George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for joining with us in this debate on the most important issue we have facing us in the Senate and in our country. That is: How can we work to make sure we have the best policies for more investment and more job creation? The reality is, right now things are getting better. They need to get better, though, than they are currently. Nevertheless, the facts are clear. Job growth is up by 126,000 in October. When my colleagues talk about the last 20 years, last month we had an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent. That is the best in 20 years. The Republicans' point of view, I would say to my colleagues, is that we want to make sure every American, regardless of their race, their gender, their ethnicity, or their religious beliefs, has the opportunity to compete and succeed. That means our tax policies have to be conducive to investment. Regulations need to be based on sound science, not political science. We also need to make sure the people of our country, in our States, have the capabilities and the knowledge to get the good jobs in the future. We also need to have security. When we see people in communities worried about crime or worried about terrorism, those are adverse impacts, on confidence and investment and therefore job creation. We have seen the adverse impacts of 9/11, particularly in the travel and tourism industry. I know as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia what matters to businesses when they are looking to invest. They look at what is the cost of doing business, what is the tax rate, what is the cost of workers compensation. Ours are low in Virginia because we keep lawyers out of workers compensation. We get the money to the person who is injured so he or she can get back to work. Unemployment insurance taxes matter. The fact that we have a right to work law, which gives individuals the right, if they so desire, not to join a union as a condition of work, that helps attract business. Health insurance matters as well. In a variety of areas, we have found Virginia ended up with much more job growth, more investment. It was called the Silicon Dominion because of the investment, because of having taxes competitively low, prompt permitting, reasonable regulations, and also investment in security and also in the capabilities of our students for high academic standards. The Democrats talk about all of these Presidents. Interesting. Richard Nixon was elected after President Johnson. If one wants to call Jimmy Carter their second best President, with the malaise and the high interest rates, the high unemployment, and the high inflation. People put in Ronald Reagan to help revive this economy and make us stronger as well as, of course, keep our peace through strength. I find it interesting my good friend from Iowa talks about, oh, the Republicans somehow want to imperil Social Security and gets off on these tangents on privatization. Of course the Democrats care about Social Security because in 1993 they not only taxed all families and all small businesses and every taxpayer, they even taxed Social Security benefits. When given the opportunity most recently on a measure introduced by Senator Bunning of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, virtually every Democrat voted against that effort to repeal the tax on Social Security benefits. The fact is, we are making good progress. We need to keep moving forward. We have ideas, as Republicans, in a variety of ways that we can make sure the American economy can compete internationally, can help create more jobs and greater opportunity. Indeed, we want to make health care costs more affordable and predictable, reduce the burden of lawsuits on our economy, whether it is asbestos reform or class action reform, make sure we have an affordable, reliable energy supply, streamline regulations, open new markets for American products, and also make sure there is confidence in investment in this country by making sure the tax reductions are permanent. I will close with the words of Mr. Jefferson who said that the Government should restrain men from injuring one another but otherwise leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouths of labor the bread they have earned. That remains the sum of good government today.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to Mr. Harkin, the Senator from Iowa. This question gets into the issue we are talking about, which is jobs. Taxes cuts help create more jobs for small businesses, especially the most recent tax cuts for accelerated depreciation. Regulations from the Federal Government also can reduce choice and cost jobs. For example, we believe free people and families ought to be able to keep working. The proposal would harm those choices and jobs. For example, the proposal which has strong Democrat support would increase the cost of purchasing pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans. America is dominant in the manufacturing of minivans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Many people are choosing to buy them for the safety of their families. I ask the Senator from Iowa: How many SUV jobs would have been lost had your side prevailed?

Mr. ALLEN. I am talking about the CAFE standards.

Mr. ALLEN. How many jobs would have been lost had your position prevailed?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would say, thank goodness the views of the Senator from North Dakota are the minority view. The reality is, most countries do not impose these 35 percent taxes. The current tax law prohibits businesses or impinges on their ability to bring profits back into this country to help create jobs. A number of people, from Dr. Allen Sinai to Decision Economics to JP Morgan, have shown there would be 400,000 to 500,000 new U.S. jobs in this country, $100 billion in increased investment in this country in equipment and research and development, and a reduction in corporate debt if this legislation were enacted. You can keep the laws the way they are without this provision, and what you will see is more jobs going overseas. But if you have this 1- year benefit, you will find the benefit being in the hundreds of thousands of new jobs, with important investment here in America as opposed to overseas.

Mr. ALLEN

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 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 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. ALLEN. Objection.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

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. 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. 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. ALLEN. Yes.

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. ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

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 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. 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. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Clearly, a prior inconsistent statement showing duplicity. I would ask, when you referred to some of their arguments that she is out of the mainstream, I was looking at the record from the hearings. I understand Justice Brown was criticized for a single ruling she made on a parental consent case. We have parental consent laws in Virginia. The vast majority of people, even some who consider themselves pro-choice, recognize that if an unwed minor daughter is going through the trauma of an abortion, that at least the mother or father ought to be notified, ought to be involved, because it is a medical procedure that even for ear piercing or tonsils being taken out, you need consent. So for something as traumatic as the surgery of abortion, which is physical obviously, but also something that is emotional, parents should know when their 17, 16, 15-year-old daughter is going through such a procedure. She is being criticized for that. I don't find that, at least from Virginia standards, or if the Senator could share with us, do you consider that out of the mainstream? From what I can see from surveys, 80 percent-plus of all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin or their ethnicity or gender, think parents ought to be involved when their unwed minor daughter is contemplating such a procedure.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their support of S. 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Especially I want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, for his leadership. I have enjoyed working with Senator Wyden on nanotechnology for the past several years on this important issue for America's future. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors on this legislation: Commerce Committee Chairman and Commodore John McCain, the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and Senators Lieberman, Mikulski, Hollings, Landrieu, Clinton, Levin, and Bayh. I have made America's competitiveness in nanotechnology a priority, and working with Senator Wyden and the chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senator McCain, we held the first hearings in Congress on this emerging science, a field that promises to forever change the way we approach scientific and engineering challenges. Nanotechnology is a ``bottom-up'' approach much like building a sculpture atom by atom and molecule by molecule instead of cutting it from a larger rock. Nanotechnology on the dimensional scale is one nanometer; that is, one-billionth of a meter or 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Far-reaching outcomes for the 21st century are envisioned in both scientific knowledge and technological advancement for nanotechnology. The potential for nanotechnology and the exciting work taking place in nanoscience are by all accounts revolutionary, and as the technology matures it will undoubtedly have a tremendous impact on our daily lives. S. 189 is a truly historic piece of legislation, because, for the first time, it creates a comprehensive national plan to advance and develop the field of nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology. This field of science is quickly transforming almost every aspect of our modern world and is already significantly improving our quality of life. Nanotechnology is also showing promise of new applications that we can only imagine at this time. Let me highlight several important examples, such as the use of iron nanoparticles in the cleanup of Superfund sites; nanometer-size minerals in the efficient production of gasoline from crude oil; nanoscale designer molecules to create bone structure for bone repair; nanolasers for super-precision surgery; and gold nanoshells with attached antibodies introduced to targeted cancer tumor sites to destroy tumor growth while leaving healthy tissue unharmed. As a Senator, my top priority is to advocate and support policies that create jobs, investment, and improvement of America's ability to compete in the global marketplace. I earnestly believe there is a link between research and development and job creation, which ultimately leads to prosperity for all Americans. Therefore, I believe one of our most important goals should be to create the conditions precedent to positioning researchers and innovators to compete, contribute, and succeed both domestically and internationally. From materials to electronic devices, computers, biotechnology, healthcare systems, pharmaceuticals, environmental improvement, agriculture, efficient energy conversion and storage, space exploration, economical transportation, and national defense, nanotechnology will be the foundation of many of the revolutionary advances and discoveries in the decades to come and will soon occupy a major portion of the technology economy. The annual global impact of products where nanotechnology will play a key role has been estimated to exceed $1 trillion a year by 2015, requiring about 2 million nanotechnology workers. To remain competitive in this global market we must commit ourselves to ensuring that the United States keeps its edge in this field. This Nation has been the leader of virtually every important and transformative technology since the Industrial Revolution, and this legislation assures that the United States will continue to lead the world at the new frontier of the nanotechnology revolution. Specifically, the legislation authorizes a total of $3.63 billion in appropriations over 4 years from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008. The goals of the legislation are to provide support for fundamental research and to catalyze synergistic interdisciplinary science and engineering research and education in emerging areas of nanoscience by: providing research grants to individuals and interdisciplinary teams of investigators; establishing a network of advanced technology user facilities and collaborative research centers; accelerating nanotechnology research and development in the private sector including startup companies; encouraging participation of colleges and universities; and guaranteeing United States international leadership in the development and application of nanotechnology. This historic legislation not only helps ensure America's economic competitiveness in the global marketplace, but spurs innovation and research in a field of science and technology that can touch every human life. I thank my colleagues for working with Senator Wyden and me to pass this truly vital legislation for America's future.