in the dark with a flashlight and race over here. 
But I am delighted to be here and to join with my colleague from 
Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend. I think he has made a number of 
important points about judges. The fact is, there is an alternative 
path. I think about how I have had a chance to work with my colleague 
in the Oregon delegation, Senator Smith. We have gotten judge after 
judge confirmed because we have felt, while some consider it quaint, 
that you ought to try to work in a bipartisan way. We have not applied 
an ideological litmus test. I think what the Senator from Florida is 
saying is that is the kind of approach we ought to be pursuing, to try 
to find common ground to get the Senate together.

  As I begin my comments this morning, I will say that I think a lot of 
Americans look at what is going on now on the floor of the Senate and 
say that it is sort of like the great wall of China, an almost 
impenetrable barrier surrounding a forbidden community where their 
voices just go unheard.
  I know what I hear from my constituents--I have open community 
meetings in all of Oregon's counties--is awfully different than 
essentially what the Senate has been doing through the night.
  For example, what I hear about is how medical costs are just gobbling 
up everything in sight. I hear, for example, about how the crushing 
small businesses, scores of them dying to cover their people, have been 
unable to do it. I hear about providers, physicians, and others leaving 
the system because of inadequate reimbursement. I hear about so many 
who are not poor enough for Medicaid, they are not old enough for 
Medicare, and they fall between the cracks. Again, there is an 
alternative approach to all of the partisanship.
  The senior Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, has worked with me for a 
number of years now on the Health Care for All Americans Act. It is 
absolutely critical that the Senate get moving on this issue because we 
all understand that there is a demographic tsunami coming. Millions of 
baby boomers are about to retire in a few years. All of the problems we 
are seeing today are going to be multiplied three or fourfold.
  Yet the Senate isn't tackling that kind of issue because, in effect, 
things have ground to a halt over exactly the kind of polarization the 
Senator from Florida has talked about.
  I would hope that as we wrap this up, we understand that nothing 
important is going to get accomplished in the Senate unless there is an 
effort to work in a bipartisan kind of fashion.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. On that point, we have been fortunate to have 
a bipartisan approach in Florida with regard to the confirmation of 
judges as well. My senior colleague, Senator Graham, as Governor back 
in 1978 to 1986, was able to get the legislature to pass a series of 
panels called the Judicial Nominating Commission. This would be 
composed of lay people and members of the bar, leaders of the community 
who would receive applications for a vacant judgeship, and then that 
committee would screen them, interview them, look at their credentials, 
and nominate three, and then the Governor would select. That is still 
law today.
  When Governor Graham was elected to the Senate in 1986, he started to 
institute a similar situation, but rather by custom instead of law, in 
the confirmation of nominees to the Federal bench. It has worked well, 
while there have been two Senators of the same party and, indeed, while 
Florida has had two Senators of both parties. Indeed, the judicial 
nominating commissions formed back in Florida nominate three for the 
vacancy. The Senators sit down and interview all three of those. Now we 
are operating under a system that we have worked out with the existing 
Governor of Florida that it will be six nominees for the vacancy.

[[Page S14608]]

  Senator Graham and I sit down and interview all six, and we make a 
recommendation to the White House if we have an objection.
  Otherwise, the White House then goes about and selects which one they 
want. It is a way of working this in a bipartisan fashion, with a 
bipartisan commission; and all of our judges have gotten through 
without controversy.
  The fact is exactly what the Senator from Oregon says. If you put 
your mind to it and you want to be bipartisan, you can have this 
process work, work efficiently, work effectively, and work timely in 
order to have good, fair, and open-minded judges.
  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator from Florida is being logical. Heaven forbid 
that logic break out sometimes in this area that is often called the 
``logic-free zone''--this area surrounding the Capitol. It just seems 
that in so many of these areas, the institution just takes leave of its 
senses because both of us have described a bipartisan way to deal with 
the issue of judges--an approach that works in Florida and has worked 
for Senator Smith and I in Oregon. I do not think the Senate has the 
time or luxury for a lot of this pettiness.
  I mentioned the health care issue with Senator Hatch that I have felt 
strongly about since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. 
This demographic revolution is coming on us, and the prescription drug 
issue we are tackling now is vitally important. But if there is one 
thing the Senate has learned, health care is like an ecosystem. What 
you do in one area affects all other areas. Senator Hatch and I have 
pulled together an approach that has now gotten the support of the 
Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO to get back on track for what, 
regrettably, was not finished back in the early 1990s. In the health 
care area, you see an alternative path.
  I see my good friend from Virginia here, Senator Allen. He and I are 
working on at least five major technology issues right now on the 
question of Internet access, and we are working in a bipartisan way 
with the States and localities to ensure that the Internet medium is 
allowed to grow and prosper. We have come together on nanotechnology, 
and we are working together.
  I want to give some additional time to the Senator from Florida 
because I know his schedule is short. If you look at the big issues of 
our day, including the health care question, where I have outlined what 
Senator Hatch and I are talking about on so many issues that are social 
and ethical; and the technology question, where it just seems fitting 
that the Senator from Virginia is here, Senator Allen, my friend and 
partner on so many of these technology issues, the Senate has a choice 
either to listen to our constituents and take the bipartisan approach 
that will lead to real solutions or continue what is seen by most 
Americans as just small food-fight-like exercises.
  I want to give additional time to my friend from Florida because of 
his schedule. I appreciate, particularly, his outlining, as we have 
tried to do in Oregon--Senator Smith and I working together--the kind 
of bipartisan approach that the Senator from Florida has described in 
his State for choosing judges.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will pick up on that theme 
the Senator from Oregon has mentioned. I must say this has been one of 
the greatest experiences, and most enjoyable, to get to know all of 
these Senators. I must say there is not one Senator here I do not 
personally like. I must also say that my degree of frustration--and 
usually if I am frustrated, it is with a smile because of enjoying my 
colleagues here so much; but my one frustration is that this place is 
way too partisan. And, from time to time, this place is way too 
ideologically extreme. When you have a country as big and as broad and 
as complex and as diverse as ours, it is very difficult to govern this 
country when it becomes highly partisan and ideologically extreme. It 
makes it very difficult for the people who are in the political center 
trying to reach out and bring people together to build consensus when 
there is sharp, highly charged partisanship and ideological extremism. 
It is very hard to build that consensus.

  Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Florida yield?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would love to yield to my colleague, but it 
is my understanding that, under the rules, we are given, in each hour, 
one-half hour for the Senator from Oregon and me to make a 
presentation, and one-half hour is given to the Senator's colleagues to 
make their presentation. It would be my intention for Senator Wyden and 
I to continue our remarks, since we only have about 12 minutes left.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thought it had been agreed that any 
speaking or questioning I may do would get charged against our time in 
the next hour.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I 
have the floor. I have some thoughts I want to express. Rather than 
have those interrupted, I prefer to just continue on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has the floor.
  Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Virginia, who is one of my favorites here. I have the privilege of 
serving with him on a number of committees.
  Back to what I was saying, if we would stop this excessive 
partisanship--you cannot get things done with this excessive 
partisanship. Especially, you cannot get it done in a Senate that is 
basically split down the middle, 50-50. I think it is 51-49 now. So if 
you are going to get anything done, we ought to be Americans first, not 
partisans first. That is what part of all this fight is. That is what 
part of this all-night session has been.
  Do you know what. The folks out there in America--and I think all of 
you know this--don't like these partisan food fights.
  I would like the perspective of the Senator from Oregon on that.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida and I have 
tried to spend our half hour talking about specific ways in which the 
Senate, on a bipartisan basis, can come together to find common ground. 
Let me repeat them as we move to the end of our half hour. The Senator 
from Florida and I have talked about an alternative approach on judges, 
which works in the State of Florida and in the State of Oregon. I have 
talked about the health care issue, the issue that I feel the most 
passionate about, going back to my days when I worked with the elderly, 
and the wonderful help I have gotten from Orrin Hatch, trying to focus 
on getting the country ready for this huge set of population changes 
that is coming. I thought it was very fitting that the Senator from 
Virginia was here, Mr. Allen, who has worked with me on technology 
issues.
  A fourth area--something that is fresh in the Senate's mind--is that 
just a few days ago, we got 80 Senators--far more than anyone could 
have imagined--to support a major natural resources bill dealing with 
the forest fire issue. This is something of enormous concern in my part 
of the country and, obviously, all Americans. Our hearts go out to the 
people in California where they have had this terrible tragedy. Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Cochran--I always wanted to work with Senator 
Cochran on an issue as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I haven't 
had the opportunity until now. He could not have been more constructive 
and helpful. I think that is why the Senate got 80 votes for that 
forest rebuild.
  So I think the Senator from Florida is setting the right tone and 
certainly, in our 20 minutes, on the question of judges, health care, 
technology, and on the question of forestry, the two of us have shown 
that there is an alternative to a lot of the smallness, a lot of the 
harshness that we are seeing dominate this debate.
  I thank my colleague for all of this extra time, and I believe the 
tone he is setting is one that will respond to what I hear the country 
talking about, and certainly what I hear people of Oregon talking about 
at our 36 town meetings in every part of the State.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will yield, I want to discuss 
another subject where partisanship gets in the way, and that is putting 
our fiscal house in order.
  The Senator will remember about 2\1/2\ years ago, the wonderful 
optimistic view that we had of the Federal budget,

[[Page S14609]]

where we were sitting on a budget surplus in the year 2001--something 
in excess of $250 billion in that 1 year, with a projected surplus over 
the next decade that was going to allow us to pay down and almost pay 
off the entire national debt, and still have enough left over in order 
to enact a substantial tax cut, and still have enough left over to 
start new programs that were needed, such as the adequate funding of 
the bill that we ultimately passed but did not adequately fund--the No 
Child Left Behind Act--and modernizing Medicare with a substantial 
prescription drug benefit. We had the opportunity to do all of that and 
still be fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible in not invading 
the Social Security trust fund, letting that Social Security trust fund 
surplus pay off the national debt over the next decade.
  Instead, 2\1/2\ years later, we are looking in this fiscal year at a 
budget deficit--not a surplus but a deficit--of a half trillion 
dollars. That means we are spending $500 billion more than we have 
coming in in tax revenue. What do we do? We go out and borrow it. Who 
do we borrow it from? We borrow it in part from the average American 
citizen when we buy Treasury bonds. Do you know what surprises people? 
We end up borrowing it from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia.
  If we are going to get out of this fiscal briar patch, it is going to 
take bipartisanship. The excessive partisanship gets in the way, just 
like it has gotten in the way of having us in session all night for 
that side of the aisle to make their point of view, and our side of the 
aisle to say that we have taken up 172 judges and approved 168 of them.
  This country has its challenges and we have not even talked about 
Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror. But it certainly has its 
challenges with this fiscal mess that we are in of bleeding to the tune 
of deficit financing of $500 billion in this fiscal year.

  Again, I thank my colleague. What he represents, my colleague from 
Oregon, and our colleague from Louisiana, who is with us--what they 
represent is the bipartisanship of reaching out and trying to bring 
people together and build consensus. That is what we need to do when we 
are dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget deficit, the 
environment, education, prescription drug benefits, and the approval of 
judges.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I think you have given us an ideal way to wrap up our half 
hour. I want to tick off yet another area where we have outlined an 
opportunity for an alternative path. We have spent our half hour 
describing a way in Florida and Oregon where you can deal with judges 
in a bipartisan fashion. We have talked about health care issues. Orrin 
Hatch and others have helped me, as have other Democrats. I think that 
has been constructive and a real path to try to deal with what is 
coming in 2010 and 2011.
  Senator Allen was here and we talked about technology and the fact 
that the Senate got 80 votes a few days ago for forestry legislation--
an unprecedented bipartisan vote. Finally, the Senator from Florida 
puts us on this question of fiscal responsibility, another avenue for 
cooperation between the parties.
  I think about the outstanding work done by the Senator from Maine, 
Ms. Collins, who chairs the committee overseeing the operations of 
Government. She and I have been very concerned about the lack of 
openness in competition in the contracting process for these 
reconstruction contracts. It looks, given the events of this week, as 
though you are going to get more information out of Baghdad than you 
are going to get out of Government agencies in Washington, DC. There 
wasn't a shred of partisanship with respect to how we tackle this 
issue. So I think what we wanted to do in our half hour of time--the 
Senator from Florida and I--is not just talk about everything that has 
gone wrong, but to outline on specific issues an alternative path--a 
path that shows that we are listening; that the notion that somehow 
Washington, DC, is like a great wall of China, an unpenetrable 
community for the American people doesn't have to be that way. Whether 
it is judges, health care, technology, forestry, or the fiscal morass 
that the Senator from Florida has talked about, we want people who are 
listening this morning to know that we do think there is another way 
for the Senate to do its business.
  I say to my friend from Florida, we came to Congress essentially 
together in the other body and then here. I have really enjoyed this 
and particularly the tone that I think he set out when we began--that 
the Senate needs to do better, and if you want to get anything 
important done--which is why we are sent here--it has to be bipartisan. 
I thank my colleague.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, has the half hour expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has an additional 1 minute 50 
seconds.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Oregon, and I thank the Senator from New York, who has already shared 
his comments. I am looking forward to the comments of the Senator from 
Louisiana and also the Senator from Iowa.
  Bottom line: What is this about? This is about fair and equal 
treatment for the American people and producing a Federal judiciary 
that will be open minded. Over two centuries ago, a group of political 
geniuses got together and crafted a written document called the 
Constitution, which would not allow power to be concentrated in the 
hands of any one person or any one institution but, rather, that an 
arrangement of sharing of power would occur. Each institution would 
have a check and balance against the other.
  You are seeing that check and balance play out now in the nomination 
and confirmation, and/or the advice or nonconfirmation of this body, 
the Senate. So it is a great privilege for me to participate in it, 
along with the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nickles). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I listened to the words of the Senator from 
Florida and the Senator from Oregon. As the Senator from Oregon said, 
we have worked together on things from cybersecurity to nanotechnology, 
important initiatives for the competitiveness of our country. We have 
worked together to prevent access taxes on the Internet and other 
matters, particularly in the technology area.
  I listened to the Senator from Florida. This is why I wanted to pose 
a question to him. I realize both sides were out of time so I bring up 
the issue now.
  In the way he was speaking earlier, I would say, the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Nelson, said we approved all these judges and there were 
four we have not approved. Indeed, on one of them he actually voted 
for; that was Miguel Estrada. Miguel Estrada received 55 votes for 
cloture to actually go to a vote.
  In the case of Miguel Estrada, the majority of Senators were in favor 
of Miguel Estrada. I commend Senator Nelson as one of the four or five 
Democrats who, on Miguel Estrada's nomination, thoroughly examined his 
qualifications and decided that he should be accorded a vote. But we 
now have a supermajority requirement for judicial nominations, a 60-
vote margin.
  However, to look at a cloture motion as a vote up or down is not 
correct. The Constitution does not require a 60-vote margin. The 
Constitution requires advice and consent in a simple majority, one way 
or the other, with a simple, fair, and equitable vote. Miguel Estrada 
had 55 votes. Senator Nelson was one who voted to end cloture. Clearly, 
with a fair vote, he would now be on the DC Court of Appeals. Instead 
we had to go through seven cloture votes.
  The same with Attorney General Pryor, Judge Pickering, and Justice 
Owen--all have had majority votes to end cloture. So the reality is, 
and why there is frustration and aggravation and why we are trying to 
get justice and equity done, is that in fact there has not been a 
simple up or down vote on this nominees.
  In the event that one of these cloture votes had only resulted in 47 
or 48, I expect the writing would be on the wall and we would recognize 
the President would have to renominate. That happened years ago with 
Justice Fortas.
  In this situation, it is clear, with Miguel Estrada, Mr. Pryor, Judge

[[Page S14610]]

Pickering, and Justice Owen, the majority are in favor. It there will 
probably be a majority in favor of Judge Kuhl and Judge Rogers Brown.
  I have been talking about country music songs through the night and 
through the morning. This reminds me of an analogy to ``Rawhide,'' 
except the opposite, instead of ``movin', movin', movin','' we have 
``stallin', stallin', stallin'.''
  What we want is people to decide in the Senate, yes or no, whether 
you are going to move them up or move them down; yet, nevertheless, 
move and decide. That is the responsible thing to do, consistent with 
the Constitution, consistent with the accountability of the Senators to 
the Constitution and to their constituents as well as fairness to these 
nominees, to give them the fairness of an up-or-down vote. Simply 
decide.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I will.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am interested to hear the Senator make the point that 
an up-or-down vote is what we are asking for. The Senator was in the 
Chamber when the cartoon was displayed with highly offensive racial 
characteristics attributed to the judge from California. I ask the 
Senator if he is aware that this African-American woman, who in my 
opinion has been slandered, has been the subject of comment by Al 
Sharpton, one of the candidates for President. Al Sharpton said he 
disagrees with the woman and believes she is not qualified to sit on 
the bench but that she is entitled to an up-or-down vote. Is the 
Senator aware of Mr. Sharpton's comment on that?
  Mr. ALLEN. No, I was not aware of that. I thank the Senator from 
Utah, Mr. Bennett, for bringing that up. I hope some of our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle will look back on some of their own 
statements from 3 years ago and 4 years ago when they were saying 
judges deserve up-or-down votes, and at those contemporaneous times, 
from Reverend Sharpton. I may not always agree with Reverend Sharpton, 
but he seems to be a man of fairness and I hope our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will heed his advice.

  Mr. BENNETT. I would say I almost never agree with Reverend Sharpton, 
but I have seen the diligence with which he and other civil rights 
leaders have pounced upon any politician who has ever dared hint at any 
kind of racial slur or attack on an African American. At least he has 
shown this degree of consistency, that he has now spoken up against 
those who are Democrats who may have been guilty of a racial slur, and 
come to the defense of an African American, even though he disagrees 
with her.
  I think it appropriate for us to note that. I appreciate the 
Senator's yielding to me for the opportunity to make that comment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Utah for bringing up, not only 
the Sun, but that enlightening view.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield at the sufferance of the Senator from Tennessee. I 
will yield, but it will be on your time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Just a question. I am sorry the Senator from Utah left 
the floor. Perhaps if he hears this question, he might come back to 
respond.
  I am wondering, since he raised the name of Al Sharpton, Rev. Al 
Sharpton, who asked for a vote on one nominee, supposedly. If Al 
Sharpton--I am sure he did, and others--asked for a vote on 60 of 
President Clinton's nominees, which represented 20 percent of the 
nominees sent up by a former President, would the Senator from Utah 
have agreed to a vote, if Rev. Al Sharpton had called him? I don't 
think so. He could come back to the floor and respond to that.
  The issue is not single votes. The issue is whether the Senate of the 
United States, the Democrats, have a right to give advice and consent 
to the President. The facts speak for themselves. The Senator from 
Virginia knows them well. The numbers are 168 of President Bush's 
nominees have been approved with bipartisan support and cooperation 
from the Democrats in the Senate. Only 4--only 4--have been stopped--
only 2 percent. That is in contrast to the thousands--this is my 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may ask a question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Did the Senator from Utah or the Senator from Virginia 
know that when President Clinton was in the White House, thousands and 
thousands of individuals--did you know--called to ask for votes on the 
60 percent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is entitled to ask a question. She 
is not entitled to make a speech.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I am asking a question: Did you know? That is my 
question. Did they know that when the former President sent hundreds of 
nominees and asked for a vote--and I am sure Reverend Sharpton and 
others--did they know, some of the members and groups involved and 
interested Americans involved--did they know that 55 nominees were not 
given a right to have their vote called?
  Mr. BENNETT. May I respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has control of the 
time.
  Mr. ALLEN. The question was propounded to the Senator from Utah, and 
I yield to the Senator from Utah. But before I do, the point is here 
and now. The four you are talking about is already six. The Senator 
from Florida was talking about these so-called cloture votes as being 
votes. They are not fair up-or-down votes. That is the point here. 
Don't try to shirk responsibility or shirk accountability. Are you 
going to vote for or against these individuals based upon their merits? 
If you are against them, that is fine. But have the equity and fairness 
of a vote.
  I was not here in those days. All I know is, since President Bush has 
come into office, he has put forward individuals, including Roger 
Gregory, whom I mentioned earlier, who was a recess appointee of 
President Clinton, and it was really difficult for a lot of Republicans 
to act on statements of Judge Roger Gregory based on his 
qualifications and merits, but we did. We think you on the other side 
ought to accord these nominees the same fairness and equity of a fair 
vote.

  But I will yield to Senator Bennett, responding on the Al Sharpton 
question.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will answer the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am unaware of how many nominees did not get out of 
committee. I am unaware of what may have happened prior to a nomination 
coming to the floor. But I do know I would allow a vote on every 
nominee who comes to the floor, regardless of which party it may be or 
regardless of which President might put that nominee forward. And I 
would agree with Al Sharpton or anyone else who called for an up-or-
down vote, without a filibuster, on any nominee, any judicial nominee 
who has come forward.
  There is no question but nominees get lost in committees. There is no 
question nominees get held up by holds and other activities. But once a 
nominee has been cleared by a majority vote of the committee and placed 
on the floor, that nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote. I have 
always held that position. I always will hold that position. It is for 
that reason I will support the Frist-Miller rule change that will make 
that position very clear.
  I do not care who the President is, under the Constitution he or she 
has the right to make nominations. The Senate handles those 
nominations. I understand sometimes those nominations will be stopped 
in committee. But once the committee has voted by a majority vote to 
put the nomination on the floor, whether it is my President or someone 
else's President, I will always support and always have supported the 
notion that that individual is entitled to an up-or-down vote.
  Mrs. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I will yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Will the Chair advise me when I have spoken for 90 seconds? 
I simply want to make one point. That is, the chart that is before us 
on the other side is more than misleading; it is absolutely false. 
There are always judges who are not confirmed at the end of a 
Presidential term. There were

[[Page S14611]]

at the end of the Clinton term. There were at the end of the first Bush 
term. So it is wrong to say that, because there were judges who 
continue be confirmed because they were nominated late, they were 
rejected.
  What is correct is to say is there have been four nominees rejected 
by filibuster without a fair trial, without an up-or-down vote. I have 
been trying to think of an analogy, watching people say: Look, it's 168 
to 4; we have only filibustered 4. Of course, there are a lot more in 
the wings.
  But here is an analogy that deals with the law: We only hanged 4 
people without a trial. We gave the other 168 a fair trial. We had a 
vote in the jury.
  That is what is going on here. It is not a matter of defeating the 
judges. Judges are defeated by both parties very seldom, and there are 
some at the end of a President's term who can't be voted on just 
because of time constraints, and it is about the same number in every 
party, if I go back in time.
  What is unprecedented is the filibuster where you don't even allow 
them a vote. The analogy I came up with is the one I just mentioned--I 
think it is very apt--to say, Look, we only hanged four people without 
a fair trial; the others got a fair up-or-down vote.
  That to me is wrong. That is what we are talking about here.
  Mrs. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Louisiana in control of 
time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I think I----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is in control of 
the time. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. How much time does the majority have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17 and a half minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do the minority 
and majority have at this hour to be allocated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17 minutes, the minority has 
28 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, insofar as the Senator from Arizona's 
comments are concerned, he said we gave 168 a fair trial and hanged 4 
without a trial. He might have also said we had never done that before 
this year. That is the point.
  Let me step back from this and try to put it in a little different 
framework. I am new to the Senate. I came here in January for the first 
time even though I worked here before, 35 years ago, for Senator Howard 
Baker.
  A lot of people ask me, knowing I was a Governor for a while: What do 
you think of it? How do you like the U.S. Senate?
  I suspect the reason they ask that is that some former Governors who 
have come here have not liked it. It is a very different sort of job. 
But this has been a great privilege for me. It is hard for me to think 
of a thing that has not been good about the last 10 or 11 months.
  The Senator from Louisiana is here. One of the good things is she and 
I have worked together on issues that have to do with the environment 
and energy. So the opportunity to speak, the people with whom I work, 
the issues I deal with, all those things make serving in the Senate a 
great privilege.
  The only real disappointment I have had is this issue of judges, of 
the treatment the Democratic side has given to President Bush's 
appointment of judges. I have been puzzled by that. I have even said to 
some of my friends on the other side: Before this year, before I got 
here, the Republicans must have done something awfully bad to you to 
produce this kind of reaction because I really don't understand it.
  I know something about the appointment of judges. As Governor of 
Tennessee, I appointed about 50 judges. In fact, the other day, I went 
back to Nashville for the retirement ceremony for Chancellor Irwin 
Kilcrease. I appointed him in 1980. He was the first African American 
ever to serve as a chancellor in our State. He served with dignity. I 
didn't ask him his political party before he was appointed. It turned 
out he was a Democrat. I didn't ask him his view on abortion. I still 
don't know what it is. I didn't ask him how he was going to decide the 
cases before I appointed him. I thought it would be totally 
inappropriate.
  I checked to see if he was intelligent, fair, had good character, if 
he would respect people who came before him, and I appointed him and he 
has served with great distinction, as did the others.
  I also worked for a great judge. The Senator from Louisiana certainly 
knows him well, or knew him well. His name was John Minor Wisdom. He 
lived in New Orleans. When I graduated from law school in the mid-
1960s, he was already considered to be one of the great Federal judges 
of the country.
  He and Judge Elbert Tuttle of Atlanta, Judge Richard Rives of 
Florida, and Judge John R. Brown of Texas, all appointed by President 
Eisenhower, Republican judges, presided over the peaceful desegregation 
of the South in the 1960s and into the 1970s. In 1962, they ordered Ole 
Miss to admit James Meredith. They are regarded as heroes in the South.
  Judge Wisdom was a great judge. I am sure, before he was appointed, 
no one in the Senate asked him how he would decide the cases he was 
about to decide.
  What is going on in the Senate today reminds me of the old mountain 
story about the lawyer who came up to the judge at the beginning of the 
case and said: Judge, may I make a few arguments on the law? May I tell 
you about the case?
  The judge said: You don't need to tell me about the case. I got a 
phone call last night. I pretty well know the facts. Just give me a few 
points on the law.
  The importance of judgeships in America is that when we go before 
them, we expect to be treated fairly. We don't believe it is a 
political exercise. And we accept the results. That is why it is so 
inappropriate, it seems to me, for us suddenly to be rejecting 
President Bush's appointments because of their permanent views when it 
is established by their long records that they are able to apply the 
law.
  Let me especially speak about a couple of cases from the part of the 
country I know the best, the South. I want to mention first the 
attorney general of Alabama, Bill Pryor. I want to mention, second, the 
Federal judge from Mississippi, Charles Pickering.
  Let's talk about Bill Pryor. He is a young attorney general, I just 
learned the other day. I had not really focused on him enough to know 
exactly who he is. He also was a law clerk to Judge Wisdom. He was 
editor in chief of the Tulane Law Review. I am certain the Senator from 
Louisiana would agree that would qualify someone, at least on paper for 
good starters, to be a good judge. I know Judge Wisdom hired 
extraordinary people. I know he never hired anyone who wasn't fair. I 
know he would never tolerate anyone in his office who wasn't committed 
to civil rights because he was one of the leading civil rights judges 
in the country. Yet on the other side of the aisle, the argument 
against Bill Pryor--this is no more than a racial smear--is that he is 
not sensitive to civil rights, he is a white conservative from Alabama 
and, therefore, can't be trusted, that is what the point is. But there 
is nothing in his background that would suggest that. That is made up 
out of whole cloth. That is not the reason the other side will not give 
Mr. Pryor an up-or-down vote, something that has never been done in the 
history of our country until this year with Federal nominees.
  Let me just speak about what Mr. Pryor's career has included. When he 
was appointed attorney general of Alabama, he voluntarily said in his 
ceremonial remarks he criticized the State constitution for banning 
interracial marriage. He didn't have to do that. He volunteered that.
  What is he doing today? He is trying to oust the chief judge of the 
Alabama Supreme Court because the judge insists on keeping a copy of 
the Ten Commandments in the courthouse in violation of a Federal court 
order. It is not because Mr. Pryor doesn't believe in the Ten 
Commandments. He believes in the law. He is able to put the law ahead 
of his own views.

[[Page S14612]]

  He is a Republican. He took to the Supreme Court of the United States 
a reapportionment case that worked against the Republican Party in 
Alabama. He didn't do it because he wanted to hurt the Republican 
Party, he did it because he was able to put the law above his own 
political beliefs.
  What else did he do? This may be the most serious and difficult act 
that an Alabama attorney general could do. I am surprised that he is 
still in office having done it. He wrote a letter to every school 
district in Alabama--to every superintendent in every school--telling 
them the football coach couldn't lead a prayer before the football 
game--not because he doesn't pray, not because he is not religious, but 
because he believes the law doesn't permit it. He is a Roman Catholic. 
He said so in the hearing. He is pro-life. But on the issue of 
abortion, he wrote all of the district attorneys in Alabama and told 
them they could not enforce an anti-abortion law passed by the State of 
Alabama because parts of it were unconstitutional. He put the law 
before his religious beliefs.
  Here is someone who was the editor in chief of the Tulane Law Review, 
a law clerk to the greatest civil rights judge of the last 30 years in 
the South, who has consistently put the law ahead of his own beliefs, 
and the other side won't bring him up for a vote. Why would that be?
  Let us go to Judge Pickering for a moment, another example in the 
South.
  The suggestion has been made that he is not racially sensitive. Those 
are code words. That is to suggest that somehow Mr. Pickering is a 
bigot and is not fair to African Americans. We all know what the slur 
is, what the slander is, what the implication is. We all know what that 
means. But what do the facts show?
  The facts show that Mr. Pickering was not on the sidelines, that he 
was not in the background, that he was out front during the great civil 
rights struggle of the 1960s and the 1970s. He lives in Laurel, MS. He 
lived at the center of the problems of racial desegregation. He lived 
in the same town as the head of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 
Sam Bowers. The White Knights were organized because they didn't think 
the Klan was mean enough. The White Knights and Sam Bowers, according 
to the Baton Rouge Advocate, was the most dangerous, the most violent 
racists living in the 1960s.

  We hear a lot about terrorists today. The terrorists of the 1960s in 
the United States were the Klan members in Laurel, MS.
  What did Charles Pickering do? He testified in public against Sam 
Bowers, in the courthouse, against the most violent living racist in 
America, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate. That was 1967. He has 
had a whole lifetime of commitment to racial progress. It seems as if 
almost everybody in Mississippi supports him, including most of the 
Democratic leaders.
  William Winter, my friend with whom I served, former Democratic 
Governor, a beacon for racial progress in Mississippi, strongly 
supports Judge Pickering. Frank Hunger, who was a law clerk on the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals where I was--Frank Hunger was President 
Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, he is Al Gore's brother-in-law, and 
he strongly supports Judge Pickering.
  Why in the world would the other side slur Judge Pickering and 
suggest that he is guilty of racial insensitivity when he stood up for 
desegregation? He might have been on the other side that opposed 
segregation, but he wouldn't. He was out front risking his life, 
literally, and putting his own children in public schools when others 
were running off to segregated academies. When we bring him up before 
the Senate--after sticking his neck out and sticking up, in 
Mississippi, for desegregation--we cut his neck off in Washington, DC? 
Why is that being done? I am not sure. I know it is not right 
constitutionally.
  The President nominates the judges. That has always been the way it 
was. Despite the rhetoric on the other side, until this year, this 
Senate has never used the filibuster to deny an up-or-down vote to a 
Presidential nominee who has a clear majority in the Senate. The 
filibuster has been used for other purposes by the other side.
  I was hearing a lot of talk last night about protecting the rights of 
the minorities. There were not a lot of African Americans in the South 
in the 1960s who felt really protected when a filibuster was being used 
by Senators to stop the most important piece of civil rights 
legislation that was offered here. So it is not that great a device to 
have.
  Why are they doing this? I don't know. One clue is to change the 
rules, which we may have to do, but the other is the election, which I 
guess is what I prefer.
  In Senate races in Florida, in North Carolina, in South Carolina, in 
Arkansas, in Georgia, and all across this country, I hope this is an 
issue. I hope people say: Why was President Bush, for the first time in 
our history, not given a chance to have up-and-down votes on men such 
as Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor who were extraordinarily qualified, 
had the majority vote and were courageous leaders in the South? Is it 
because they are southerners? I don't know what it is. But the other 
side is so captured by narrow interests that they are digging a hole so 
deep that I hope it has an important political result next year.
  I would prefer to see us operate differently, and I will pledge to do 
what the Senator from Utah pledged to do. While I am a United States 
Senator, if a nominee comes to the floor for a judgeship by any 
President, Democrat or Republican, I will not participate in a 
filibuster. I will vote to cast an up-or-down vote on any nominee of 
any President. I think that is the right thing to do. The sooner those 
of us on both sides do that, the more we will get back to appointing 
judges in the way Judge Wisdom was appointed, and the way Judge 
Kilcrease was appointed. And we would appoint judges we would respect. 
We would not be asking them how they will decide cases before they come 
in, and we would not be submitting them to an ideological litmus test 
before they are appointed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to answer a couple of 
points that the Senator from Tennessee raised. My colleague from Iowa 
is here to join me for a few moments to speak on the floor about this 
subject.
  Let me say there really isn't a Member I respect more in the Senate 
than the new Senator from Tennessee. He and I served together on the 
Energy Committee. I am well aware of his very progressive views on 
civil rights. I am aware of his history as a clerk for one of the 
finest justices who has served in the country. I am aware of his 
connection to Louisiana and as a southern leader. As a Democrat, I 
respect the work he did in Tennessee as a Republican Governor of that 
State. I look forward to many wonderful years working with him.
  But I would like to answer the question of why many people in the 
South are upset and concerned about what the Republican majority is 
calling on us to do today.
  I want to start with the charge that the Senator from Virginia said--
stalling, stalling, stalling. The Senator from Tennessee knows very 
well the Democrats did not ask for this 30 hours. The Republican 
leadership is stalling the veterans bill, the Energy bill, and the 
housing bill, which people in our State--as the Senator from Tennessee 
knows, I have 400,000 veterans in Louisiana. He must have 500,000 
veterans in Tennessee. Their bills are pending while we debate whether 
or not it is fair to block 4 of 168 nominees--4 of 168.
  The second point I want to make is that the Senator from Arizona took 
90 seconds to come to the floor and refer to the people who are 
listening--and we do believe the country is interested in the debate 
here in the Senate--that these four individuals were ``not given a 
trial.'' I think the words were ``hung without a jury,'' or some such 
inflammatory language.
  Please let me say for the Record that these 4 judges out of 168, only 
2 percent of President Bush's nominees, were given hearings. The 
nominee from Texas, Priscilla Owen, 1 full day of hearing; the nominee 
from Alabama, Judge Pickering, 2 days of hearings, and 1 day was given 
after the anthrax attack. The Capitol was literally under attack and we 
felt so strongly about providing a hearing the day after the attack 
that the nominee was given a hearing.

[[Page S14613]]

  Mr. Estrada was given 1 day of hearing, and Mr. Pryor was given 1 day 
of hearing.
  So the notion that these nominees have not been given their day in 
court, time to express their views and to answer questions, is 
absolutely false. That is in contrast to the 57 nominees of 63 of 
President Clinton's nominees. Let me repeat: 57 out of 63 who didn't 
get 1 minute of a hearing, not 1 minute.
  These 4 we have blocked for reasons that I and my colleagues will go 
into--and Senator Harkin will speak about in a minute--have been 
blocked for very good reasons. All of them got a hearing. I just wanted 
to make that clear.
  I know the Senator from Tennessee will remember those hearings in 
those committees.
  The third point I want to clarify is the Senator from Utah said he 
would never not give a nominee the opportunity for a vote. The Record 
will reflect that the Senator from Utah has voted seven times against 
cloture for giving a nominee--not a judicial nominee but appointee--a 
vote on the Senate floor.

  I urge Senators to not use words such as ``never'' or ``every'' 
because the fact is, filibusters have been attempted before over the 
course of our history: In 1968, in 1980, in 1994, and in the year 2000, 
but they haven't been successful.
  This filibuster is successful for one reason and one reason only: The 
American people do not want these four judges on the bench. They just 
do not want them on the bench, and they are expressing that through the 
Democrats here in the Senate. I will tell you why.
  Let me talk about Mr. Pryor for just 1 second. I want my colleague 
from Tennessee to know, and my colleague from Alabama will know this. I 
know I am going to aggravate some Democrats when I say this. But I was 
willing to vote for Judge Pryor, and I had basically told that to the 
Senator from Alabama, who is a good friend of mine, someone with whom I 
really enjoy working, who is much more conservative than I am on some 
issues. But I really do like him and I really do trust him in many 
ways. I talked with him and we talked about it. I was prepared to vote 
for Mr. Pryor until this ad appeared. Let me read it to you. Judicial 
Chambers:

       While some in the Senate are playing with religion, 
     Catholics need not apply.

  I am a Catholic. When these ads appear, by right-wing groups that 
want to divide this country, Catholic against Protestant, Gentile 
against Jew, man against woman, straight against gay, it is something 
inside me that just boils up.
  When the Republican leadership tells me I have a problem with 
Catholic judges--my father is a Catholic judge, and my sister is a 
Catholic judge. I don't have problems with Catholic judges. I don't 
have problems with William Pryor. I have problems with this red meat 
rhetoric that is anti-American, anti-constitutional, and defies every 
principle that this country and the men who are dying today and women 
in Iraq fight for. It is not a matter of whether you are Catholic, 
whether you are Jewish, whether you are Protestant. You should be 
judged on qualifications. But the right wing--and I told the Senator 
from Alabama until the National Republican Party repudiates this ad, 
the chairman of the party stands up and says these ads have no place, 
and the Republican Party repudiates these ads, the nominee will not get 
my vote--not because he is pro-life and I am pro-choice, not because of 
this or that, but because of this ad.
  That is what this election is about. I will tell you the people in my 
State are tired of it. I have Catholics and Protestants who want to be 
united, to be together, who want to create jobs, who want to help 
veterans, want to figure out the problem in Iraq, and they are so tired 
of the Republican leadership just using every little wedge issue, 
religion or race to wedge everybody apart. I know Democrats aren't 
completely innocent of these tactics, but it has gotten to the point 
where it has basically shut down the work here.
  I want to be clear. My dad is a Catholic judge; my sister is a 
Catholic judge. I am not against Catholic judges. But we are against 
ads like that, and until they are repudiated we will not allow this 
nominee to go forward.
  I don't even know if I want to go into Judge Pickering from 
Mississippi because I know he is from a fine family. But I will say 
this about that. I know his son well. He is a wonderful man. He is in 
Congress. I know he has beautiful grandchildren, and he has a wonderful 
family. But I will tell you this: The Senator from Tennessee should 
know this better than anyone because I think he is part of the new 
South. I think his whole life has been spent helping us in the South 
deal with the terrible issue of discrimination, to the point where it 
breaks your heart to think about what the laws did to people, crushed 
their spirits, crushed their lives, robbed them of the opportunity for 
anything. I grew up in that kind of place. I spent my whole life trying 
to change it, and I know he has, too.
  One of the reasons we have stopped the Pickering nomination is that 
many of us--and I don't think it is just Democrats, it is Republicans 
and Independents in the South--want the nominees on that Fifth Circuit 
to be about the new South, not the old South. To many of us, many of 
the moderate, middle, mainstream civil rights organizations, this 
Pickering nomination is about the old South. He was not one of the 
strongest civil rights leaders in Mississippi. There are hundreds of 
qualified judges, White and Black, who really sacrificed for civil 
rights. Why couldn't we have somebody like that on our bench? They 
don't have to be liberal. They could be moderate or conservative. Why 
do we have to reach back and find someone from the past? Why not reach 
forward?
  When Judge Pickering got out of law school, he asked his law partner 
to join him. His law partner belonged to the Mississippi Sovereignty 
Commission. My father got out of law school a few years before he did, 
in 1954. Judge Pickering got out in 1961. My father never, in 100 
years, would have asked a member of the Mississippi Sovereignty 
Commission to be his law partner. It just wouldn't have happened, 
because our family was a civil rights family. We rejected everything 
the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission or the Louisiana Sovereignty 
Commission or the Alabama Sovereignty Commission did, which was to 
basically intimidate African Americans. No matter how good they were, 
no matter how hard they worked, no matter how talented they were, no 
matter how many times they went to church or loved their children, 
because they were Black, they couldn't get a job, they couldn't live in 
the neighborhoods. That is what the sovereignty commissions did.
  So you are asking me, after spending 40 years of my life fighting 
against this, to stand here and say it is OK to appoint someone like 
this to the bench? And then get upset when I say I have a problem with 
that?
  Well, I am sorry about it. I do have a problem with it. Most of the 
people in my State have problems with it because, believe me, there are 
lots of people in Mississippi who were in the civil rights movement on 
the right side of the movement, not the wrong side; the forward side, 
not the back side. And I will tell this President or any President, we 
are looking for people in the future, not the past. We are looking for 
a new South. We reject the old South.
  In conclusion, let me just say that my time has expired. Senator 
Harkin is in the Chamber. I thank him for his great patience. I am 
sorry I got a little exercised. But I guess coming from the part of the 
country I do and being Catholic, it has been very hard, especially for 
us, to have to hear some of the rhetoric that is thrown around on the 
Senate floor.
  Again, to my friend from Tennessee, I have the utmost respect for 
him. He has been a real leader in this effort.
  I yield the floor and acknowledge Senator Harkin who is here to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 14 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is that under a unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes under the consent 
arrangement and 2 minutes remaining under this hour segment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was driving in this morning and 
listening to NPR. I couldn't turn on the television this morning 
because our house

[[Page S14614]]

didn't have electricity. The wind knocked out the electricity. So I was 
listening to the radio driving in. They had a little snippets of the 
debate last night: Some people talking about this as being theater, 
whether it was real theater or false theater. I don't know that I want 
to even venture a guess as to whether this is real or false, but I will 
tell you this: It is hypocritical theater. This is hypocritical theater 
going on right now.
  The arguments of my friends on the other side, the Republican side, 
are so filled with hypocrisy, so filled with double standards. These 
arguments reek with pure, unadulterated partisan politics.
  I have listened to this, and it is hard to know where to begin. This 
morning I was listening to some of my friends on the other side talk 
about a moral obligation to have a vote on the Senate floor on judges. 
However, I was listening to the words carefully. Evidently, it is not 
morally correct or morally right for Democrats to hold up judicial 
nominees on the Senate floor with extended debate or filibuster, 
whatever you call it. That is morally unacceptable. But it is morally 
acceptable for Republicans to hold up judicial nominees in committee.
  Here is where the words get kind of funny. I have heard the 
Republicans talk about this, and they say: That is not a filibuster in 
committee; that is a hold. Here on the floor it is a filibuster. One is 
morally acceptable; one is not.
  Please tell me where the moral demarcation line is on this. How 
absurd. How reeking of hypocrisy. I remember 15 times more judicial 
nominees were blocked by Republicans. But they did it in committee.
  When this all started last night, I thought, this is so appropriate 
that this theater, this hypocritical theater we are engaged in, is 
happening at nighttime. It is so appropriate for this event to take 
place at night because under cover of darkness is where this majority 
likes to operate, in committee, not open on the floor. No, block the 
nominees in committee. That is not a filibuster. That is a block. That 
is a hold. That is OK. Morally, that is acceptable. It doesn't count. 
But don't dare block them out in the open, on the Senate floor.
  Three years ago, Bonnie Campbell, former attorney general of the 
State of Iowa, head of the Violence against Women Office at the U.S. 
attorneys office here in Washington, did a great job, came before the 
committee. President Clinton had nominated her for judicial appointment 
to the Eighth Circuit. Both blue slips were turned in by the two 
Senators from Iowa. She had a hearing, a great hearing. Not one issue 
was raised in public against Bonnie Campbell, no one said she was unfit 
to be a judge, that there was something bad in her background, that she 
had made bad judgments or decisions as attorney general. Not one thing 
came out against Bonnie Campbell, but she never got on the floor for a 
vote. She was held hostage in Committee never to be seen again.
  Now I say to my friends on the other side: I stood here, asked 
numerous times unanimous consent to bring Bonnie Campbell out on the 
floor to have a debate. Every time, it was objected to. Where were my 
friends who are so sanctimonious now? Where were they 3 years ago when 
I asked unanimous consent to bring Bonnie Campbell out of committee?
  Now I see clearly. The scales have fallen from my eyes. I see 
clearly. It is morally OK to stop them in committee. Don't give a vote 
in committee, under cover of darkness. You pull the cloak over it and 
you don't allow them out of committee. That's OK because no one really 
knows what's going on outside the Beltway.
  It is hypocrisy--sheer hypocrisy.
  The Senator from Arizona earlier said he had an analogy, something 
about, we are going to hang them without a trial. I kind of missed a 
little bit of that. How about this analogy--about Bonnie Campbell's 
analogy? How about all of these judges who were held in committee and 
blocked? They were held in prison forever with no charges, no trial, no 
vote, just lock them up and don't ever let them out.
  Sanctimonious arguments on the other side. My, my, my. Notice the 
nuance of the words. How many times have I now heard Republicans on the 
other side say: I will never, never vote to block a nominee on the 
floor? I hear it all the time. That seems to be a common refrain from 
the other side: I will never vote to block a nominee using a 
filibuster.
  My good friend from Utah said that. But check the record. The Senator 
from Utah, who was recently in the Chamber saying he would never vote 
against cloture, voted against cloture 8 times in the Clinton 
administration, against 8 nominees, Janet Napolitano to be U.S. 
attorney, Ambassador Flynn, Walter Dellinger, Rick Taggert, Sam Brown, 
Edmund DeJarnette, Henry Foster, Derrick Shearer. My friend from Utah 
voted against cloture eight times. Again, where is the moral 
demarcation line?
  I guess it is morally all right for my Republican friends to vote 
against cloture on nominees for attorney general, ambassadors, et 
cetera. It is morally OK to do that. But it is not morally OK to vote 
against cloture on a lifetime appointment to the judiciary.
  Please, someone tell me about the moral demarcation line. You can 
vote against cloture for nominees eight times and come out on the floor 
and say, I will never vote against cloture on a judicial nominee.
  Again, notice the nuance of the words. This is a filibuster. But if 
they're held up in Committee with a hold for no apparent reason, well 
that doesn't count. There's nothing morally wrong about that. I heard 
that from my Republican friends: We didn't filibuster all of these 
judges in committee; they just had a hold put on them. Apparently, 
there's an obvious moral difference that I just have failed to see.
  It is at times such as this I am reminded of one of my favorite 
refrains from one of my favorite plays, ``Finian's Rainbow.'' It goes 
like this: For life is like cricket. We play by the rules. But the 
secret which few people know, that keeps men of class far apart from 
the fools, is to make up the rules as you go. It is a little refrain 
from a song in ``Finian's Rainbow.''
  Republicans just want to make up the rules as they go, change them to 
fit the times and circumstances, change their arguments--these actions 
represent sanctimonious hypocrisy, partisan politics, double standards.
  Well, we have had 30 hours here, I guess. I want to just say, I thank 
all of the staff and the pages, the reporters, the police, all who had 
to stay and work overtime.
  Speaking of overtime, while we are wasting time with this theater of 
hypocrisy, guess what is happening in other parts of this building. 
Guess what is happening under the cover of darkness. The Republicans 
want to take away your overtime pay protection. That is what is 
happening.
  The administration, earlier this year, came out with a new proposed 
rule that will effectively take away overtime pay protection for 8 
million Americans. Not one hearing was held on it. Cover of darkness. 
Not one public hearing was held on that. The Senate voted on an 
appropriations bill to stop the administration from enacting that rule. 
The House of Representatives joined in and voted.
  Yet the administration, the President, says he is going to veto it. 
He is going to veto funding for education, health care, medical 
research at NIH, funding for job training programs, all because they 
want to take away your overtime pay protection. All these people who 
worked here overnight--police, reporters, staff, so many people who 
worked overtime--while they are playing this little shell game.
  It reminds me of that carnival shell game. You watch this hand, but 
with the other hand they are picking your pockets. Let's waste 30 hours 
of time talking about 4 judges to hide the fact that we don't want to 
vote on the issues that really matter to the American people--like 
raising the minimum wage, protecting overtime, extending unemployment 
insurance assistance, passing a real medicare prescription drug benefit 
and responsible energy bill and passing our appropriations bills.

  It is a shell game. Look at these 4 judges that the Democrats are 
blocking. Don't look a the 168 judges this Senate has confirmed under 
President Bush. Hype this up. We will have this theater to hide what's 
really going on.
  The other side may think the American people don't know what is going 
on. But I believe the American people

[[Page S14615]]

haven't been fooled. They know this is a waste of time to hide what the 
Majority can't or don't want to get done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. For the 
information of our colleague, his time has expired.
  The Senator from Tennessee has 2 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have been listening to my friend from 
Iowa. One thing he said that I agree with: The quote from ``Finian's 
Rainbow'' about making up the rules as they go a long.
  The issue before us is a pretty simple one. I think a lot of other 
Americans think President Bush ought to appoint judges with 
conservative principles who will not make up the rules as they go 
along, who will not make up the law as they go along, who will enforce 
the law as they find it, as Attorney General Bill Pryor does in 
Alabama, as Judge Pickering does in Mississippi.
  The issue here, after all the charts are taken down and all the 
rhetoric is put aside, is very simply this: For the first time in our 
Nation's history, the Democrats are using the filibuster to keep us 
from having an up-or-down vote on President Bush's nominees after they 
have gotten out of committee, after they have gotten to the floor, and 
after it is clear they have a majority of votes. That is the first time 
in our Nation's history.
  Second, they are doing it to extraordinarily well qualified women and 
men. I don't know whether that is grounds to change the rules of the 
Senate or not. But it surely is grounds for the people of the South and 
this country to address in the next election. Should a President have 
the right to appoint judges with conservative principles who will 
enforce the law rather than make it up as they go along? We believe 
that a President of whatever party should have that right. The other 
side, for the first time in 200 years, says: We are going to stop you 
from having an up-or-down vote on people who have the majority vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Tennessee has 
expired.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 224

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
return to legislative session and proceed to the consideration of 
Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage, that the 
bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: The time is 
controlled how?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, beginning at 9 a.m., 
the minority and majority each control 30 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of my 
constituents in the Sixth Judicial Circuit to discuss the plight we 
confront in that circuit. That circuit is made up of Michigan, Ohio, 
Kentucky, and Tennessee. As you can see by this chart, the Sixth 
Circuit is currently 25 percent vacant. If you are a litigant in the 
Sixth Circuit of Kentucky, it takes you 6 months or longer to get your 
case decided than in any other circuit in America.
  Why are we in this situation? We are in this situation because the 
two Michigan Senators won't allow the Senate to go forward on four 
nominees from their own State--the Michigan Four. So we languish with a 
25 percent vacancy rate. Litigants have a 6-month or longer wait than 
anywhere in America, while the two Michigan Senators hold up nominees 
from their own State, presumably because President Bush will not 
nominate people the Democratic Senators from Michigan are recommending 
that he nominate to the Sixth Circuit.
  It may have been a close election, but President Bush won. He gets to 
make the nominations. I can tell you as a Senator from the Sixth 
Circuit, I am not interested in seeing Democratic nominees to our 
circuit court. So what they have done here is set up a standard that 
cannot be met and will not be met, and they are punishing the litigants 
of the Sixth Circuit because of this pique they have that the 
Republican President won't nominate recommendations of Democratic 
Senators from Michigan to the circuit court.
  My recollection--and I have been here a couple of terms myself--is 
that Senators don't get to pick circuit judges. We may have a lot of 
influence on the selection of district judges, but Senators typically 
don't get to pick circuit judges. Maybe we get to make a 
recommendation, but we certainly don't get to pick them under 
Presidents of either party. So what is being asked in this situation is 
that Democratic Senators get to select circuit judges in a Republican 
administration.
  I can tell you if, as Republican Senators from the Sixth Circuit, we 
don't even get to pick Republican judges for the Sixth Circuit, there 
is no chance the Democratic Senators are going to get to pick 
Democratic judges in a Republican administration.
  The National Judicial Conference has designated all four of these 
seats as judicial emergencies. Not surprising. Twenty-five percent are 
vacant. It is a judicial emergency. The President nominated four 
superior jurists to fill these seats. Each of these nominees--all 
languishing in committee because the Michigan Senators object to them 
going forward--has gotten an ABA rating of qualified or well qualified. 
That used to be the Democrats' coveted gold standard.

  But despite the President doing his job and trying to fill these 
seats, the Senate has fallen down on the job. These nominees are from 
Michigan, and the Senate delegation from that State, as I said, has 
objected to the Senate considering them, even though the Sixth Circuit 
is in crisis. It is even rumored that if the nominees were to be 
reported out of committee, they would join the ranks of the 
filibustered nominees we have been talking about since yesterday at 6 
p.m.
  Our friends and colleagues on the other side keep talking about the 
four they filibustered. There are seven more who we understand are 
going to get the same treatment. So maybe we ought to be talking about 
11 who are going to be subjected to a supermajority.
  The wheels of justice in my State and the other States of the Sixth 
Circuit are turning very slowly. Sometimes they are not turning at all. 
Cases are going unheard and grievances unredressed because the Sixth 
Circuit bench is one-fourth empty. Each judge has to handle a much 
larger caseload.
  According to AOC--Administrative Office of the Courts--in 1996, each 
judge on the Sixth Circuit had to decide an average of 364 cases. That 
was just 7 years ago. On the Sixth Circuit, each judge had to decide 
about 364 cases. Last year--in 2002--each judge on the Sixth Circuit 
had to decide 643 cases--from 364 cases up to 643 cases between 1996 
and 2002. That is a 77 percent increase from just 6 years ago. By 
overworking judges on the Sixth Circuit, the Senate is causing great 
delays for litigants. It now takes an excruciatingly long time for 
citizens of the Sixth Circuit to get their appeals decided.
  As this chart shows, the national average for the time to decide an 
appeal is 10.7 months. This is the national average in the circuit 
courts of a delay in getting your decision made--10.7 months. In the 
Sixth Circuit, however, it is 6 months longer than that, 50 percent 
more.
  So if you happen to be a litigant in the Sixth Circuit, because of 
the demand of the Michigan Senators that the Republican President of 
the United States select Democratic nominees of their choosing to the 
Sixth Circuit, if you are unfortunate enough to be a litigant in the 
Sixth Circuit, you are out of luck. I hope your case is not too 
important because it will take 50 percent longer than the national 
average to get a decision. It is all because the Michigan Senators 
believe they should be able to pick one or more circuit judges for a 
Republican President.
  The Sixth Circuit has the dubious honor of being the slowest circuit 
in the Nation--dead last. The blame for that resides not with the 
President of the United States, who has had four well-qualified 
nominees pending before the Judiciary Committee for quite some time; 
the reason for that is the Michigan Senators' refusal to sign off on 
any of them, unless they get to tell the President whom to nominate.
  Looking at it another way, if you are lucky to have to be in one of 
the other

[[Page S14616]]

circuits, if you file your appeal by the beginning of the year, you may 
get a decision by Halloween. If you file at the same time in the Sixth 
Circuit, you will wait until Easter of the following year to get a 
decision. We have all heard the old saying that justice delayed is 
justice denied. So let's put a human face on those statistics.
  In the area of criminal justice, Ohio Attorney General Betty 
Montgomery has said that numerous death penalty appeals are 
experiencing prolonged delays. In the area of civil rights, attorney 
Elizabeth McCord had been waiting 15 months just to have an oral 
argument scheduled for her client's appeal in a job discrimination 
suit--15 months to get an oral argument in a job discrimination suit 
because the Michigan Senators won't allow any of the President's 
nominees to go forward. In the interim, her client died. He waited so 
long, he simply passed away.

  According to the Cincinnati Post, delays such as this have become 
commonplace because vacancies have left the court at half strength and 
created a serious backlog.
  Commenting on this sorry state, Mary Jane Trapp, president of the 
Ohio Bar Association, said:

       Colleagues of mine who do a lot of Federal work are 
     continuing to complain. When you don't have judges appointed 
     to hear cases, you really are back to the old adage, 
     ``justice delayed is justice denied.''

  Mr. President, this situation is completely and totally unacceptable. 
I am astonished that our Democratic colleagues want to filibuster 
qualified judicial nominees who could address the problem.
  My Democratic colleagues try to justify their obstructionism based on 
a grievance they believe they have suffered with respect to two of 
these seats. Bear in mind, there are four vacancies. This grievance 
goes back two Congresses and involves an intradelegation spat. The 
``you started it'' excuse is more than just a little wanting in light 
of these troubling statistics and unfortunate stories.
  As I said earlier, let's get back to the first principle: Democratic 
Senators don't get to pick circuit judges in Republican 
administrations. In fact, Republican Senators don't get to pick them in 
a Republican administration. We get to make recommendations. Presidents 
of both parties have long believed circuit court appointments were 
their prerogative.
  So I say to my friend from Idaho, who has joined us on the floor, 
here you have a situation where the Democratic Senators in Michigan, 
with a Republican administration, are demanding that the Republican 
President appoint someone of their choice to the circuit courts when 
even we as Republican Senators don't get to make such selections. I 
think it is safe to say that that is never going to happen. That is 
never going to happen.
  So in the meantime, four nominees the President has made--all from 
the State of Michigan--which would solve this 25 percent vacancy 
problem on the Sixth Circuit, languish because of this desire on the 
part of Democratic Senators to pick circuit court nominations in a 
Republican administration.
  It is important to remember that Michigan doesn't own these seats. 
They don't belong to any particular State. Certainly, historically, at 
least in recent history, these four seats have belonged to Michigan. 
They belong to the people of the United States. If anybody has a 
particular claim, it is the people of the Sixth Circuit, all of whom 
are suffering because of this obstructionism. I know the people of 
Ohio, Kentucky, or Tennessee would be more than happy to have these 
judges if Michigan doesn't want them. If the Michigan Senators don't 
want Michigan judges on the Sixth Circuit, goodness, we would be happy 
to have a good Ohio, Kentucky, or Tennessee lawyer fill the vacancies. 
My people in Kentucky didn't have anything to do with this spat up in 
Michigan. They are having to pay for it, as are the people of Ohio, 
Tennessee, and Michigan.

  I said there are four vacancies in Michigan. Two of the four seats 
the Michigan Senators are blocking don't have any connection to any 
prior intradelegation dispute. There were two of the four judges who 
were involved in all of this dispute during the Clinton years, but 
there are four vacancies. All four of them are being held up. President 
Clinton did not even nominate anyone. Let me repeat, President Clinton 
didn't even nominate anyone for the seat to which Henry Saud has been 
nominated. Henry Saud, if confirmed, would be the first Arab American 
to sit on a circuit court in U.S. history. That is one of the 
nominations they are holding up. President Clinton didn't even nominate 
anyone for the seat to which Henry Saud has been nominated. The seat to 
which David Mackey has been nominated didn't even become vacant until 
the first year of the current President's term. Two seats are being 
held up by the Michigan Senators, one of whom President Clinton 
nominated, and one didn't become vacant until President Bush took 
office. These two vacancies had nothing to do with whatever the spat 
was that went on earlier, and all four seats remain vacant.
  This is simply an unacceptable situation. The American people should 
be aware of what is going on. They should demand that this 
obstructionism cease. This outrage that is occurring in the sixth 
judicial circuit puts a human face on what has been going on around 
here this year.
  Real litigants, real people, are paying the price for senatorial 
pique, for senatorial demands for something that is totally 
unreasonable--where Democratic Senators, in a Republican 
administration, get to pick circuit judges. In the meantime, the 
lawyers and litigants of the Sixth Circuit continue to suffer under 
this 25 percent vacancy crisis, this judicial crisis of the highest 
order, as a result of Senate obstructionism.
  Let me also add, just a month ago, both houses of the Michigan 
Legislature passed resolutions that noted the negative effects of the 
vacancy crisis and urged the U.S. Senate in general, and Michigan 
Senators in particular, to act on the Michigan nominees. The Michigan 
Legislature is passing resolutions asking the Michigan Senators to let 
the nominations go forward.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address the 
crisis in the Sixth Circuit. It is a very serious crisis confronting my 
State. I see the Senator from Oklahoma here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 12 and a half minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will also be speaking later. I want to 
make a couple of comments after presiding and listening to some of the 
speeches made a moment ago. I think it is important to maybe give a 
couple of viewpoints about the positions of the Senate.
  I have had the pleasure of being in the Senate for 23 years. I plan 
on serving 1 more year in the Senate. I have had a lot of great 
experiences, a lot of high points and low points. One of the lower 
points is the way judges have been treated in the last 2 years. In my 
previous 21 years, we never had a filibuster on a judge, and I never 
heard colleagues say, Wait a minute, President Clinton had nominees and 
they weren't considered. Most of those who were on the list he 
nominated very late in the last year of his term of office. One of them 
was from Oklahoma, and the two Senators from Oklahoma were never even 
consulted. That name was on the list.

  So there is a difference between being nominated, going through the 
process--particularly with district court judges--consulting the home 
State Senators. That is the tradition of the Senate.
  One of the things that bothers me is we are breaking the tradition of 
the Senate by saying now you have to have a supermajority, particularly 
on the appellate court level. I don't know that that has happened on 
district court, and I am glad. We have confirmed a lot of district 
court judges and I am glad. But when it comes to circuit court, the 
next higher level, it may be a higher standard and all of a sudden now, 
the standard for those judges appears to be 60 votes. That is evident 
by the fact of four having been filibustered and there

[[Page S14617]]

are another two who will be filibustered in the process. We will find 
out tomorrow.
  Another of the traditions that has been trampled upon is what people 
are saying and how they are saying it. We had a speaker just recently 
who mentioned two Senators by name and kept using the words 
``sanctimonious hypocrisy.'' That is in violation, in the opinion of 
this Senator, of rule XIX of the Senate.
  We have rules. And we have rules for a purpose. Those rules should be 
adhered to. When Senators violate the rules, I think they undermine 
maybe to some extent the dignity and esteem of the Senate.
  These rules have a purpose. Rule XIX says:

       No Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any 
     form of words impute to another Senator or other Senators any 
     conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.

  That rule is there for a purpose. It is gradually being ignored in 
debate, time and time again, by some Members--not by most Members, by 
an occasional Member.
  I am giving a warning to Members, if they violate this rule, I am 
going to call it on them and I am going to ask the Parliamentarian if 
their comments are a violation of rule XIX. And if they are in 
violation, they will be seated. It will take an actual vote for them to 
be allowed to participate in debate again.
  It is not right to be coming down mentioning Senators by name and 
using words such as ``sanctimonious hypocrisy'' and impugning a 
Senator's motives. That is in violation of the rules. People ought to 
know the rules. Maybe if we would abide by the rules, we would have a 
higher level of debate, greater civility, and maybe greater 
understanding of some of the challenges we have before us today.
  Let me just make one other comment about there were some judges who 
are maybe left in the queue. President Clinton had a bunch of judges 
left in the queue. I had a judge who was left in the queue at the end 
of Bush 1's administration. His name was Frank Keating and he ran out 
of time. That is one of the traditions of the Senate. When people are 
nominated in the last year or the last few months of an administration, 
a lot of times they don't get confirmed. That is not a filibuster. Some 
people were equating that to a filibuster. It is not. There has not 
been a filibuster of a judge in my term--actually in the history of the 
Senate--until this year, on four individuals, and now we are going to 
find it on a couple of additional judges.
  One other comment. My very good friend from Louisiana said her father 
was a Catholic judge, and God bless him. I am concerned that there is a 
religious litmus test coming. Maybe we can confirm Catholics, but if 
they happen to be pro-life Catholics--I don't know if her dad is a pro-
life Catholic or not. I hope he is. I don't know. That is his business. 
I usually don't ask the nominees I am recommending or the President is 
considering--I usually don't ask them their position on that issue. But 
my guess is if someone is known to be a pro-life Catholic, they cannot 
get through this litmus test for appellate court judges that many are 
using today, and I think that is very regrettable. Maybe if they happen 
to be pro-life Southern Baptists or pro-life Mormons or pro-life Jews, 
I am not sure they can get through this new litmus test now being put 
on us by the Judiciary Committee and, unfortunately, by the minority in 
the Senate. I think that is very regrettable and we need to change 
that.

  Our colleagues on the other side need to realize at some point, 
someday, they will regain the majority. They need to be thinking about 
what that means for the long term. I cannot imagine they assume we are 
going to have a 60-vote litmus test or a 60-vote margin or hurdle for 
confirmation of judges during Republicans but that is not going to 
happen at some point when Democrats might occupy the White House.
  I think this raising the bar to 60 votes--I happen to believe it 
probably is unconstitutional, but I also happen to believe they are 
setting a precedent that they likewise will regret.
  So I hope maybe more mature minds will be thinking about this on the 
Democrat side and say, wait a minute, shouldn't we really give somebody 
such as Miguel Estrada a vote?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for just a 
moment? The Senator from Kentucky is here. I don't know how much time 
we have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority holds an additional 6 minutes on 
this side.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my very good friend from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you. I yield the remaining time on this side, 
during this hour, to the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. I thank for yielding my good friend from Kentucky and my 
good friend from Oklahoma. I have a question for the senior Senator 
from Kentucky.
  I ask my friend from Kentucky: The Michigan Senators argue that they 
have not been properly consulted on these, the Michigan nominees. Yet I 
understand the White House Counsel's Office consulted extensively with 
the Michigan Senators. This chart reproduces a letter from the White 
House Counsel that shows from April to November 2001, the White House 
consulted with the Michigan Senators no fewer than 13 times. So I ask 
my friend from Kentucky, in light of the record, does it not seem that 
the Michigan Senators are defining consultation as picking the 
nominees, rather than the President picking them?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Kentucky, he is exactly 
right. I think what is clearly happening here is the Michigan Senators 
want to pick circuit judges in a Republican administration.
  I remind everyone, the two Michigan Senators are Democrats. My 
recollection is that the Senator from Kentucky and I may get to 
recommend judges for the circuit court but we don't get to pick them in 
a Republican administration, so why should any Democrat Senator expect 
they would get to pick circuit judges in a Republican administration?

  Mr. BUNNING. On the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where these 
Michigan circuit judges are needed so desperately, isn't it true right 
now that Federal district judges are having to go to the Sixth Circuit 
and be seated because of the judicial crisis we have on the Sixth 
Circuit?
  Mr. McCONNELL. My friend from Kentucky is absolutely right. We have a 
25 percent--25 percent of the Sixth Circuit is vacant. Not because of 
the President of the United States. Four Michigan nominees were sent up 
here some time ago. They have been in the Judiciary Committee. They are 
having to draft district judges. It is the slowest circuit in America 
because it is 25 percent vacant.
  Mr. BUNNING. I only say to my good friend, the senior Senator, that 
even some of the newer judges with whom you and I are familiar are now 
having to do 2-week tours of duty over at the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals--they have only been on the district bench for 2 years--to try 
to catch up the backlog we have at the Sixth Circuit Court. If we could 
only get a little better cooperation out of certain Senators from 
Michigan, maybe we could fill those four vacant seats in a rational and 
reasonable way.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Kentucky for pointing this out. 
It is an outrageous situation.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we have heard from many on this side of 
the aisle this morning and last night. They have made great points 
about President Bush's judicial nominees and the bad situation they are 
in.
  We started this year talking about Miguel Estrada. His nomination is 
no longer before the Senate because of the opposition party's tactics 
and for the sale of his family.
  Today marks 918 days after Miguel Estrada's nomination. He has never 
received an up-or-down vote. That is unfair to him. President Bush, and 
the American people.
  Miguel Estrada is a respected attorney here in Washington. He 
received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA which is 
the rating our Democrat colleagues call the gold standard for judges.
  He would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the prestigious DC 
circuit. He was a clerk at the Supreme Court. He graduated with 
distinction from Harvard Law School and argued many

[[Page S14618]]

cases before the Supreme Court. He even served in the Clinton 
administration.
  But that is not the most impressive part of Miguel Estrada's story. 
He was born in Honduras and came to America at age 17 speaking little 
English. He overcame that hurdle and graduated from one of our most 
exclusive colleges and law schools.
  He also overcame a speech disability. And this is no small hurdle to 
clear when your career depends on making successful oral arguments in 
court.
  Miguel Estrada became a victim of politics in the Senate when some 
here said his views were unknown. They made unprecedented demands for 
documents every legal office in the country would object to releasing. 
They asked questions that countless Clinton nominees also declined to 
answer. And opponents said that was unacceptable.
  The real issue here is what is known about Miguel Estrada.
  He is a bright young Hispanic lawyer who follows the law and would 
make a great Supreme Court nominee.
  The idea of the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court being a 
conservative is unacceptable to them. I hope his nomination comes 
before the Senate again some day and we can vote to confirm him.
  And then there is Priscilla Owen.
  Her nomination has been pending for 918 days. She has been a supreme 
court justice in Texas since 1995.
  In her last election she received 84 percent of the vote. I'm not 
sure many here know what it feels like to receive that kind of 
percentage. But I bet we would all like to.
  And just like Miguel Estrada, the ABA gave her a unanimous ``well 
qualified'' rating.
  She graduated with honors from Baylor Law School where she was on the 
law review and she earned the highest score in Texas when she took the 
bar exam. Having suffered through several children taking the bar exam, 
I've heard what kind of challenge that can be.
  But most telling is what her colleagues in Texas say about her.
  Justice Owen has the support of three former Democrat justices on the 
Texas Supreme Court. Fifteen bipartisan past presidents of the Texas 
bar endorsed her.
  And running for re-election she was supported by every major Texas 
newspaper. We should all be so lucky to even get our hometown 
newspaper's endorsement.
  We've had three cloture votes on her and we will vote again on 
Friday.
  Each time a majority signaled we should give her an up-or-down vote. 
But again the minority is preventing her from having her day in court.
  What is her crime? Twice in the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owens 
said the court was wrong and that under Texas law the parents of a 
pregnant child had the right to be informed before their daughter had 
an abortion.
  Several lower courts had already upheld these parental rights and 
that Texas law does not give parents the right to stop the abortion, 
but they did have the right to be informed.
  But that precedent apparently doesn't matter and she is being 
obstructed by a radical minority in this Senate that believes children 
have unlimited rights to abortions and parents should not be able to 
talk to their pregnant child first.
  I know the vast majority of Americans do not believe that. And it is 
well past time we give Justice Owen an up-or-down vote.
  Alabama attorney general Pryor was the next judge to fall victim to 
special interest politics.
  Bill Pryor was appointed Alabama attorney general in 1997 and re-
elected twice, most recently with 59 percent of the vote.
  He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, practiced at two law 
firms, and taught law school.
  In law school he was on the law review and graduated with honors. 
After law school he was a clerk at the fifth circuit where he worked 
for a judge who spent years working to desegregate schools in the 
South.
  Attorney General Pryor is supported by Republicans and Democrats in 
Alabama.
  Newspapers praise the lack of partisanship in his office. He is known 
in Alabama for following the law. Ironically that is what his 
detractors say he won't do.
  Bill Pryor is an outspoken man who does not hide his beliefs but he 
has proven that his personal beliefs do not get in the way of following 
the law. He does not support abortion and has never apologized for it.
  But he made sure his office followed Supreme Court precedent in 
enforcing the State's partial birth abortion statute even though he 
disagreed with the decision, and most recently he acted against 
overwhelming public opinion in Alabama to enforce Federal court rulings 
ordering the Ten Commandments display in the Alabama Supreme Court to 
be removed.
  Again a majority of this body has kept Attorney General Pryor from 
getting the up-or-down vote he deserves. He has proven without a doubt 
that he will follow the law even when he disagrees with it.
  Twice a majority of the Senate has said he should get a vote. Next 
time I hope we give him an up-or-down vote.
  Next up on the honor roll of filibustered judges is Judge Charles 
Pickering.
  Judge Pickering was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1990 to be 
a Federal district judge in Mississippi.
  He graduated first in his law school class at the University of 
Mississippi. He practiced in a law firm and was both a city and county 
prosecutor. He was a municipal court judge and elected to the 
Mississippi State Senate.
  Judge Pickering has spent his career as a leader in race relations in 
Mississippi.
  His career has been dedicated to tearing down racial barriers against 
minorities in the South, and he was not very popular for it in 
Mississippi in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was the right thing to do.
  I remember traveling around the South in the 1950s and 1960s and 
remember race relations there.
  I remember signs at cafes saying ``whites only'' and then bringing 
food outside with my white teammates and sitting down with our black 
teammates on the bus and eating with them.
  I remember what it was like as professional baseball gradually 
embraced minorities. Judge Pickering helped break down these racial 
barriers and he risked his career and reputation to do it.
  In recent years Judge Pickering served on race relations committees 
in Mississippi. He spent time working with at-risk minority children.
  In 1967 Judge Pickering was a prosecuting attorney in Jones County, 
MS.
  He took the witness stand to testify against a Klan leader in a trial 
for killing a Black civil rights activist.
  By standing up for equality and justice, Judge Pickering put himself 
and his family in danger and lost his re-election. You can never really 
judge the character of a man until standing up for his beliefs costs 
him something.
  Judge Pickering's willingness to stand up against racial violence 
cost him his job as a prosecutor. But that did not keep him from 
continuing to fight for racial justice.
  Probably the most heated race issue in the 1960s and 1970s was 
integration of public schools. Integration came to Judge Pickering's 
town in 1973. The Black and White communities in Laurel were split and 
Charles Pickering worked to bring them together.
  He created a plan to integrate schools. In the end many Whites still 
moved their kids to private schools to avoid integration. And Judge 
Pickering could have done the same. But instead, he believed in 
integration and kept his children in public school.
  Many have said he has been soft on civil rights. But that does not 
sound like the story of a man who is soft on racial justice to me.
  Again the special interests that have kept the Senate from voting on 
Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor are preventing a vote on 
Judge Pickering.
  A majority of the Senate again has said we should have a vote on 
Judge Pickering and the Senate must fulfill its constitutional 
responsibility and do so.
  Now we come to the nominees who will soon be victims of special 
interest politics--Judge Carolyn Kuhl and Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
  Judge Kuhl is a superior court judge in Los Angeles where she has 
worked on civil and criminal cases. Currently, she is the supervising 
judge of the civil division.
  Judge Kuhl graduated from Duke Law School and clerked for the same

[[Page S14619]]

court she was nominated to. In the 1980's she worked at DOJ and the 
Solicitor General's Office where she argued before the Supreme Court.
  The ABA says Judge Kuhl is ``well qualified.'' Republicans and 
Democrats in California have spoken about her fairness and competence. 
Fellow judges and attorneys who appear before her strongly support her 
nomination and urge an up-or-down vote.
  Judge Kuhl's crime is that she represented her government while 
working for the Reagan administration. One instance our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle like to point to is when she helped prepare 
a document supporting President Reagan's views in an abortion case.
  In other words, she was doing her job and representing her client.
  One thing they forget to mention is the case was the first major 
abortion case to follow Roe v. Wade when the new law was quite 
uncertain.
  They also forget to mention that it was her job to represent the 
position of the President and not her own views.
  They also forget to mention that three other attorneys who worked on 
that case were Senate confirmed to positions after the case. Judge Kuhl 
has said she will follow the law regardless of her views. Her record 
proves it.
  Finally, we get to Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the California 
Supreme Court. Judge Brown, who a minority of the Senate says is out of 
the mainstream, was recently re-elected with 76 percent of the vote.
  She was born in rural Alabama to a family of sharecroppers. She grew 
up in segregated schools. She lived in an era where laws were written 
to prevent racial equality in the South. Yet Justice Brown succeeded in 
school and became the first black woman to sit on the California 
Supreme Court.
  What do my colleagues say about Justice Brown is out of the 
mainstream?
  Justice Brown voted to uphold a law saying parents have a right to 
consent before their daughter can get an abortion. How far is that out 
of the mainstream? Recent polls tell us well over three quarters of 
Americans think parents should be involved in the abortion decisions of 
their children.
  What else do opponents say she has done that is out of the 
mainstream?
  Her detractors say she wants to undo decades of Supreme Court 
precedent in property rights and government involvement in the economy. 
But none of them can point to any court opinions where she disregarded 
the law and substituted her personal views.
  However, she is supported by a bipartisan mix of professors, judges, 
attorneys, and civil rights activists.
  That does not sound out of the mainstream to me.
  I am convinced these nominees are each qualified and would serve this 
Nation well on the courts they have been nominated to.
  The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent 
on nominations made by the President. But so far a minority of the 
Senate has prevented us from fulfilling that responsibility.
  I am not asking my Democrat colleagues to vote for and support these 
nominees. I just ask that they give them the courtesy and right to an 
up-or-down vote.
  If they do not believe the nominee is qualified then they should vote 
no. But by preventing a vote they are ignoring their constitutional 
duty. We should vote on these nominees and we vote on them soon.
  The opponents of these nominees are not just playing around with 
these nominees' lives--they are also toying with the Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the majority has expired. The 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would like to use this debate time to focus on the employment 
status of four people, all of whom are employed. I would like to talk 
about a different subject, and that is the millions of people who are 
not working. I think we owe it to the American people to discuss the 
millions of Americans who have lost their jobs under the economic plans 
of the sitting President.
  In particular, I would like to focus on the millions of Americans who 
have lost good manufacturing jobs, and that is the subject of my 
discourse. I ask the Presiding Officer to cut me off in precisely 15 
minutes if I have not finished. Since I will be back at 9 o'clock, I 
will finish at that point.
  Let me draw your attention to a few very troubling statistics. 
Manufacturing employment in the United States has now fallen to the 
lowest level in 41 years. In the last 5 years, we have lost 16 percent 
of all of our factory jobs. In the last 2 years alone, we have lost 
more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. In my own State of West 
Virginia, we have lost 14,000 factory jobs since January 2001.
  To me, these are frightening statistics. They ought to jolt every 
Member of the Senate and prompt an urgent call for action. A vibrant 
manufacturing base, in this Senator's opinion, is essential to our 
standard of living. For generations, factory jobs have been the path to 
the middle class, providing good wages, health insurance, and pension 
benefits. Advances in manufacturing technology account for most of our 
economy's increased productivity. Every dollar we spend on a finished 
manufactured good is estimated to produce about $2.43 increased 
economic activity.
  Simply put, we cannot become a service-only economy, in the judgment 
of this Senator, and at the same time expect to maintain our high 
standard of living. We ought to act swiftly to ensure Americans will 
produce steel and computers and cars and pharmaceuticals and many of 
the other products which we generally refer to as manufacturing.
  We ought not to be timid in the face of the devastating statistics I 
have cited. We can do something about them. In the Senate, that is what 
we are meant to be doing. And we certainly should not ignore these 
statistics and focus, instead, on the jobs of four judges who already 
have work. We would better serve Americans if we used our time today to 
debate ways to revive the manufacturing sector of our economy, and I am 
going to talk about it. People may not want to hear about it, but I am 
going to talk about it because it affects all the people of the 
country, and my people in West Virginia very much.
  At the end of September, I introduced legislation to provide some 
relief for American manufacturers on several fronts. I am disappointed 
the Senate has not yet debated that legislation. I am not surprised, 
but I am disappointed. The bill I introduced is called the SAFE Act, 
which stands for Securing America's Factory Employment.
  I wish that topic were all we were discussing this morning, today, 
this week, this month. Saving our Nation's factory jobs is crucial. I 
will take a moment to discuss what my legislation does.
  The SAFE Act would offer relief to American manufacturers in several 
ways.
  First, the legislation would provide a tax deduction to any company 
that has manufacturing jobs in the United States.
  Second, this bill would help companies cover the cost of providing 
health care for retirees--a huge subject. It is a crippling obligation 
for many of our once-proud industries.
  Third, I propose we strengthen our trade laws to ensure they offer 
the protections that in fact our domestic industries deserve from 
unfair and illegal trade practices practiced by others.
  Let me take a moment to explain in greater detail how these proposals 
can help our domestic manufacturing base. Congress is compelled to 
repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation Extraterritorial Income provisions 
of the U.S. Tax Code in order to avoid $4 billion in trade sanctions 
authorized by something called the World Trade Organization. Regardless 
of my opinion of the WTO decision in this matter, I recognize that to 
protect our economy from a trade war, we may need to update our Tax 
Code. We can do so and still encourage manufacturing by reducing the 
overall effective corporate income tax rate on domestic manufacturing.
  The SAFE Act provides a 9 percent deduction for profits derived from 
the manufacturing activities in the United States. This is the 
equivalent, I would say, of lowering the corporate income tax rate from 
the current 35 percent to 32 percent of the portion of profits that can 
be directly linked to U.S. factories; also mining operations and the 
like.

[[Page S14620]]

  This is a very straightforward tax break. It will lower the cost of 
doing business in the United States and will help companies that employ 
Americans to compete in the global marketplace.
  In addition, my bill includes a tax credit to employers to encourage 
them to retain their retiree health insurance coverage--a huge problem 
nationwide. As my colleagues well know, employers know their health 
plan sponsors continue to restructure how they provide health care 
benefits for both workers and retirees. The economy is in a tough 
situation and it makes it difficult for them.
  Interestingly, the percentage of employers who offer retiree health 
benefits has declined substantially over the past 15 years, to wit: 
Two-thirds of all firms with 200 or more workers sponsored retiree 
coverage 15 years ago. According to the most recent data, a little bit 
more than one-third do that today. Despite these reductions, the 
employer-sponsored health system is the largest source of health care 
coverage in the country today, even with that diminution of the 
percentage.
  The SAFE Act would provide employers with a tax credit to cover 75 
percent of the costs associated with providing health care coverage to 
their retirees in order to protect existing coverage and reverse the 
current trend.
  Finally, my legislation would strengthen our trade protections, our 
antidumping and countervailing duties. So-called AD/CVD trade laws are 
often the first and last line of defense for U.S. industries injured by 
unfair labor or illegally traded imports.
  These laws are absolutely essential for the survival of our 
manufacturing sector in an increasingly global market. But some of 
these provisions have become antiquated by recent changes in our global 
economy and the new structure of international trade. The American 
steel crisis has made it very clear that these trade laws need to be 
strengthened. Companies, workers, families, and communities rely 
heavily on fair trade laws to prevent the ill-effects of unfair trade. 
Antidumping and countervailing duty laws need to be updated and amended 
so they work both as intended and as permitted under the rules of 
international trade.
  For example, the SAFE Act includes a provision that allows us to 
consider whether or not an industry is vulnerable to the effects of 
imports in making antidumping and countervailing duty determinations. 
Another provision of this bill will make it tough for our trading 
partners to circumvent antidumping or countervailing duties. I have a 
variety of examples I could give of that, but I will not for the 
moment.
  They could do so by clarifying that such orders include products that 
have been changed in only a very minor respect. What do I mean by that? 
Sometimes companies will make a product in another country, send it to 
a third country, and they will adjust a little tiny piece of something. 
Then that third country will export it into the United States and it 
will count as an export from the third country--not from the first 
country or the second country which actually produced the greatest mass 
of it--thus allowing them to have their trade surplus increased.
  This will help prevent foreign nations from making slight alterations 
to products they are exporting to us in order to skirt existing 
antidumping or countervailing duty orders.
  Another clear problem under our current trade law is that foreign 
producers and exporters of such merchandise may avoid AD/CVD duties by 
using complex schemes that mask payment of countervailing duties 
resulting in the underpayment of duty rates.
  My legislation would restrict such practices by requiring the 
importer, if affiliated with the foreign producers or exporters, to 
demonstrate that the importer was in no way reimbursed for any AC/CVD 
duties that were paid.
  There are certainly other changes we should consider to update our 
trade remedy laws. These provisions are by no means an exhaustive list, 
but we do need to get the debate started. I have offered this bill as a 
way to reenergize the debate. I have 15 minutes and I am using it to 
discuss something I think is useful.
  Steel is a prime example of the need for strong trade laws, strong 
enforcement of the laws on the books, and strong considerations to 
toughen existing statutes.
  As the Presiding Officer well knows, I have long been involved in the 
fight for the American steel industry. Currently, the industry, its 
workers, and steel communities around the country await a decision from 
the President of the United States on section 20 tariffs he imposed on 
steel imports in the face of an unprecedented flood of steel imports 
from foreign countries below price and below the cost of production in 
the home country.
  Some of our foreign trading partners are lobbying the White House 
very hard to lift these tariffs. In fact, the European Union was in 
town just last week making irresponsible and illegal trade threats to 
try to sway the President's decision. I hope they fail. The 
administration has a very clear choice between preserving good-paying 
and hard-earned American jobs or caving in to the threats of our 
foreign trading partners.

  All of the arguments made prior to the imposition of the tariffs 
about the potential damage and consequences of the 201 tariffs have 
been debunked.
  This is important. We have something called the International Trade 
Commission. It is a nonpartisan quasi-judicial body. They found that 
the tariffs have done what they were meant to do--the tariffs on steel: 
give the American steel industry breathing room it needs to 
restructure. The International Trade Commission also found that the 
tariffs have not significantly impacted the U.S. economy in any other 
way.
  If this administration is truly committed to the steel industry and, 
importantly, the communities built around it, the President will leave 
the tariffs just as they are and fulfill his promise to American 
workers. If not, we are facing very hard times indeed, and it may be 
the death knell for steel manufacturing in America--something I don't 
think we want to see.
  I am extremely disappointed that rather than engaging in a serious 
debate, we are spending 30 hours talking about judicial nominees 
because some Senators believe it is an effective way to do whatever.
  Instead of scoring political points, the SAFE Act addresses several 
very dire needs of our manufacturing companies. It improves our trade 
laws, helps with the burden of retiree health care costs, and 
effectively lowers the corporate tax rate on manufacturing activities. 
This package of reforms is an effective plan to stem the flow of 
manufacturing goods from overseas.
  I will conclude by simply saying this: The fact that almost 9 million 
Americans are out of work, that is urgent; the fact that employment 
insurance is set to run out for many Americans who have been unemployed 
for a long time, that is very urgent; the fact that 43.6 million 
Americans lack health insurance and manufacturers and other employees 
are dropping health coverage to make ends meet, that is urgent; the 
fact that America has lost more than 3 million private sector jobs 
since our current President took office, that is urgent; the fact that 
the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 3 million in 
2 years, that is urgent; and the fact that 4.5 million Americans work 
part time because they cannot find full-time jobs, that is urgent.
  I would simply like to suggest that the Senate return to the urgent 
business facing our Nation. We have appropriations bills to consider 
and pass. We have a comprehensive Energy bill to pass. We have a 
highway bill to pass. We have much to do.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant minority leader.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1584

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday at 6 o'clock we were working on S. 
1584, a bill that funds the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing 
and Urban Development, and other agencies. It is a bill that has $122.7 
billion. It includes $612 billion for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, veterans benefits, all the health facilities, EPA, and NASA. 
It is an extremely important piece of legislation.
  Therefore, for the veterans of America, I ask unanimous consent that 
at 6 o'clock tonight we move off this and go back to the VA-HUD bill 
and complete it within 2 hours. The two managers of the bill, Senators 
Bond and Mikulski, said they could do that. It would be an

[[Page S14621]]

important part of our legislative agenda. I ask unanimous consent that 
that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will object, we hope to complete that bill, in the next few days. 
Therefore, for the moment, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me suggest another consent 
agreement that might make more sense. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator modify his previous request so that just prior to proceeding as 
requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated and then the 
Senate immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the 
confirmation of the nominations with no intervening action or debate.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the two unanimous consent 
requests that have just been made I am afraid might have come out of my 
15 minutes. I would like to ask unanimous consent if I could have an 
additional 3 minutes so that I will have my full 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Kentucky for his generosity. I intend to use much of my time talking 
about the issue that was discussed by my friend and colleague from West 
Virginia. But I would like to start with some comments on the subject 
which has been before us since 6 p.m. yesterday; that is, the issue of 
judicial confirmation.
  This is a fundamental issue in our democracy. One of the great 
figures in the development of the structure of our Nation's Government 
stands over us every day we are in session in this Chamber; that is, 
the first Vice President of the United States, John Adams.
  Concerned about the structure of government, preceding the War for 
Independence and anticipating there would soon be a new nation which 
would be striving to develop the appropriate structures to maintain its 
democracy, John Adams wrote a series of his thoughts on government. 
These became the essential ideas first for the constitutions of the 
newly independent Colonies and State constitutions, and then in 
Philadelphia the development of the U.S. Constitution.
  One of the central points of John Adams's thoughts on government was 
the essential role which was played by an independent judiciary. He 
said, as quoted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of John Adams 
by David McCollough:

       Essential to the stability of government and to ``enable an 
     impartial administration of justice,'' Adams stressed the 
     separation of judicial power from both the legislative and 
     the executive. There must be an independent judiciary. ``Men 
     of experience in laws of exemplary morals, invincible 
     patience, unrivaled comments and indefatigable application 
     should be subservient to none and appointed for life.''

  There were a number of provisions placed in the U.S. Constitution in 
order to carry out that essential independence of the judiciary. Many 
of those occur after an individual assumes his or her judicial 
position, including lifetime appointments, and the fact that Congress 
cannot reduce the salaries of a member of the Federal judiciary. Those 
are designed to protect Federal judges, both politically and 
economically, from undue interference.
  But the issue of how do you maintain impartiality in the selection of 
judges was one of the most contentious issues of the Constitutional 
Convention. Up until the very end of the Convention, the provision that 
was in the draft Constitution was for the Senate to appoint Federal 
judges. But there was concern that would put too much authority in the 
legislative branch, and thus the final compromise was to have the 
President make the nominations for judges but the Senate to confirm 
those nominations.
  There was not intended to be a subservient position for the Senate. 
Rather, it was to be a position of equality as a fundamental part, as 
John Adams said, of maintenance of the independence of the judiciary.
  What we are debating to date is the fundamental question of how 
should the Senate exercise its equal role in the designation of those 
persons who will become lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary.
  I believe that in this most serious of responsibilities we have, it 
is appropriate that the rules which apply to the general conduct of the 
Senate, rules which were largely written by John Adams's successor, 
Thomas Jefferson, who also looks down upon us this morning--that those 
rules should apply in order to protect the interests of the minority. 
That is not just a political minority; it might also be an economic or 
a regional minority.
  It has been the practice in this body that there be the provision for 
extended debate and that the termination of that extended debate 
require more than a majority of the Senate. Why should that procedure 
which applies to all other activities not apply to one of the most 
important, if not the most important, activities of the Senate, which 
is to play its equal role in the determination of who will be the 
judges of the Federal system in our Nation?
  Let me suggest that maybe we need to look beyond the confines that 
have dominated much of this debate and ask how can we, within a system 
that is balanced between the President and the Senate, do a better job 
of selecting judges and avoid the kind of contention and delay we are 
currently experiencing.
  Let me make three suggestions. Excuse my egocentric discussion of 
this first suggestion. But for 12 years, the two Senators from Florida 
were one Republican and one Democrat. Over that 12-year period, for one 
period of time the President was a Republican and then later a 
Democrat. During that 12-year period, Senator Connie Mack and I 
established a process. The process was to have a nonpartisan panel of 
citizens roughly divided between lawyers and lay people review the 
applications of persons who were seeking Federal judicial appointments. 
We refused to allow on any of the documentation an indication, direct 
or indirect, of what the party affiliation of the applicant was. 
Senator Mack and I refused in our interviews with those who were 
selected through this process to raise any questions of their partisan 
affiliation. This process proceeded with interviews of the applicants 
and a recommendation of generally three persons to Senator Mack and 
myself. We would select one of the three jointly and then submit that 
to the President.

  Virtually, if not totally, without exception, the President approved 
the person selected through that process, nominated that person, and 
this Senate confirmed that person generally in an expeditious manner--I 
hope because of the confidence of my colleagues in the impartiality and 
the merit orientation of the process we had used.
  I suggest to my colleagues and to the President that maybe a system 
analogous to this could be more broadly utilized at both the district 
court and the circuit court level in order to reduce the instances of 
the impasse in which we currently find ourselves.
  A second recommendation: There are some scholars who are now looking 
at the issue of the judiciary and its relationship to the executive and 
legislative branches, and they are beginning to suggest that possibly 
we should move away from a lifetime appointment of Federal judges at 
the district and circuit court levels--not at the Supreme Court level--
and to establish a fixed term such as 12 years rather than the current 
lifetime appointments. That 12-year term would be nonrenewable. This 
would have the benefit of persons knowing that the person appointed, 
nominated, and confirmed to the Federal judiciary at other than the 
Supreme Court level would serve an extended term but would not be 
permanently in office. Therefore, some of the concerns particularly 
about the philosophical views would be reduced.
  Finally, I think the President should be encouraged to reexamine what 
has become I think an unfortunate pattern and which has elevated the 
importance of the circuit courts, and it has elevated the attention 
given to the nominees for the circuit court, and that is the practice 
that almost all of the recent nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court were 
nominated directly from their service in a circuit court. In fact, 
every U.S. Supreme Court Justice since

[[Page S14622]]

1990 came out of the circuit court. I think serving on the Federal 
circuit court is a perfectly appropriate preparation for the Supreme 
Court. What I disagree with is that the entire Supreme Court should be 
made up of persons with that background.

  This Nation has been well served with Supreme Court Justices who had 
a variety of backgrounds, including people such as Hugo Black who had 
been a member of the Senate before he was appointed to the Supreme 
Court; Earl Warren, who was Governor of California before being 
appointed to the Supreme Court; persons who came from an academic 
background, such as Felix Frankfurt, or from the active practice of 
law, Louie Brandeis.
  I encourage the President, when there is another opportunity to 
appoint a Supreme Court Justice, to look more broadly than has become 
the pattern at least since 1990.
  With those comments I turn briefly to a discussion of the issue of 
the loss of manufacturing jobs and what we might do to put a 
tourniquet, to a degree, on that loss.
  A very fundamental question facing our Nation is, How can America 
maintain its standard of living substantially higher than the rest of 
the world, during a period of globalization of the economy where so 
much emphasis is going to what parts of the world can produce a product 
at the lowest unit cost. There are some things that we need to do in 
order to revise our trade policy. Many of them were discussed by the 
Senator from West Virginia. I particularly emphasize the importance of 
having the context of trade, issues such as labor, human rights, and 
environmental protection, become part of the trade negotiation. I am 
not suggesting the way to do this is by writing all those provisions 
into each trade agreement; rather, that we look to organizations such 
as the International Labor Organization, if not the oldest 
international organization in the world, an organization to which most 
countries belong and have accepted the labor protocols of, the 
International Labor Organization, to determine which of those protocols 
are appropriate to a specific trade agreement; include that, and then 
either through enhanced enforcement by the protocol itself, which I 
think is the preferable approach, but failing that, through mechanisms 
of the trade agreements, to see those standards become reality.
  Beyond changes in our trade law, we need to look at what is going to 
be required in America to make us as competitive as possible. I 
particularly reference two things: One, we have to have the best 
educated, the most productive workforce in the world if we are going to 
be able to compete globally and maintain our standards of living. John 
Adams was instructive on this point as well. John Adams urged the 
widest possible support for education: Laws for the liberal education 
of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely 
wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this 
purpose would be thought extravagant.
  I agree with that assessment of John Adams and add to it the 
importance of training for adults who are finding their current skills 
are less in demand and need to either enhance those skills or to add 
new skills to their capabilities.
  Finally, before I conclude, we need to make a greater investment in 
our infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, water and sewer systems are 
critical to our economic productivity. They are deteriorating. This 
Congress will have an opportunity soon to deal both with adequate 
funding of education, particularly for retraining of adults and to 
enhance our capability to provide a modern set of support systems for 
our economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madam President. I am being joined by my 
colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, my colleague from Illinois, 
Senator Fitzgerald, and Senator Nickles will join us in our time period 
to talk about the judicial crisis we have in this country and the 
difficulties that have been created now by an unprecedented act of the 
filibustering of circuit court judges. I will take a narrow look at 
this as an issue that has been building for the last 40 years, and what 
has happened during that 40-year time period that the crisis in the 
court has developed.
  We stand on the shoulders of greatness. It was with courage and honor 
and convictions and convictions in religious beliefs that our 
forefathers formed this union of States we now call the United States 
of America. Indeed, the foundation of our country was formed with an 
understanding that there is a recognition of a higher moral authority. 
It is over our mantle, the one right here that I look at which says, 
``In God We Trust.''
  Yet if we are to continue down the precedent set in 1962--and I will 
go into that--it will be likely that in the near future we will have to 
take these words down and remove them as being illegal. This body 
itself committed a criminal act under a determination made by the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals when we opened up and said the Pledge of 
Allegiance; a criminal activity because in 1954 President Eisenhower, 
the great Kansan, with a legislative body inserted, the unbelievable 
words, ``one Nation, under God.''
  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to which two of the nominees 
would go, has declared that unconstitutional. It would be one thing if 
we said this is just an unusual aberration, but what we have to say and 
see is that this is a continuation of a 40-year march that the court 
has been on to purge any recognition or acknowledgment of God in the 
public square.
  We are on 40 years of judicial activism in this regard. I will go 
through that. The Ninth Circuit is applying the endorsement test, first 
articulated in the 1985 school prayer case of Wallace v. Jaffree. Let's 
be honest about the logic behind the test. It is an absolute demand 
that religious ideas and language be thoroughly eliminated and cleansed 
from government activities. If consistently applied, the endorsement 
test basically drives God out of public school and out of our public 
life.
  For too long we in this body have been silent and stood by while the 
courts have slowly chipped away at our responsibility to this Nation. 
And today we see the effects of our apathy.
  At this critical time in our Nation's history, the Senate stands 
locked in a controversy surrounding the confirmation of judges. But 
this stalemate also underscores the large issues at stake and the 
serious choices we face as a nation. If we look at the judicial trends 
for the past 40 years, the courts have increasingly veered off course. 
As far as religion is concerned, the courts have been on a relentless 
drive to remove God from the public square. It started in 1962 in Engel 
v. Vitale when 39 million students were forbidden to do what they and 
their predecessors have been doing since the founding of our Nation, 
publicly calling upon the name of the Lord at the beginning of each 
school day as we do in this body.
  The following year in the School District of Abington Township v. 
Schempp, the Court held that Bible readings in public schools also 
violate the first amendment. In 1992, in Lee v. Wiseman, prayer was 
removed from graduation exercises. And in 2000, in the Santa Fe 
Independent School District v. Doe, prayer was removed from being said 
at football games.
  None of these restrictions were affirmatively adopted by any 
legislative body. The legislative bodies, either at the Federal or 
State level did the opposite. The Congress added the phrase ``under 
God'' in 1954 to the Pledge of Allegiance, and did so with the explicit 
intention of fostering reverential patriotism--nothing more, nothing 
less. It was done to reflect the values of the American people that 
were as valid in 1954 as they are today. Yet this year, the Court will 
continue to decide these issues, irrespective of what the American 
people believe in and want.
  Along the way during this 40-year time period, the Court also 
discovered the constitutional right to abortion and more recently 
struck down State anti-sodomy laws.
  As the Court has sought to remove God from the public square, we 
should examine the impact it has had on our culture, that amorphous 
atmosphere that helps form our souls and our identities. The culture, 
the following charts demonstrate, has clearly deteriorated. More and 
more Americans are slipping into depression, alcoholism, and suicide. 
Our Nation's schools are plagued with students who not only fall behind 
in educational standards but who are suffering from societal

[[Page S14623]]

problems that we have allowed to take place in this country.
  Prior to the two major cases outlawing prayer in 1962 and 1963, our 
students enjoyed more stability. Since then, there has been more 
violence, sexual activities in schools, which have had corrosive 
effects on our culture.
  For example, look at this chart showing suicides increased 
dramatically for teenagers between 1960 and today, nearly tripling the 
age bracket of suicide for children in our schools. Similarly, drug use 
has gone up significantly since the 1960s. Alcohol use also went up 
among those between the ages of 12 and 17, as this chart shows.
  Here are examples of societal consequences since the 1960s. Since the 
passage of Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortions, abortions have increased 
dramatically. By the 1990s, abortions, private sources show, have more 
than doubled during that period of time. We are at 1.5 million a year. 
Bill Clinton called for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. It is 
none of the three.
  We see a dramatic increase in divorces that have taken place in this 
country since 1960.
  This chart goes back to 1940, but from 1960 forward we are at a point 
in the 1990s where one in every two marriages end in divorce in 
America. Is that a healthy culture? We have seen same trends in violent 
crimes taking place. From 1960 to where we are today, we have seen more 
than a doubling, tripling of violent crimes taking place.
  I ask the simple questions of my colleagues: Is there a direct 
correlation? Did the removal of prayer in the classroom or prohibitions 
on other public displays of religious convictions lead to the kind of 
moral decay reflected in the charts? Did the removal of honor and 
recognition of a higher moral authority impact our children? Or is it 
mere coincidence that our culture has declined as the courts 
deliberately and quietly shifted this country away from our motto, ``In 
God we trust.''
  However one may interpret the empirical data and whatever conclusions 
one may draw of the cause and effect, we cannot ignore the key 
principles in the Constitution and under the establishment clause. 
While it may seem like inherent contradiction, Americans believe it 
both appropriate and necessary for government to limit abuses of 
religious liberty while at the same time making the effort to support 
sound religious convictions.
  I am joined by several of my colleagues in the Senate who want to go 
further in making points about the judges who are being appointed. One 
thing is consistent with the judges, and that is they are people who 
have, in many cases, strong convictions, strong religious convictions, 
and they are being tested and tested out because of their faith. Is 
that where we are going with this removal of God from the public 
square? This is a dangerous precedent and dangerous way we are going.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend and 
colleague for yielding. This is one of those times where perhaps 
everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I am not sure 
what I can add to this debate, but I will give it a try.
  Our citizens of Kansas have watched the Senate's action, or rather 
inaction, on the President's nominees. I would like to quote from the 
Wichita Eagle, one of our fine newspapers in Kansas which simply 
editorialized:

       The party that does not control the White House is trying 
     to control the ideological makeup of the federal courts, by 
     misusing the Senate's advice-and-consent function to stall 
     votes on the president's judicial nominees.

  The Topeka Capital Journal also observed:

       The federal judiciary is heading to a train wreck.

  I suspect by the time we get to the end of this and these kind of 
delay tactics, people will crawl out of train wrecks faster than we get 
this solved. I hope that is not the case.
  It is not just the local newspapers that are expressing their views 
on these issues. Many constituents have written and called my office. 
They are expressing their frustration on the Senate's treatment of this 
process. This is a time that the process of the Senate, normally not a 
very high profile issue, has become a high profile issue.
  Kansans are pragmatic and understanding people. They understand that 
some Senators oppose the President's nominees on ideological grounds. 
They also understand that those Senators are entitled to that position 
and answer to their own constituents for their actions. However, they 
do not appreciate the abuse of the Senate's procedural tools to allow 
the minority to dominate the majority. They want us to give these 
nominees a simple up-or-down vote. That is the whole issue. They want 
these nominations decided on the merits, not blocked by some procedural 
maneuver.
  That is what this all comes down to. All of the rhetoric and support 
of these delaying tactics would have you believe the four nominees are 
``out of touch,'' or ``out of the mainstream.'' Those opposing the 
nominees would have us believe they have not had a sufficient 
opportunity to question the nominees or have not received enough 
information to form an opinion. The facts are that through hearings 
that have been held, and in one case over 2 years have passed and the 
nomination simply remained blocked.
  Additionally, if my colleagues truly believe they do not have enough 
information despite these hearings and despite the answers that are 
provided by the nominees, the answer is simple. They do not have to 
vote for the nominee. They can simply vote no, if we could just have a 
vote. So despite all of these protestations to the contrary, this comes 
down to ideological obstructionism.
  Now, intuitively the logic that a judicial selection should be based 
or influenced by a nominee's ideology leads one to believe that judges 
should or will rely on their own personal beliefs rather than on the 
law when rendering their decisions. I find this remarkable and 
completely off the mark. I am certain that if each of these nominees 
receive an up-or-down vote, each would be approved by a majority vote 
and they would vote according to the law. They said that over and over 
again.
  My question is, How is justice served when justice is delayed? If you 
deliver solid and qualified judges to our court system, that is more 
important than litmus test politics. We are just simply not doing our 
job.
  Let me talk about trust. This continued delay does not foster the 
public's trust in our government's process to simply get the job done.
  Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal 
judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed 
courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless 
behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  Let's talk about delay. Let's really talk about delay. Court delays 
are becoming the norm. We all know that. We read about something 
egregious in the newspaper and wonder why you cannot get a court 
decision or at least some justice out of the situation. All of the 
court circuits facing these judicial emergencies are averaging 4- to 5-
month--4- to 5-month--delays. And these delays are on top of a process 
that, from the original filing in district court to the final decision 
on appeal, takes 24 to 28 months--over 2 years.

  OK, let us talk about results. What does an overtaxed judiciary 
really mean to Americans? It means that cases take longer to resolve, 
lives are disrupted and inconvenienced further, and real people must 
wait indefinitely in limbo as justice in their cases remains 
undetermined.
  In over two centuries of Senate history, why, judicial nominations 
have been both approved or refused. No filibuster was necessary to 
defeat a nomination. The reliance by those who oppose these nominations 
of this procedural tool to handicap the process is simply 
unprecedented. The use of the filibuster essentially grants the 
minority veto power, hence controlling which nominees will even be 
given the chance--just the chance--for an up-or-down vote, much less 
confirmed.
  Now the Constitution explicitly states seven circumstances in which a 
supermajority vote is warranted by one or both Chambers of Congress. 
The advice and consent of Presidential nominations by the Senate is not 
one of these special circumstances. In fact, Alexander Hamilton states 
in Federalist 76 that the Senate's role is to refuse nominations only 
for ``special and strong reasons'' having to do with unfit characters. 
At some point, after

[[Page S14624]]

the issues and merits of the nominee have been debated, we have an 
obligation to render a decision, whether it is yea or nay, and not let 
the matter hang in the balance unresolved and unfinished.
  These competent, well-qualified judicial nominees deserve an up-or-
down vote. The people of Kansas and the United States deserve a full--a 
full--judicial bench.
  I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
  I now yield to the Senator from Illinois for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, I thank both my colleagues from 
Kansas. I appreciate the remarks that were just made by the chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee.
  I would like to go back to some of the statistics that have been 
cited in this debate. I guess I have been very troubled to hear on the 
radio this morning, on call-in radio, the figures being cited over and 
over again that were offered last night on the other side of the aisle.
  We kept hearing that they had only blocked four judges. Well, that is 
simply not true, and I think it is very important that the American 
people know that is not true.
  I have in my hands a chart that was prepared by the nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service that shows that of the Presidents going 
back to Carter, in 1977, through August 1, 2003, the Senate has blocked 
a higher percentage and a higher number of judges who were nominated by 
President Bush than any other President in the Nation's history--or at 
least going back to 1977. And I am sure nothing was going on prior to 
1977 like what is going on today.
  The fact is, according to this survey, President Bush has nominated a 
total of 264 people to serve on the district and appellate courts in 
this country. As of August 1, 2003, only 144 of them have been 
confirmed. That is only 54 percent of the number of nominations made by 
President Bush.
  Now we need to break that down. Of district court nominees, President 
Bush, as of August 1, has nominated 185 nominees to the district court. 
Only 117 of them have been confirmed. That means the Senate had 
rejected or not acted on 68 of those district court nominees.
  With respect to the appellate courts, as of August 1, the President 
had nominated 79 appellate court judges and the Senate, as of August 1, 
only confirmed 27 of them. That is only 34 percent of the total. So 
that means 52 of President Bush's nominees to the appellate courts have 
been blocked by the Senate.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have done something very 
clever. They have just arbitrarily decided they are only going to talk 
about judicial nominees who have been filibustered and blocked on the 
floor of the Senate and they are not going to talk about those whose 
nominations have been blocked in other ways, such as in committee. 
Thus, the American people have been given a misleading impression 
overnight. They have been misled into thinking the Senate has only 
blocked four nominees for the appellate courts. Well, it has been far 
more than that.
  As of August 1, it had been 52. I do not know what the figure would 
be right as of today, but I would have to tell you, if you compare it 
to the previous Presidents, the treatment of President Bush's nominees 
has been deplorable.
  Going back to President Carter, he nominated 61 appellate judges; 56 
of them were confirmed. In other words, Carter, in 4 years, only had 
five appellate court nominees who did not make confirmation; 91 percent 
of his nominees were confirmed. President Reagan, who was a Republican 
President, served while there was a Democratic Congress. He had 81 
percent of his appellate nominees confirmed. The first President Bush 
had 77.8 percent of his appellate court nominees confirmed. President 
Clinton had 56 percent of his appellate court nominees confirmed.
  If you get down to this President, George Bush, he only has had, as 
of August 1, 34 percent of his appellate court nominees confirmed. I am 
very concerned about what this means for our country. It could mean 
that a minority in the Senate is usurping for itself the power to 
control the Federal judiciary.
  Under our Constitution, the President is supposed to appoint the 
judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. We have some idea 
what the Constitution meant by that because Alexander Hamilton 
addressed the issue in Federalist Paper No. 76. He said the Senate's 
role is to refuse nominations only for ``special and strong reasons'' 
having to do with ``unfit characters.''
  I do not even think anyone has made the argument that the nominees 
who have been blocked in the Senate in this Congress have been unfit. I 
think the arguments against their nominations have been more 
ideological; simply the other side does not agree with these people, 
suspects they may be conservative.
  Many of President Bush's nominees have been pro-life. I am concerned 
there may be a litmus test that is being applied on the other side, 
that they are simply not going to allow pro-life judges on our 
appellate courts. That is very troubling because that is upsetting our 
constitutional order that our Founding Fathers have made.
  The key point here is, I do not want the American people to come away 
with the impression that only four of President Bush's nominees have 
been blocked. The number is far higher. It is probably a total of over 
100. Probably about 120 have been blocked. As of August 1, 68 district 
court judges have been blocked and 52 appellate court judges. So this 
whole thing about just four judges having been blocked is really 
nonsense, and we ought to set the record straight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam President. Having used up my time, I 
will now yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Brownback from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Madam President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remain on the majority side.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much.
  I thank my colleague from Kansas and my colleague from Illinois for 
the comments they have made in this debate in which we have been 
engaged for some period of time and I think make both cogent and 
important points to put forward.
  I want to double back around and finish on the comments I started on 
about this being a 40-year debate. For some of us who might have been 
up for a while, it may seem like 40 years already since last night.
  But this has been a 40-year debate, and we have engaged and embarked 
on a great debate about which these judges are front and center, and it 
is potentially a collision course, some may say, between those who 
believe in God and that He has a role to play in the cultural and moral 
fabric of this Nation and those who prefer to sanitize our public 
institutions of any reference to God.
  We should at least allow the vast majority of Americans who believe 
in God to honor Him in public, as our Founders did, and not be forced 
to conceal Him from the public square.
  The four nominees currently being filibustered all believe in God, as 
do 90 percent of the American public. Should they be excluded from the 
appellate courts because of their faith? Their deeply held convictions 
just happen to mirror those of George Washington, most of the Founding 
Fathers, as well as some of the greatest Americans in our history--
Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Dwight Eisenhower, and Martin Luther 
King, Jr. Would any of them be able to get on this court today through 
this litmus test? I doubt it.
  If the issue here is this body has not had sufficient opportunity to 
debate the merits of the candidates, then let's go ahead and debate and 
move to a final vote.
  Those who wrote the Constitution, which is the oldest working 
constitution in the world, remain the best guide to its clear meaning. 
America's

[[Page S14625]]

Founding Fathers, by and large, did not believe government must be 
neutral toward religion. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, 
often quoted, gave the clear view, ``Of all the dispositions and habits 
which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are 
indispensable supports.''
  The Founders supported the public recognition of religion because 
religion and morality are, in Washington's words, the ``firmest props 
of the duties of men and citizens.'' When Washington addressed the new 
Nation for the first time as President, he led the country in public 
prayer, something we have never failed to do since, and yet removed 40 
years ago from our public classrooms.
  Therefore, I submit to you today that we should not stand idly on 
issues of judicial nominations. The Framers of the Constitution feared 
tyranny from the judiciary more than from the other two branches. They 
placed deliberate limitations on the judiciary in order to ensure the 
integrity of the judicial system. As a result, the Federalist Papers 
reported that under their plan, ``the Judiciary is beyond comparison 
the weakest of the three departments of power. . . . [and] the general 
liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.''

  Would that be an agreed-to statement today? I think not.
  It is our duty to ensure the legislative integrity of our culture. 
Indeed, it is written in the Constitution that to do anything less is 
to walk away from our responsibility to this Nation, a responsibility 
that was recognized and affirmed by our Founding Fathers.
  Madam President, as we conclude on this side of the aisle for this 
30-minute section, I would just note to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that this is going to continue to be an issue. We will get 
these judges through at some point in time, whether it is this session 
or we have to go back to the public and have another vote in the 2004 
election cycle.
  This will be a front and center issue. As the courts and the culture 
are becoming increasingly tied together with the difficulties we have 
had in this society, this will be taken to the public. I do not doubt 
that this will be, if not the top issue, one of the top three issues. 
They are going to be out in the public. I think this is a bad idea 
policy-wise, what is taking place in the blockage of these judges. I 
think it is bad politics.
  But this is going to take place and this fight will continue. If we 
do not get it done now, we will continue to press forward, and it will 
be taken into the election cycle, and we will let the American public 
look and see: Do they think this is the way judges should be handled by 
the Senate? As these calamities of judicial blockage keep mounting up, 
it will become clearer and clearer to the public what is taking place 
here.
  This is a very important fight. It is one about which a lot of people 
care deeply. It is one that a lot of my--when people come up to me in 
Kansas and talk about issues, these are front and center issues they 
talk about. They are concerned about these issues and have been for 
some period of time. And they are wondering: What are you doing? What 
about this activist court? Why are you not getting these judges on 
through?
  This is something that does touch the public. We can do it the way it 
should be done; we can get a clear vote up or down or we can take it 
back out to the public in the next election cycle. One way or the 
other, this is going to occur. And I would suggest that the best way 
for this society, the best way for this Government, the best way for 
this culture is for these to come forward here, be vigorously debated, 
and then voted on up or down. I think the public is now coming to a 
very strong point on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess from 4:15 to 5:15 today. This is so that all Senators 
can attend a closed briefing in secure room No. S-407, the briefing to 
be by Ambassador Bremer, the American administrator in Iraq.
  Another American was killed today, along with 25 Italian peacekeepers 
in Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee is no longer functioning, so 
it is more important than ever for this body to review the direction of 
the American war in Iraq, especially in that we have appropriated in 
special funding this year some $163 billion. I so move.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Vermont is going to take 
1 minute of the time of the two Senators from Washington. I would ask 
unanimous consent that following his statement, which would be 1 
minute, the two Senators from Washington divide their time, and the 
first to be recognized is the junior Senator from Washington, followed 
by the senior Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I agree, this can be an issue and 
probably should be an issue in the election, but let's make sure it is 
an issue on the facts. There is this discussion we heard on the floor 
this last hour or so of the great vacancies. That is balderdash.
  The fact is, there are more Federal judges sitting right now than at 
any time in history. We have been told that we are blocking 130. There 
are only 40 vacancies, approximately 40 vacancies in the whole country. 
Let's get our numbers right. This number is right. We have confirmed 
168; we have blocked 4. We confirmed 168; we blocked 4. That is the 
fact.
  It is hard on the other side to hear that, after they blocked over 60 
of President Clinton's nominees by one-person filibusters, but it is a 
fact. We confirmed 168; we stopped 4. They stopped 61.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, thank you.
  I rise to join my colleagues in what has been for now some many hours 
a very robust debate on our judicial nominees and the process by which 
this body should follow their advice and consent process for the 
President.
  I think it is clear to the other side of the aisle--and it is very 
interesting that the two Senators from Washington are here with the two 
Senators from Kansas. I can imagine that we would rather talk about 
many other issues, particularly high unemployment in our states and how 
to get America moving again, and particularly in the aerospace 
manufacturing area. But the bottom line is, this body does have a role 
on advice and consent. And since the 1940s, the Senate rules have 
allowed cloture votes on nominations, and we have exercised that. So 
that is what this debate has been about.
  My colleagues have continued to point out that these numbers reflect 
what that debate has produced as far as our working together in our 
constitutional role. I do want to say, though, that there is a very 
worthwhile point to this debate, and I would say to my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle that perhaps if we wanted to even extend this 
debate beyond the 30 hours, we should do so because what is really at 
question here is the nominees the President is putting before us and 
whether our country, at a critical time, is going to stand up and 
continue to protect the privacy rights of individuals who are being 
threatened, those privacy rights that exist in our Constitution and are 
actually being challenged by our own Government.
  I believe that we are at a critical time in our country's history, 
and that is why it is so important for the Senate to do its job. That 
job is to give the American people a judiciary that represents the 
mainstream views of America, that protects their constitutional rights, 
and that does not represent a clear threat to 30 years of settled law 
protecting a woman's right to choose.
  I believe the real issue that we should debate, because it is 
critical to the American people, is not the fact that we have confirmed 
168 Bush judges; the issue is that this Administration has nominated 4 
individuals

[[Page S14626]]

who Senators believe fail the test. Over 40 Senators believe that they 
will not act to protect our constitutional rights and to uphold our 
Constitution.
  Each of these nominees--Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Miguel 
Estrada, and William Pryor have records that indicate a determination 
to interpret the law not as it is but as they want it to be.
  Over the next decade, Federal judges will be making critical 
decisions about the right to privacy and how both Government and 
business should respect that right to privacy. We are at the tip of the 
iceberg of an information age where businesses may have access to your 
most personal information and exploit that; where the health care 
industry has access to your most personal information; where Government 
has established a process of eavesdropping and tracking U.S. citizens 
without probable cause. Government has even used and developed software 
that can track one's use of Web sites and information on their personal 
computer without their consent or knowledge.
  And of course, a woman's right to privacy in her choices about her 
body, even after 30 years of established, settled law, continues to be 
threatened.
  I voted against these four individuals, and I will continue to oppose 
them. I oppose them because I believe ensuring that our judiciary is 
independent and committed to protecting our constitutional rights is 
increasing in importance and that these four cannot fill that role. It 
is increasing in importance because with one party in control of both 
the Congress and the Executive branch, and an independent and balanced 
judiciary is the only remaining check to ensure that our core 
constitutional protections are upheld.
  America is a great democracy, but it is an even brighter beacon to 
the rest of the world because our citizens trust our judiciary to 
protect their rights!
  Now that as a result of the Patriot Act, Government can obtain a 
warrant to search your home without your knowledge; can obtain a 
subpoena to track your use of the Internet without showing probable 
cause; and can obtain a secret wiretap to eavesdrop, the judiciary must 
serve as a check on that power.
  I know some of my colleagues want to try to address some of these 
issues, and we will have many opportunities in the future to correct 
some of this overstepping by those in our Federal Government. But in a 
September 2003 report, the Justice Department clearly acknowledged that 
new powers granted under the PATRIOT Act were not simply being used to 
fight terrorism and espionage.
  The report ``cites more than a dozen cases that are not directly 
related to terrorism in which Federal authorities have used expanded 
power [under the PATRIOT Act] to investigate individuals, initiate 
wiretaps and other surveillance and seize millions in tainted assets.''
  The Government has already deprived two U.S. citizens of their 
constitutional rights and held them as enemy combatants subject to 
secret trial, and they can basically deprive legal immigrants protected 
by the Constitution from this arrest and detain them without charges.
  Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that even in our 
intelligence reauthorization bill, there is language significantly 
expanding the role of the FBI to get information from car dealers, 
travel agents, post offices, casinos, and others without going before a 
Federal judge.
  I know it is easy to want to believe that these issues are all about 
fighting terrorism and are not hurting people.
  Madam President, I can tell you, I believe strongly in the war on 
terrorism. In my State, we have seen three important cases that have 
been successfully prosecuted. In 2000, agents apprehended Ahmad Ressam, 
an individual who had plans to blow up landmarks on the west coast. 
Last year, the FBI in my region was also successful in tracking down 
individuals who wanted to build a terrorist training camp in Oregon. 
The lead individual in that case, James Ujaama, will be providing 
information that I hope will lead to the extradition of an extremists 
cleric based in London. And a group of men in Portland actually pleaded 
guilty to traveling to Afghanistan to fight against Americans after 
September 11.
  I firmly believe it is possible to fight the war on terrorism and 
prosecute terrorists and still uphold the constitutional rights of 
Americans. But to make sure that balance is right, the Senate must do 
its job to ensure that nominees to the federal court will interpret the 
law, and not use their personal views to rewrite it.
  Americans are genuinely concerned about the erosion of their rights. 
Earlier this year in the Senate, we hosted a forum in which two 
individuals from my State, Nadin Hamoui and Mako Nakagawa, both 
testified about their experiences. Both described being awakened in the 
dead of night in their family homes by armed law enforcement who 
pointed guns at their parents, herded sisters and brothers into waiting 
vehicles and took them away for a long detention with no access to due 
process. The eerie part was that their stories occurred sixty years 
apart, in 1941 and 2001.
  In Washington State, the echo of internment of Japanese Americans 
during World War II and the damage that it did is still very real, and 
hearing these two stories makes us aware of just how much our respect 
for liberty in this country can be overcome by fear.
  It has never been more important to have a judiciary that vigorously 
protects our constitutional rights and particularly our rights to 
privacy. As a perfect example, just this past week, the Supreme Court 
agreed to hear arguments on whether prisoners at the United States 
Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to access to civilian courts 
to challenge their open-ended detention. An independent judiciary has 
the courage to review Government assertions of power, and that is what 
we are talking about here: whether these nominees would live up to the 
demands of that independent judiciary.
  These are good individuals. They are earnest. They are hard working. 
But there have been fundamental questions raised about their records 
and about whether they have impartially judged their cases.
  Charles Pickering, we all know, has been involved in a case where he 
picked up the phone and intervened with the Department of Justice in an 
attempt to reduce a sentence mandated by Federal guidelines.
  Priscilla Owen has been repeatedly had her opinions chastised by 
members of her own court who have called them ``nothing more than 
inflammatory rhetoric'' and ``an unconscionable act of judicial 
activism.'' The San Antonio Express News actually called the 
nomination--or the renomination, I should say--of these two 
individuals, Owen and Pickering, a ``misguided'' and ``major 
disappointment.''
  Mr. Pryor, again, I am sure a well-meaning individual, sought to 
limit the Violence Against Women Act--and a fellow Republican attorney 
general had this to say about him:

       I have great questions about whether Mr. Pryor has the 
     ability to be nonpartisan. I would say he was probably the 
     most doctrinaire and most partisan of any attorney general I 
     dealt with in 8 years.

  Are these the individuals we want to trust with lifetime appointments 
to protect our constitutional rights and to uphold those rights?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, how much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 11 minutes. There are 
less than 10 minutes remaining.
  Ms. CANTWELL. If my colleague from Washington would allow, I would 
like to continue.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much more time does the Senator need?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Three minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 more minute to my colleague from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague. Madam President, in voting 
against these individuals, the Senate is doing the job the American 
people expected us to do.
  In order to continue to have this great democracy, we must ensure we 
have vital checks on this administration's power. The American people 
are expecting their judiciary to be independent, to respect precedent, 
and not to prejudge the issues before them. The American people think 
we need a fair and balanced judiciary to counterbalance the executive 
and legislative branch, and we need to give them that.

[[Page S14627]]

  These four individuals have demonstrated records of reaching beyond 
the law in order to reach their preferred ideological outcome. The 
Federal judiciary will not rise or fall on the fate of these four 
individuals, but in order to be a great democracy, in order to continue 
shining as the world's brightest beacon for individual rights, we need 
to have an independent judiciary, Without the important check that this 
Senate provides by doing our job in advising and consenting with the 
President on these issues, that will not be possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the majority believes that the Senate 
should spend 30 hours discussing what the New York Times calls a 
manufactured crisis on judges. While I believe our time would be better 
spent helping laid-off workers by extending unemployment benefits, I am 
happy to talk about the confirmation of judges. I am happy to talk 
about how these lifetime appointments affect the rights and freedoms of 
every American, and I am happy to talk about our impressive record of 
confirming 98 percent of the judges this majority has brought to the 
Senate floor.
  I want to be clear that by spending 30 hours talking about four 
judges who already have jobs, we are not helping the 3 million 
Americans who do not have jobs. This marathon is the type of political 
grandstanding that, frankly, makes Americans scratch their heads and 
conclude that politicians just don't get it. We should be spending our 
time on the urgent needs facing our citizens in employment, health 
care, transportation, and completing our work on putting this Federal 
budget together. But the majority has decided that this is the most 
important issue we can discuss for 2 days, and they control the floor.
  I wish to talk about four things: The importance of the Senate in 
confirming judges, the progress we have made in the past 3 years, the 
success we have had in confirming judges in Washington State, and the 
job crisis that the majority doesn't want us to discuss.
  First, I want to put this discussion in context because the judges 
who serve on the Federal bench affect the lives and liberties of every 
American. These are lifetime appointments. This is not just a 
nomination to a commission or to an ambassadorship. This is a lifetime 
appointment for a Federal judge whose rulings over the next 30, 40, 
maybe more years, will have ramifications for every single American.
  As Senators, we are elected to serve our constituents. We are asked 
to confirm judges whose decisions can change U.S. history. They can 
shape the lives of Americans for generations to come. In addition, we 
expect Federal judges to provide the proper checks in our system of 
checks and balances that was outlined in the Constitution. Without it, 
our system does not function properly. It is our job to ensure that 
each nominee has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow 
citizens; that they will be fair to all of those who come before the 
court; that they will be evenhanded in administering judges; and that 
they will protect the rights and the liberties of all Americans.
  To determine if a nominee meets those standards, we have to explore 
their record, ask them questions, and weigh their responses. That is a 
tremendous responsibility and one that I take very seriously.
  In the Senate, we have made great progress in confirming the judges 
President Bush has nominated. Look at these figures. The Senate has 
confirmed 168 judicial nominees of President Bush to have come before 
the Senate. In 3 years, we have only stopped 4--4 people whose records 
raise the highest questions about their abilities to meet the standards 
of fairness that all Americans expect.
  Let me repeat that: 168 judicial nominees. That is a confirmation 
rate of 97.7 percent. We have confirmed 168 judges. That is more 
confirmations than during President Reagan's entire first term. So for 
this year, we have confirmed 168 judges.

  Today, 95 percent of the Federal judicial seats are filled. That is 
the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. There are now more Federal 
judges than ever before.
  When it comes to circuit court judges, we have confirmed 29. That is 
more appeals judges than Clinton, the first President Bush, or Reagan 
had by this point in their administrations.
  I have to point out that while the majority is complaining today 
about our 98-percent confirmation rate, it was a different story during 
the Clinton administration. Back then, Republicans used many different 
roadblocks to stop the confirmation of judges nominated by President 
Clinton.
  During Clinton's second term, 175 of his nominees were confirmed and 
55 were blocked from ever getting votes. During those years, the 
majority used the committee process to ensure nominees they disagreed 
with never came to a vote. Fifty-five nominations sent over by 
President Clinton never received consideration. So I think the Senate 
has a pretty impressive record at this time of confirming judges. That 
is clear in a 98-percent confirmation rate, and 95 percent of the 
Federal judicial seats are filled today. It is the lowest number of 
vacancies in 13 years.
  I wish to talk for a minute about the process we use in Washington 
State to confirm judges. We have worked out a system to ensure 
Washington judges are nominated and confirmed even when different 
political parties hold Senate seats or control the White House. For 
many years, I have worked with a Republican Senator and a Democratic 
President to nominate and confirm Federal judges. Today, with a 
Republican President, I am working with my Democratic colleague from 
Washington State on a bipartisan process to recommend judicial 
candidates. We developed a bipartisan commission process to forward 
names to the White House, and it has worked very well. Both sides have 
equal representation on the commission, and the commission interviews 
and vets those candidates.
  It worked for Senator Gorton--a Republican--and I when we were 
forwarding names to President Clinton, and it is working for Senator 
Cantwell and I as we both recommend names to President Bush.
  I am proud that during President Bush's first 3 years, we have 
confirmed two excellent judges through this bipartisan commission 
process. We confirmed Ron Leighton, a distinguished trial lawyer in 
Tacoma who is now a U.S. district court judge for the Western District 
of Washington in Tacoma.
  We have confirmed Lonny Suko as a district court judge for the 
Eastern District of Washington State. He is a distinguished lawyer and 
U.S. magistrate judge who has earned the respect of so many in his work 
on some of eastern Washington's most difficult cases.
  Currently, we are in the process of getting a nomination hearing and 
confirmation of Magistrate Judge Ricardo Martinez for a vacancy on the 
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
  For over 5 years, he has served as a magistrate judge for the United 
States. Before that, he was a superior court judge for 8 years, and he 
was also a King County prosecutor for 10 years.
  Judge Martinez has the impressive credential of being named the first 
drug court judge in Washington State and worked tirelessly to ensure 
the success of this program which uses treatment services as an 
alternative to incarceration.
  I am looking forward to his hearing and confirmation fairly quickly.
  I am here to tell you that in Washington State, we are making real 
bipartisan progress in confirming judges. It is a process that I 
believe serves the people of Washington State well.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I have very little time left, and I want to finish my 
statement. I thank my colleague.
  The time we are spending discussing our 98-percent confirmation rate 
could be used to address much more pressing issues. The majority is 
spending 30 hours to talk about four people who already have jobs. I 
think we should spend that time talking about the 3 million Americans 
who cannot find jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page S14628]]

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I conclude by saying in my home State of 
Washington, 70,000 people have been laid off. They want this Senate to 
deal with unemployment insurance extension, which we need to do before 
we adjourn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I wonder if the Senator from Washington would yield for a 
question and we would divide the time against each of us; time would go 
against her in responding to the question and my asking the question 
would go against the Republicans.
  Mr. REID. At this stage I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator wants to ask a question, use it on his time. 
We have people who have prepared all-night speeches and have been cut 
too short.
  Mr. ALLARD. That was just a suggestion, but obviously she does not 
want to respond to the question.
  Mr. President, today my colleagues and I are trying to put an end to 
the nomination logjam. All we are asking is for a simple up-or-down 
vote on these highly qualified nominees now. Carolyn Kuhl, Priscilla 
Owen, and Charles Pickering must receive a vote. Today, our Nation is 
facing a judicial crisis. Currently, there are 22 emergency judicial 
vacancies and 12 of these are on the court of appeals. It is simply 
irresponsible for us to ignore this growing crisis.
  Sticking our heads in the sand like an ostrich and ignoring it, as 
some of my colleagues would like us to do, will not diminish the 
seriousness of this crisis and make it go away.
  I have an article from the Washington Post written by George F. Will 
on February 28, 2003, entitled ``Coup Against the Constitution.'' I ask 
unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2003]

                     Coup Against the Constitution

                          (By George F. Will)

       The president, preoccupied with regime change elsewhere, 
     will occupy a substantially diminished presidency unless he 
     defeats the current attempt to alter the constitutional 
     regime here. If at least 41 Senate democrats succeed in 
     blocking a vote on the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Constitution 
     effectively will be amended.
       If Senate rules, exploited by an anti-constitutional 
     minority, are allowed to trump the Constitution's text and 
     two centuries of practice, the Senate's power to consent to 
     judicial nominations will have become a Senate right to 
     require a 60-vote supermajority for confirmations. By thus 
     nullifying the president's power to shape the judiciary, the 
     Democratic Party will wield a presidential power without 
     having won a presidential election.
       Senate Democrats cite Estrada's lack of judicial 
     experience. But 15 of the 18 nominees to the D.C. court since 
     President Carter have lacked such experience, as did 26 
     Clinton circuit judge nominees who were confirmed. And 43 of 
     the 108 Supreme Court justices (most recently Byron White, 
     Thurgood Marshall and Lewis Powell), including eight of the 
     18 chief justices (most recently Earl Warren), had no prior 
     judicial experience.
       Sen. Charles Schumer opposes Estrada because his mind is, 
     Schumer says, a mystery. And because the Justice Department 
     refuses to release papers Estrada wrote during his five years 
     (four of them in the Clinton administration) in the solicitor 
     general's office. The department, emphatically supported by 
     all seven living former solicitors general (four of them 
     Democrats), says that violating the confidentiality of 
     department deliberations would have a deleterious effect on 
     those deliberations. Anyway, the papers Schumer seeks contain 
     not Estrada's personal views but legal arguments supporting 
     the litigation positions of the U.S. government.
       Estrada, whose nomination has been pending for almost two 
     years and who has met privately with any senator who has 
     asked to meet with him, answered more than 100 questions from 
     the Judiciary Committee, and unusually large number. Only two 
     of 10 Judiciary Committee democrats exercised their right to 
     submit written questions to Estrada for written answers. 
     Schumer did not.
       Schumer says, ``No judicial nominee that I'm aware of, for 
     such a high court, has ever had so little of a record.'' 
     Actually, he is aware of at least two nominees to a yet 
     higher court--Gov. Warren and Sen. Hugo Black--who had no 
     record comparable to Estrada's 15 briefs and oral arguments 
     (10 of them victorious) in cases he argued before the Supreme 
     Court.
       Schumer says Estrada would not cite ``three supreme Court 
     cases in the past you disagree with.'' Actually, he was asked 
     to cite three ``from the last 40 years,'' a transparent 
     attempt to force him to discuss Roe v. Wade. But because 
     abortion-related cases still come before courts, Estrada 
     could not discuss Roe without violating the American Bar 
     Association's Code of Judicial Conduct, which says 
     prospective judges ``shall not . . . make statements that 
     commit or appear to commit the nominee with respect to cases, 
     controversies or issues that are likely to come before the 
     courts.'' Which is why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, declining 
     to answer certain questions at her confirmation hearing, 
     said, ``It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this 
     legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the 
     Supreme Court may be called upon to decide'' (emphasis 
     added).
       When Boyden Gray was White House counsel for the first 
     President Bush, Sens. Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden--both 
     now former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and both 
     still on it--warned him that any nominee would be rejected if 
     the White House asked the nominee questions about specific 
     cases. And a Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which every 
     nominee must complete, sternly asks: ``Has anyone involved in 
     the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee discussed 
     with you any specific case, legal issue, or question in a 
     manner that could reasonably be interpreted as asking or 
     seeking a commitment as to how you would rule on such a case, 
     issue or question?'' (emphasis added).
       Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 76 that the 
     Senate's role is to refuse nominations only for ``special and 
     strong reasons'' having to do with ``unfit characters.'' The 
     American Bar Association unanimously gave Estrada its highest 
     rating, and Estrada's supervisors in the solicitor general's 
     office gave him the highest possible rating in every 
     category, in every rating period.
       Given the cynicism and intellectual poverty of the 
     opposition to Estrada, if the Republican Senate leadership 
     cannot bring his nomination to a vote, Republican ``control'' 
     of the Senate will be risible. And if the president does not 
     wage a fierce, protracted and very public fight for his 
     nominee, he will display insufficient seriousness about the 
     oath he swore to defend the Constitution.

  Mr. ALLARD. Now some of my colleagues have proudly said they have 
acted on 98 percent of the judicial nominations sent to the Senate for 
confirmation. I would just simply like to point out that if we would 
only accept a 98 percent success rate, say, on flight safety, there 
would be 1,740 flights a day that would not land safely. Five hundred 
major organ transplants would be performed incorrectly and more than 4 
billion letters would be mishandled by the U.S. Postal Service this 
year. Ninety-eight percent, when we are talking about district as well 
as circuit court, simply is not good enough.
  On a personal note, I ask my colleagues, what would they want from 
their veterinarian performing a 98 percent success rate on their pet? 
My colleague is a veterinarian from Nevada. I am a veterinarian. That 
would not be acceptable to my colleagues. At that particular rate, I do 
not think we would be in business very long. Some in this body may 
believe 98 percent is good enough, but clearly it is not good enough.
  I point out one example of the new judicial nomination double 
standard in the Senate that resulted in an outstanding nominee, Miguel 
Estrada, not being given a fair up-or-down vote.
  In March of 1995, President Clinton nominated Carlos Lucero to be the 
first Hispanic judge to be on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Carlos Lucero was a Coloradan, the State I represent. After only 3 
months, Mr. Lucero was nominated, confirmed, and was seated on the 
bench of the Tenth Circuit.
  Prior to his confirmation, Mr. Lucero had no judicial experience yet 
enjoyed a well qualified rating from the American Bar Association.
  Miguel Estrada was considered well qualified. He was to be the first 
Hispanic ever to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Court. He 
argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, was a law clerk for 
Justice Anthony Kennedy, and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law 
School.
  Let us compare Carlos Lucero's nomination to Miguel Estrada's 
nomination. President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to be the first 
Hispanic judge to be on the District Circuit Court of Appeals in May of 
2001. He received a highly qualified rating from the American Bar 
Association, yet he waited more than a year for a hearing. After 
waiting for more than 2 years for a vote, he finally asked that his 
name be withdrawn.
  The point I am making is, how can we expect well qualified judges to 
be

[[Page S14629]]

willing to serve on the Federal court if they have to go through a 2-
year process and they have to put their careers on hold at the time?
  Now tell me that this is not a double standard. Tell me that in a 
case where there are two nominees equally qualified, with the same 
rating by the ABA, there was not a double standard being imposed by 
Democrats on Miguel Estrada.
  This double standard has been recognized in my home State of 
Colorado. On a chart beside me, I have two editorials, one from the 
Denver Post, a newspaper that endorsed Al Gore for President, and the 
other from the Rocky Mountain News. The Denver Post said:

       The key point--

  Talking about Miguel Estrada--

     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. . . . Keeping others from 
     voting their consciences on this particular matter is simply 
     out of line.

  I also have an editorial from the Chicago Tribune entitled 
``Squandering Miguel Estrada,'' on September 7, 2004. I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Sep. 7, 2003]

                       Squandering Miguel Estrada

       Presidents tend to nominate to important federal judgeships 
     candidates who share their philosophical views, and those of 
     the voters who elected them. So it comes as no surprise that 
     many of President Bush's judicial nominees have conservative 
     backgrounds. Those nominees are evaluated by the Senate, 
     which is supposed to approve or reject them.
       Last week, though, Democratic senators who are slavishly 
     devoted to a clutch of liberal interest groups succeeded in 
     driving away a superb nominee, Miguel Estrada, a brilliant 
     lawyer and native of Honduras who would have been the first 
     Hispanic jurist on the most important appellate court in the 
     country, the one based in Washington, D.C.
       Faced with a Democratic filibuster that kept the Senate 
     form voting yea or nay on his nomination, Estrada graciously 
     asked the president to withdraw his name. Estrada has a 
     family to raise and a career to manage. He can no longer wait 
     for elemental fairness to suffuse the United States Senate.
       Estrada had received the highest possible rating from the 
     American Bar Association. But he also is a conservative. The 
     knowledge that he someday would make a superb candidate for a 
     Supreme Court vacancy marked him as a nominee the liberal 
     interest groups and their puppets in the Senate had to 
     eliminate by any means necessary. And so, for the first time 
     in the history of the nation, a president's nominee to a 
     federal appellate court has been defeated not by a 
     straightforward vote of senators, but by a filibuster.
       Never mind that 55 senators stood ready to confirm Estrada. 
     Republicans couldn't muster 60 votes to break the Democrats' 
     filibuster. The confirmation vote never occurred.
       Partisans will note that, during Bill Clinton's presidency, 
     GOP senators played games with some of his nominees. That was 
     no less scurrilous than this year's chicanery. As the Tribune 
     argued during Clinton's tenure, the only fair way to treat a 
     controversial choice for a judgeship is ``to debate the 
     nomination fully and then vote to confirm or reject'' the 
     nominee.
       By failing to do that in Estrada's case, Democratic 
     senators have squandered a promising judicial career before 
     it could begin. They also have rewritten the Constitution, 
     which says a simple majority of the Senate is enough to 
     confirm a judicial nominee. If it takes 60 votes to break a 
     filibuster, that is the number presidents now will need 
     whenever the party out of power decides to throw a hissy fit 
     over a nominee.
       With their fundamentally unjust treatment of a good man, 
     Senate Democrats have handed Republican candidates, from the 
     White House down, an excellent issue for voters to consider 
     during the 2004 election cycle.
       As the Tribune reported Friday, the emboldened Democrats 
     are filibustering two more of Bush's nominees and have 
     indicated the will employ the tactic against others as well. 
     All to deny still more nominees the up-or-down votes they 
     deserve. Miguel Estrada was denied that simple justice by the 
     United States Senate.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to vote 
on these four highly qualified nominees.
  I now yield to the esteemed Senator from Idaho to make a few 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity our majority 
leader has given us to debate the issue of judicial nominations and the 
question of whether it is appropriate under our Constitution to have a 
filibuster of a judicial nomination by the President.
  I believe we face a constitutional crisis. There are a lot of numbers 
that have been bandied back and forth between the various sides in this 
debate. I am going to try to make a little sense out of those in a few 
minutes, but I want to start with the Constitution of the United 
States, which in article II says that the President shall nominate, and 
by and with the advice of the Senate, shall appoint judges.
  This Constitution does not provide a supermajority vote for the 
nomination, for the advice and consent process in the Senate. Our 
Founding Fathers were very capable and very good at pointing out those 
circumstances where they believed more than a majority vote was 
required for this interaction between the Senate and the President 
established in our Constitution.
  In a number of different places in the Constitution, whether it is 
ratification of treaties or impeachment or Presidential veto overrides 
or the other occasions where our Founding Fathers believed the 
Constitution required more than a majority vote and instead a 
supermajority vote, they were very specific about laying that out.
  With regard to judges, they did not lay out a supermajority 
requirement. Instead, it was stated--and until this Congress--that our 
Founding Fathers and the Constitution intended the advise and consent 
process in the Senate to require a majority vote and not to 
be ``filibusterable.''

  We have seen a lot of debate on a lot of different numbers and I want 
to try to clarify some of these. One of the very common responses to us 
is: Well, we have stopped only 4 judges by filibuster this Congress and 
yet under the last Presidency, under Bill Clinton, over 60--I have 
heard different numbers, 55, 60, but whatever it is--judges were 
stopped by the Republicans.
  It is critical for people to understand that we are talking about two 
very different things. All judges nominated by any President must go to 
the Judiciary Committee and must make it through the Judiciary 
Committee. In that process, under every President, a number of the 
judges do not make it.
  In fact, we have a chart that shows under President Bush No. 1, 54 of 
his nominations did not make it through the committee or were voted 
down by the Senate.
  Under President Clinton, our number, as we analyze it, is 41. Now I 
have heard the number 55 and the number 60, but somewhere between 41 
and 60 or some other number in that category did not make it through 
the committee.
  Actually, one of these nominees was voted down on the floor. The 
others did not make it through the committee. They do not make it 
through the committee often for a number of reasons. The point is that 
in the committee, there is a majority vote. It is the majority rule, as 
the Constitution requires, for these judges to make it through the 
process. Even if the committee does not act on these nominees, if the 
majority of the Senate wants to bring them forward, there is a 
discharge petition that can bring them forward.
  The point is, it is important to understand the distinction between 
judges who are stopped in the normal course of the majority voting 
process of the Senate as they work through the committee and then on to 
the floor, and what we are debating today.
  Let us go to the next chart. Today we are debating whether we should 
change what has never been done before. This number is the number of 
years in which the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, refused to uphold 
a filibuster against a judge. For the last 214 years, both Republicans 
and Democrats in the Senate have refused to uphold filibusters against 
judges.
  Now, we are going to hear and have heard over the last number of 
hours a lot of debate about that as well. The Republicans have been 
accused of filibustering Democrat judges and Democrats have been 
accused of filibustering Republican judges over the years, and they 
would have everyone believe it is a common practice for the Senate to 
accept the filibustering of judges.
  The reality is that although there have been efforts to try to 
filibuster judges in the past, until this Congress neither party has 
tolerated it because both parties recognized the intent of the 
Constitution that once a President's nomination gets to the floor, the

[[Page S14630]]

President is entitled to a vote. Whether the Republicans or the 
Democrats tried to filibuster a judge, both parties in the past have 
ultimately come together to stop that filibuster from preventing the 
intent of the Constitution from being accomplished.
  Let us get a little bit of history on this. The cloture rule in the 
Senate has been applicable to nominations since 1949. Since that time, 
cloture has been filed on only 35 nominations, meaning all the rest of 
the nominations basically made it through, once they got to the floor 
of the Senate, to a final vote. Of those 35 times that cloture had to 
be filed, 17 of them were judicial nominations, 18 were other executive 
nominations.

  Of those 17 times since 1949, when we have had cloture on judicial 
nominations, cloture has been defeated on the first try in 11 of the 17 
tries. Of all the other cases, cloture was defeated by the second try.
  Now, people need to understand what cloture is. Every time there is a 
cloture vote, it does not necessarily mean there is a filibustering. It 
simply means that at that point, the Senate is not ready to vote. It 
may mean they want to wait a little longer before a vote is taken. But 
when we see a cloture tried again and again and the announcement that 
as many times as it wants to be tried it is going to be stopped, that 
is a filibuster. We are seeing that now on four judges, with a threat 
of it on seven more.
  Let us put up the other two charts. There has been a lot of talk 
about how the Republicans stopped more of President Clinton's judges 
than the Democrats did of President Bush's judges. This number is the 
number of President Clinton's judicial nominations that reached the 
floor that were voted on and confirmed and the number that were 
filibustered. None of President Clinton's nominations was filibustered. 
There were some cloture votes. We can argue among ourselves whether or 
not that was a filibuster, but the point is that none of the efforts in 
the Senate against President Clinton was allowed to proceed to stop his 
judges from getting a vote. They all got a vote.
  Let us look at the next chart. The next chart is the number of 
nominations of Presidents in the last 11 Presidencies where, when the 
candidate got to the floor, they were denied an up-or-down vote. Out of 
2,372 nominations that have come to the floor during the last 11 
Presidents, zero were filibustered. Zero were stopped from having a 
vote once they got to the floor of the Senate.
  In this Congress, we have seen that happen four times, and it is now 
being threatened on seven more judges. A new trend, a new precedent, in 
American history is being set in the Senate and the American people 
need to pay attention to it because regardless of how one passes the 
numbers back and forth, the fact is that the precedent is now being set 
to require that not only does a nominee have to make it past the 
committee but they have to be subjected to the filibuster rule in 
contravention of the clear intent of the U.S. Constitution.
  This is all leading up to a battle over a potential Supreme Court 
nomination. It will be very unfortunate for this country if the Senate, 
in this Congress, changes the history of our treatment of this 
critically important provision of our Constitution as we move forward 
in the analysis and handling of our responsibility on the advice and 
consent on judicial nominations.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his 
comments.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding to me.
  Mr. President, I want to share an experience I had at 5:30 this 
morning. One has lots of experiences at 5:30 in the morning on the 
Senate floor and in observing what went on during the night. There was 
something that occurred to me that I want to share, and I hope I can do 
it in this period of time.
  There are two reasons this has been taking place, that they do not 
want to confirm these judges. One is ideology, philosophy. I hate to 
say it but unless one is pro-abortion and unless they are anti-gun, 
they do not want that person on the bench. But there is another reason 
we have not talked about, and that reason is just a reason of 
obstruction. We have been watching obstruction in all forms, but I want 
to share something and I hope people understand that this directly 
relates to the nominees for the judicial vacancies. I want to get the 
point across that it is happening to other nominees as well.
  I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a person 
who was a nominee of this President, Gov. Michael Leavitt from Utah, 
one of the most highly regarded individuals in this country and 
certainly one of the most highly qualified ever to be nominated to a 
position of Administrator of the EPA.
  We sat there and recognized how everybody loved this guy and yet they 
dragged it on and obstructed for days and weeks, just to drag it on 
out. So it is happening with many of the nominees.
  Now, Governor Leavitt is a very kind and decent person and I really 
believe the most qualified nominee to be Administrator of the EPA we 
have ever been able to act upon. The way he was treated was just 
absolutely shameful. It took 56 days to finally get the nomination, 
five times longer than those who preceded him as Administrator, even 
though he had overwhelming bipartisan support.
  I do not think anyone has questioned that the motivation of the delay 
was partisan Presidential politics. They set a new standard, new 
precedent, for an EPA Administrator. They really were not talking so 
much about him as they were trying to talk about the environmental 
policies of this President.
  If my colleagues will look at some of the people who supported him, 
we had many people, including my ranking member, Senator Jeffords. He 
said it has nothing to do with qualifications of the Governor. At this 
time, I would say that qualifications really do not seem to be an issue 
on judicial nominations. It has been said over and over again, and 
later if I have time within my timeframe I am going to get into that, 
but this goes on and talks about various Democrats praising Governor 
Leavitt for this nomination and yet they would not confirm him.
  Senator Nelson, who is a former Governor of Nebraska, served with him 
as Governor. He said: I believe nearly everyone, if not everyone, with 
whom Governor Leavitt worked in the NGA--that is the National Governors 
Association--would state that they had a favorable impression of him. I 
wholeheartedly support Mike Leavitt to serve as EPA Administrator.
  We heard the same thing from our old friend Bill Richardson with whom 
many of us served in the House of Representatives. He is currently 
Governor of New Mexico. He praises his virtues. He has worked 
effectively with other Governors regardless of party, and he went on to 
say he is probably the best nominee who has ever been put forth to be 
Administrator of the EPA.
  So he is highly qualified and nobody would deny that, and yet they 
turn this thing into trying to attack the President on his 
environmental record.
  I have to quote from one person, Gregg Easterbrook. I have not quoted 
him on this floor before. He is a liberal Democrat. He is a senior 
editor of the liberal New Republic. He says in an op-ed piece in the 
Los Angeles Times: The Democrats are not as interested in Bush's 
environmental record as they are attacking President Bush personally. 
He says: Most of the charges made against the White House are baloney--
these are his words--and made for the purposes of partisan political 
bashing and fundraising. He also contends that environmental lobbyists 
raise money better in an atmosphere of panic. He goes on to explain the 
real reason this issue was going on. This man was subjected to a lot of 
things, including 100 prehearing questions, and later 400 questions 
prior to the hearing. This has never been done before.

  Then we had an experience that has never happened in the history of 
this Senate. We went back as far as Jennings Randolph in the middle 
sixties. It never happened in the history of this committee. The 
Democrats boycotted the committee. They did not show up. We have 10 
Republicans and Democrats. We have to have a majority there and two 
members of each party, at a minimum. So they boycotted and did not show 
up.
  Time went on and we started looking at how long it took from the time 
of

[[Page S14631]]

the nomination, to the hearing, to the confirmation. In the case of 
William Riley, it was 13 days; the case of Carol Browner, 10 days; in 
the case of Governor Whitman, it was 13 days. Yet it took 56 days for 
this person to be confirmed. Finally, they did confirm and the vote was 
88 to 8.
  I suggest today if we had the vote on Priscilla Owen, she would be 
sitting in the Fifth Circuit right now; and Miguel Estrada, the DC 
Court; William Pryor, the Eleventh Circuit; and Charles Pickering, the 
Fifth Circuit.
  For a minute I will dwell, if the manager will give me a couple extra 
minutes, on Miguel Estrada. I saw something happening that I thought 
was significant. I will refer to something that happened to me February 
26, 2003, a year ago, when we were talking about the confirmation 
process.
  Mr. ALLARD. I am happy to extend an additional 2 minutes to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. We had a group in Oklahoma at that time that was there 
from San Luis Potosi, a sister city in Mexico. We have a sizable 
Hispanic community in Oklahoma. I was mayor of Tulsa, and I recall how 
excited the people were each year when they saw people striving to 
achieve, Hispanics in this country.
  I was standing before the crowd and said:

       Como acalde de la cuidad de Tulsa, yo quiero decir, ``Bien 
     venidos, bien venidos a la cuidad. Creemos que la cuidad de 
     San Luis Potosi es la cuidad mas hermosa de todas las 
     cuidades del mundo.''
       (Translation)
       As the mayor of the city of Tulsa, I want to say, 
     ``Welcome, welcome to the city. We believe the city of San 
     Luis Potosi is the most beautiful city of all the cities in 
     the world.''

  I saw the looks on their faces, realizing we were participating in 
their culture. They are looking at Miguel Estrada saying, Why won't 
they give him a chance to reach the top? Why is it that he does not get 
a chance for high office, he or any other Hispanic?
  I tried to answer. I believed there might be a way of garnering 
support to make this reality. I said:

       Muchos Hispanos estan escuchando ahora . . . y yo quiero 
     decir.
       Por descracia, hay personas en el senado que no quieren 
     escuchar a ni una palabra de la verdad.
       Yo invito a la communidad hispana para llama a sus 
     senadores para insistir en los derechos de Miguel Estrada y 
     en la confirmacion de jueces de los Estados Unidos.
       (Translation)
       Many Hispanic Americans are listening right now . . . and I 
     want to say:
       Disgracefully, there are people in the Senate that don't 
     want to listen to even one word of the truth.
       I invite the Hispanic community to call their senators to 
     insist on the rights of Miguel Estrada and on the 
     confirmation of the judges of the United States.

  People were calling in but it did not get the message across to the 
people on that side of the aisle that there must be some other reason 
that they do not want Miguel Estrada to be confirmed.
  Congress is a powerful institution and it is necessary to have the 
ability to collect and challenge much of what the President does, but 
when it comes to the courts and to interpreting laws and regulations, 
politics needs to get out of the way. Justice delayed is justice 
denied. I believe we are in a position to do some things and turn this 
around and get some of these people confirmed.
  My guess is residents of California, who had their constitution 
gutted by a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, only to have a 
larger panel of the same circuit reinstate their constitutionally 
authorized gubernatorial recall election, think it is pretty important 
who sits on the Ninth Circuit.
  I had an experience this morning debating one of our fine Senators, 
Mr. Lautenberg. I said at that time this is about ideology. I don't 
think anyone--after listening to all the debate that has gone on 
overnight--does not realize if you are not pro-abortion, if you are not 
anti-gun, you will be in opposition, and we will not get confirmation. 
It is wrong. All we want is an up-or-down vote on these fine nominees.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will wrap things up on our side. Before 
I do that, there are a couple of questions I would like to pose to my 
colleagues who are now in the Senate. I understand they are going to 
take some time to speak on their side of the aisle.
  First, I pose a question to Senator Dorgan, who is the Senator from 
North Dakota. Senator Dorgan stated there would be no foot dragging on 
President Bush's nominees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator needs consent to pose questions to 
other Senators.
  Mr. ALLARD. I am speaking under my own time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It still requires consent to pose a question 
to other Senators.
  Mr. ALLARD. I have a question I would like to ask of Senator Dorgan, 
if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is, he quoted that we are moving expeditiously on 
the President's nominees, refusing to return in kind the foot dragging 
delay of so many of President Clinton's nominees.
  I ask him to respond to that question under his own time.
  I also have a question to pose to the Senator from Iowa and give him 
an opportunity to respond on his own time. That question is, What has 
happened to change your view, when he wanted a vote regardless of the 
outcome?
  I quote:

       If you want to vote against them, let them vote against us. 
     That is their prerogative. But at least have a vote.

  This was made September 14, 2000. I ask both Members to respond to 
those statements. I ask them what has changed since those comments were 
made.

  When they get their time, they can respond to those questions.
  Let me wrap this up. I had a press conference this morning at 3:30, 
maybe 4 a.m., with the small business interests of this country. The 
point was made that delay in the judicial process is a problem for 
small business. How the courts function does have an impact on our 
economy. Lawsuits have an impact on our economy and how rapidly the 
courts respond.
  We have a crisis in the circuit courts, the courts of appeal. We need 
to fill the vacancies so cases that go before the circuit courts such 
as civil rights cases dealing with racial discrimination, sex 
discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, and the 
Americans With Disabilities Act can be handled in an expeditious way. 
These are cases impacting small businessmen in this country. We need to 
have our commercial disputes resolved in the circuit courts. There are 
contract disputes, insurance coverage disputes and trademark 
infringement issues in those courts. There are a lot of regulatory 
cases, for example, in the DC Courts, on environment, health, and 
safety standards, labor court enforcement, challenges to the Federal 
rules.
  In the DC Court, the crisis we have on the DC Circuit Court is 
especially important as it applied to the small business community in 
this country. We do have a crisis. We have a crisis in the DC Circuit 
Court, which is 25 percent slower than 2001, another 58,000 days more 
than 2001, a crisis in the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth, and the Fifth 
Circuit.
  The point is we need to get these nominees to the circuit courts 
passed through the Senate. It is unprecedented. Never in the history of 
the Senate have we not moved forward on judicial nominees when we had 
the majority of the Senators supporting that nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 224

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to legislative 
session and proceed to consider the bill to increase the minimum wage, 
Calender No. 3, S. 224; that the bill be read a third time and passed; 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his 
request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three 
cloture votes would be vitiated, and the Senate would then immediately 
proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the 
nomination with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. HARKIN. No, I do not modify my request.
  Mr. ALLARD. Then I object to his request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard to the original 
request.

[[Page S14632]]

  Mr. HARKIN. There again, I think we see what this is all about. We 
want to respond to the real needs of our people in America. We want to 
increase the minimum wage and the Republicans keep objecting to it. 
They will not let us bring it up for a vote. But they want to bring up 
four judges for lifetime appointments for a vote. So we see the 
difference.
  We are trying to work on behalf of the American people to meet the 
real needs of people unemployed and people who need an increase in the 
minimum wage. The Republicans will not bring it up. That is the 
difference here.
  Obviously, what we have, I called it the theater of the absurd 
earlier. There has been a play running for several years at the Kennedy 
Center called ``Shear Madness.'' It has now come to the Senate floor 
and is playing here now, ``Shear Madness.'' You can watch it free here. 
You do not have to pay to go to the Kennedy Center to see it.
  First of all, I thank the police, the court reporters, other Capitol 
employees, who have had to spend long hours here through the night so 
that we can waste time, waste taxpayers' money, engaging in this 
ridiculous charade. I am told that the police out here are putting in 
16-hour shifts, 16-hour shifts just so we can come out here for this 
ridiculous charade.
  I am told our court reporters have to do 20-minute increments rather 
than the 10-minute increments they normally do. I am not a court 
reporter, but I think having that thing strapped around your shoulders 
and working for 20 minutes gets pretty tiring.
  Does anyone on the other side think about these people? They have 
families. They have other things they need to do. How about our police 
working 16-hour shifts out there? Anyone on the other side of the aisle 
ever think about what is happening to them because of this charade we 
are putting on? We think about them.
  I might say to the police and other people putting in all the 
overtime, while we are here with all this charade, do you know what is 
going on in the other part of the Capitol, downtown with the 
administration? They are trying to take away your overtime pay 
protection. Watch the little shell game with this hand on the judges, 
and with the other hand they are trying to take away your overtime pay 
protection. That is what this is all about. Tune in and watch this 
charade.
  But do you know what else is going on in the other part of the 
Capitol? They are trying to take away your Social Security. They are 
trying to do away with your Medicare provisions. That is what is going 
on in another part of the Capitol.

  Don't take my word for it. Here is something out of Congress Daily 
this morning: Enlisting the support of health care industry, House 
Republicans accelerated efforts Wednesday to build outside support for 
the emerging Medicare prescription drug bill, and quotes a Republican 
from Virginia who said this new business coalition is absolutely 
critical in whipping Members just before a vote.

       They have been critical all along. It works from the 
     groundwork. It is all about winning elections at home. 
     Everyone understands this is a political process.

  This is on the Medicare prescription drug bill. He said the coalition 
that they are putting together is broader than the drug companies, and 
it includes representatives ranging from construction companies to 
Caterpillar.
  This is the coalition the Republicans are putting together to destroy 
Medicare as we know it. They are putting together a coalition of 
business, drug companies, construction companies, et cetera. Where are 
the seniors? Where are the elderly in their coalition? Not to be heard 
from. And they are going to do away with Medicare as we know it. They 
are going to privatize it.
  Here is another one from November 6, Newhouse News Services, talking 
about Social Security. It quotes a Josh Bolton, Director of Bush's 
Office of Management and Budget: In the long run, Social Security 
cannot meet its commitments. Bolton would switch the system from 
government-guaranteed benefits to private investment accounts that 
would probably, but not positively, generate as good a benefit as 
Social Security now promises but can't deliver.
  Now, the administration is saying that Social Security cannot 
survive. It is a fact that the tax cuts passed by this Congress and 
signed by this President, most of which went to the wealthy in our 
society, if those amounts of money that go out to those tax cuts had 
instead been used for the Social Security system, Social Security would 
be solvent for the next 75 years. But now they are saying we do not 
have enough money for Social Security; we cannot meet our obligations. 
Of course not. They opened the gates through the Treasury and let all 
the money go to the wealthy in our country with that tax program they 
had.
  That is what this is about. Get your mind off of that and look at 
this charade we are putting on today.
  I will respond to my friend from Colorado, and he is my friend. He is 
a great Senator who just quoted me a little while ago, remarks I made 
on the Senate floor a couple years ago about bringing up Bonnie 
Campbell. Here is a list of 63 judges who were blocked at that time, 
Clinton nominees, one of those being Bonnie Campbell from Iowa. I point 
out 63 here and only 4 we have blocked.
  Here is the difference. The Republicans say they were stopped in 
committee. Yes, the Senator from Colorado quoted me accurately. I did 
ask unanimous consent to bring Bonnie Campbell out of committee to the 
floor. They objected. The Republicans objected. Now, Bonnie Campbell 
had a hearing. Nothing was raised about her. Nothing that was bad or 
anything in her background--nothing. She was absolutely qualified to 
serve as a circuit court judge, but Republicans would not even let her 
out of committee.
  Here is what the Republicans say. It is wrong to stop someone in the 
Senate with a filibuster or an extended debate. That is wrong. But it 
is all right if we stop them in committee, which is exactly what they 
did.
  So, yes, I asked unanimous consent to bring it out of committee, 
bring it to the floor. You bet I did. They objected.
  Now, they are trying to say, why don't we do now what they were 
unwilling to do? Why should we change the rules, I ask my friend from 
Colorado? We will play by the same rules you played by. But, no, now 
you on the other side want to change the rules.
  As I said this morning, my favorite line, a refrain from Finian's 
Rainbow that I bring up at times like this. It goes like this: Life is 
like cricket. We play by the rules. But the secret which few people 
know that keep men of class far apart from the fools is to make up the 
rules as you go.
  That is what they are trying to do. Of course, I tried to bring it 
up. They objected. But now they want to change the rules and have a 
different playing field.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Or someone mentioned January 5, 1995, I offered an 
amendment on the floor of the Senate that would have set up a procedure 
to close cloture. We would have had a vote, then a couple weeks would 
have to go by, have another vote, a couple weeks go by, and have 
another vote. Finally, you get down to 51 votes.

  I still believe in that, that after a month's period of time, after 
extended debate, there ought to be 51 votes and move legislation.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will in a second.
  Guess what happened. I offered that amendment. Guess how many 
Republicans supported it. Zero. Zero. Not one Republican supported it.
  Now what I hear they want to do is they want to change the rules to 
prevent cloture on judges, lifetime appointments. But on legislation--
on legislation--no. They want to continue to be able to filibuster 
legislation. Well, come on. Give me a break. If you want to stop 
filibusters, stop it for everything, not just for judges.
  Now, my friend from Colorado, I know wants to ask me a question, and 
I do not know how much time I have, but I will be glad to yield for a 
question.
  Mr. ALLARD. I will make it short. The question I have for the Senator 
from Iowa, my good friend--and we have worked together on many issues--
is, Will you now support the Frist-Miller proposal? It is a bipartisan 
proposal, a step in the direction that you proposed several years back.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, if they would modify it to look like 
what

[[Page S14633]]

we did in 1995. My amendment in 1995 covered everything. It covered 
legislation. It covered judges. It covered everything.
  If you put that forward, you have got my vote. But, no, what you want 
to do on that side is only have it pertain to judges, and not to 
legislation.
  No. I am sorry. If you want to end the filibuster, do it for 
everything, not just for what you think is right. Let's do it for 
everything.
  So I say to my friend--and he is my friend; he is a great Senator--I 
know we have a disagreement about this, but I am just saying, what I 
hear from the other side is they want to pick and choose. They want to 
be able to say, if you stop a judge in committee, that is fine, but you 
cannot stop him on the floor. And that is what they did. They stopped 
the judges in committee.
  So when you hear Republicans come out here today or last night or 
however long this charade is going to go on--when they beat their 
breasts and say, oh, my goodness, I have never or I will never vote to 
filibuster a judge on the floor, check the record on that person and 
see what they did when they were held up in committee. Oh, it was all 
right. That was a hold. That was not a filibuster. That was a hold. 
Fancy words, different words--same result.
  So what the rules have been in the past, the game, the rules we have 
played by in the Senate are good enough for today, and if you want to 
change the rules, change them for everything. Do not just pick and 
choose one little thing at a time. That is my point to my friend from 
Colorado.
  I know the Senator from North Dakota wants to speak, and I am going 
to yield to him. But I just again point out that while this charade is 
going on here, the administration is at work trying to cut Social 
Security benefits. They are at work trying to come up with a Medicare 
prescription drug bill that benefits our drug companies and not our 
seniors. They are at work trying to take away overtime pay protection 
for 8 million working Americans. They are at work stopping an increase 
in the minimum wage. They are at work stopping any increase in an 
unemployment insurance extension. That is the game that is being played 
here.
  I yield the floor to my esteemed colleague and friend from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to listen 
to all of this debate.
  Mr. HARKIN. An opportunity?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am not sure I would consider it an opportunity, had I 
had the time. I know people watching this, perhaps on C-SPAN, would 
take a look at all this and say: Well, this is a bunch of windbags in 
blue suits. They talk and they talk and they seem to disagree, and when 
they are done talking, they have not said very much.
  There is some truth to the fact that much of what goes on in this 
Chamber is without great merit and without great consequence. There are 
times when we do things--and often when we do things together--that 
have significant impact on the future of this country and on the 
direction of this country. This is not one of those moments, I might 
say.
  This 30 hours is 30 hours that are designed to make a point, a point 
without much validity. And I will explain why that is the case. But it 
is, in my judgment, of very little consequence.
  My dad used to say, never buy something from somebody who is out of 
breath. Do you know something? There is a kind of breathless quality to 
my colleagues. My colleague from Colorado just asked me a question kind 
of breathlessly, and I have watched others sort of out of breath here 
coming to the floor of the Senate talking about how unfair this process 
has been, how we are blocking judges.
  Look, maybe it is time for just a few facts--just a few. You have 
seen them before. This is not a memory test, but it will take very 
little time to commit to memory. Mr. President, 168 judges confirmed--
168 confirmed--and 4 have been blocked. We do not apologize for 
blocking four judges we don't want to be on the Federal bench.
  The Constitution says there are two steps to giving someone a 
lifetime appointment: One, the President shall nominate; and, two, the 
Senate shall approve. It is called advise and consent. The roles are 
equal. This is not a circumstance where the President has certain 
prerogatives that we do not have. The roles are equal. To put someone 
on the Federal bench for an entire lifetime, the President nominates 
and then we give our advice and consent. Mr. President, 168 times this 
Senate has said yes, and on 4 occasions it has said no.
  Why are we here for 30 hours? Because the majority party is 
apoplectic. They are having apoplectic seizures about these four.
  Do you know something? When my son was about 10 years old, he ordered 
from a magazine an ant farm. When he did it, I described it on the 
floor of the Senate one day. I had no idea what an ant farm was, but it 
was two pieces of glass hooked together on the ends, very narrowly, and 
then you put sand in it. They also sent you a little vial with ants. 
And they said in the instructions that you put the ants in the 
refrigerator to slow them down a little bit, and then you take the cap 
off and you throw those things in that little glass container with 
sand. And then it said: Just watch, and you will be entertained by this 
ant farm.
  So we slowed them down. We put these old ants in the refrigerator. 
Then we poured them in this little glass with the sand, and then we 
watched--a day, a week, 2 weeks. It was fascinating. Every morning you 
would wake up, and those old ants had been working. They took the sand 
from this side, and they would move it to this side. The next day you 
would wake up, and they moved the sand back. Do that about 2, 3 weeks 
and you realize there was a lot of activity going on but they were not 
going anyplace. Nothing was happening.

  It was all an empty exercise. And do you know what? At times the 
Senate reminds me of that, and especially in this 30-hour period it 
reminds me of that. We can move things back and forth, we can vent and 
breeze and wheeze, and it does not change the facts.
  The facts about judgeships are these: 168 we have supported, which 
means we have the lowest vacancy rate since the mid-1980s. Why do we 
have the lowest vacancy rate since the mid-1980s? Because we--yes, we--
have approved 168 judges, at a far higher rate than happened under the 
Clinton administration when the Republicans controlled this body. I am 
not and will not be apologetic to anyone under any circumstance for 
this record.
  Now, with respect to these four, do we have a right to decide there 
are four people whom we do not want on the Federal bench? You bet your 
life we do--not only a right, but we have an obligation. If we decide 
this candidate or that candidate is not worthy of a lifetime 
appointment, we, in my judgment, have an obligation, and that 
obligation, under advise and consent, is to weigh in with our opinion.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will not yield, and I will not do so because the 
Senator from Colorado asked a question on his time and said he would 
not allow me to answer on his time, so I will not allow him to ask 
questions on our time.
  I would be very happy, however, by consent, to spend a full hour with 
the Senator from Colorado or any other Senator, for that matter, just 
back and forth with two or three of us asking and answering questions. 
I would enjoy that opportunity.
  But having said all that, let me explain that this 168 to 4 is, in my 
judgment, a lot of shadow boxing. It might be fun for some. I am sure 
it is not fun for those who have to spend their time for the next 30 
hours--the doorkeepers and the members of the police, and others, the 
security, and the folks at the desk, and the folks who do the service 
that is performed here to keep the records of the Senate--they have to 
be here 30 hours. If it makes people feel better doing this, they have 
a right to do it. I will not complain about it. They have a perfect 
right to do this.
  But let me tell you what I have a right to do as well. I have a 
right, at least as one Member of this Senate, to wish--to wish--just 
for a moment that I were in control of this agenda. And I will tell you 
what I would do today if I were in control of this agenda. I would 
bring something to the floor of the Senate that deals with the subject 
of jobs.
  I know what I would want to talk about today. I would want to have

[[Page S14634]]

some legislation on the floor, and I will tell you what it would be 
about. Huffy bicycles.
  Let me tell you about Huffy bicycles. Huffy bicycles have 20 percent 
of the market in this country for bicycles--20 percent. They used to be 
made in America. They were made in Celina, OH, made by 850 good 
workers, 850 union members in a plant in Ohio. They made $11 an hour in 
wages plus benefits. And they made a great bicycle, sold at Wal-Mart, 
Sears, Kmart.
  Do you know what this bicycle had on the front, right underneath the 
handlebar? It had a picture of an American flag on a decal, a decal for 
the Huffy bicycle--an American flag, American made. God bless them.

  But then it became too expensive to make Huffy bicycles in America. 
Mr. President, $11 an hour was too much to pay workers. So do you know 
where these Huffy bicycles are made now? In China. Do you know why? 
Because they get paid 33 cents an hour. And do you know what they did 
when they moved the Huffy bicycles to China? They laid off all those 
workers in Ohio--850 of them--who now work 2 jobs, 3 jobs to make ends 
meet, and some do not work at all.
  What they did, when they went to China and started producing these 
bicycles, was they took off that American flag decal right underneath 
the handlebar and they changed that American flag to a picture of the 
globe--the globe. Well, God bless the globe. But I happen to care a 
great deal about jobs in Ohio--American workers who get up in the 
morning and say goodbye to their family because they are going to a job 
that they love: I make Huffy bicycles. No, I don't make a fortune; I 
make $11 an hour, but I work hard, and I do a good job. And then I am 
told one day my last job will be to replace the decal on the front of 
the bicycle from a flag to a globe before they fire me and move the 
jobs to China.
  I want to talk about that. If I were running this place, we would be 
talking about legislation to address this question of whether American 
workers ought to be told: You must compete with 33-cent-an-hour labor. 
And if you can't, tough luck; you lose your job.
  We are talking about four jobs this morning that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are upset they were not advanced to the Federal 
bench. I am talking about 850 people in Ohio who used to make Huffy 
bicycles, and proud to do so, who discovered they were too expensive at 
$11 an hour. Huffy wanted to make bicycles for 33 cents an hour.
  I would like to talk about that on the floor of the Senate and have 
policies dealing with international trade on the floor of the Senate. 
And that relates to jobs, not just relating to 850 people, but it 
relates to millions of jobs.
  Three million people had to tell somebody in their family they lost a 
job in the last few years. These are people at the bottom of the 
economic ladder. These are people who know about secondhand, second-
shift, second jobs. They are the ones who lose their jobs. We ought to 
talk about joblessness in this country and the fact that our economy is 
expanding but the job base is not.
  Last month we had good news, and good for us, good economic growth. 
Do you know what happened? We lost manufacturing jobs again last month, 
50,000 of them. I suppose if you wear a suit, it does not matter much, 
and if you serve in the Senate, you will not notice it much. But I 
guarantee you, if you were one of those last month who had a good 
manufacturing job, who had to come home and tell your spouse and your 
family, ``I have just lost my job; no, not because I am a bad worker 
but because I can't compete with 12-year-olds working 12 hours a day 
being paid 12 cents an hour''--and yes, that happens. Yes, that 
happens. And I can show you where and tell you when. So I would talk 
about that. That is what I would have on the agenda.
  While I am at it, while I am halfway irritated about what we are not 
doing, let me also talk, just for a moment, about something I discussed 
yesterday. At 11 o'clock last night in a conference committee in the 
basement of this Capitol, I lost this issue, and I am a little 
irritated about that this morning.

  This is a picture of a young woman, a young Christian woman from this 
country, and her name is Joni Scott. She came to see me 2 days ago. Do 
you know why? Because her Government has levied a $10,000 fine against 
her. Do you know why? Because the Government discovered she went to 
Cuba, and she went to Cuba in order to deliver free Bibles to the Cuban 
people with her church group.
  So this young woman, named Joni Scott, took Bibles with her church 
group, went to Cuba, and distributed free Bibles in the country of 
Cuba. And when she came back to this country, do you know what her 
country said to her? We have got the Department of the Treasury, with 
an organization called OFAC, Office of Foreign Asset Control, and they 
sent her a notice and said: You are fined $10,000. You must pay a 
$10,000 fine. Why? Because you went to Cuba.
  Mr. President, we ought to talk about that today. I had an amendment 
on the conference committee last night. The amendment passed the 
Senate. The amendment passed the House of Representatives. It was 
bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats voted for it in the Senate and 
the House, to say: Let's not enforce this travel ban against Cuba. It 
is not fair to the American people. That is an attempt to slap around 
Fidel Castro, and by doing that, we are injuring American people's 
right to travel.
  Well, we went to conference last night, and this bipartisan 
approach--in both the Senate and the House--was kicked out. Why? 
Because the White House threatened to veto the bill if it was in it. 
This bill still stands. This young lady has a $10,000 fine. I have 
written to the Treasury Department saying: How dare you? How dare you?
  But it is not just her. It is farmers from my State who want to sell 
farm products into Cuba. The Farm Bureau is denied a license to travel 
to Cuba to promote farm exports. It is about using food as a weapon. 
That is what the administration wants to do with Cuba; it is about 
embargoes. This does not make any sense.
  So if I were running this place today--and I am not, unfortunately--I 
would be talking about that. I would be talking about the ability of 
our farmers to sell into that marketplace and, why on Earth will you 
not give a license to a farm group to go to Cuba to promote 
agricultural sales while you penalize a young lady who goes to Cuba to 
hand out free Bibles?
  Is there anybody here who thinks this makes any sense? Have we lost 
all bases of common sense? Or will someone at some point stand up and 
say, let's do the right thing here?
  So instead, we are here 30 hours. It started with Fox News and the 
majority party combining so that at 6 o'clock they could do a live news 
shot. They are excited about it. They want the people to talk in the 
Chamber. It is all in a memorandum: We need to do this. And they are 
very excited. Britt Hume is very excited to have on his show a live 
shot of the Republicans walking into the Chamber. And for 30 hours we 
talk about judges.
  It is fine. They have a perfect right to do that. I do not disparage 
that right at all. I say, however, it certainly is not the topic that 
is on the minds of most of the American people. There is so much 
misinformation about this subject that ricochets around this Chamber.
  We are told by our colleagues: You are filibustering; that has never 
been done. I don't know where they get that. Do they just not do the 
basic research? I do not understand that. Do they just not do basic 
research at all?

  Tell me about Abe Fortas. Many years ago, was there a filibuster? Of 
course there was. Tell me about Richard Paez. Tell me about all the 
cloture votes we have had to cast around here because Republicans 
forced us to have cloture votes.
  Why do you have a cloture vote? Because there is a filibuster, in 
order to break a filibuster. And I could go through, but my colleagues 
already have, name after name after name where there has been a 
filibuster by the Republicans.
  Then let me just indicate, finally, that my colleague from Iowa 
indicated there are many men and women who never even got a hearing. 
That is a filibuster by one person demanding the Judiciary Committee 
refuse to even give a hearing to candidates. Yes, for the Ninth 
Circuit, but for judgeships all around this country.

[[Page S14635]]

  So I know we are going to vent out here for, I suppose, another 12--I 
guess 12 hours. And it will amount to nothing. We ought to be talking 
about jobs and a range of things that are very important to the future 
of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
                                 ______