George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to honor our brave soldiers fighting in the global war on terrorism. We recently passed the first anniversary of Operation Anaconda, a critical seven-day military effort within Operation Enduring Freedom that helped break the back of the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. It is fitting to take time to remember the sacrifice of the participants in that noble undertaking in the mountains of Afghanistan, and to ask Americans to pray for those who gave their lives. Let us also pause to recall the continuing efforts of our armed forces and civilian national security employees in Operation Enduring Freedom, and in the global war on terrorism. We are profoundly grateful for the sacrifices of all, and offer our prayers and deep gratitude to them and to their families. On March 1, 2002, Americans went into battle near Gardez, Afghanistan, with Afghan and other allies, to attack al-Qaida and Taliban forces in eastern Afghanistan. Over the course of seven days, our forces engaged and defeated determined terrorist forces throughout mountains and rough terrain, at elevations as high as 12,000 feet, and in temperatures that dropped to 15 degrees Fahrenheit at night. During Operation Anaconda, American Special Operations Forces combined with elements of the 101st Airborne Division, the 10th Mountain Division, and other aviation and ground units representing several allied nationalities to bring the war begun on September 11, 2001, directly to the terrorists and their supporters. On March 4, 2002, a small American force came under night attack at a desolate mountain base at Takur Ghar. As a result of the ensuing engagement, seven Americans died. They gave their lives while trying to help each other, in a remote and forbidding place where their duty and their devotion to one another and their families had taken them. These seven Americans--like all Americans, civilian and uniformed, now engaged in the noble effort to end the terrorist threat to our Nation-- were volunteers. They didn't have to be on Takur Ghar, but when called they did not hesitate to step forward and say ``send me.'' As a testament to their heroism, at least eight Silver Stars, the Nation's second highest medal for valor, were awarded to participants in the battle along with almost thirty Bronze stars and numerous other awards. Mr. President, Americans and their allies gave their lives during Operation Anaconda and elsewhere in Afghanistan. Americans and their allies have given their lives in other engagements in Operation Enduring Freedom. Let us take a moment to reflect upon the sacrifices of those who died on Takur Ghar, and on other remote battlefields in the war on terrorism. Let us rededicate ourselves to ensuring the safety of home and hearth for their families, and for ours. Finally, let the Senate and all Americans show deep gratitude for their unselfish decisions to step forward and say ``send me.''

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Tuesday, March 4 at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony on S. 164, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the Farm Labor Movement; S. 328 a bill to designate Catoctin Mountain Park in the State of Maryland as the ``Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area,'' and for other purposes; S. 347 a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a joint special resources study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and for other purposes; S. 425 a bill to revise the boundary of the wind Cave National Park in the State of South Dakota.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, for a hearing to consider the nomination of: Mr. Bruce E. Kasold to be a Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims; and Brigadier General John W. Nicholson, USA (ret.), to be Under Secretary Memorial Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on the Millennium challenge Account: A New Way to Aid. Witnesses Panel 1: The Honorable Alan Larson, UnderSecretary of State of Economic, Business & Agricultural Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC, The Honorable John Taylor, Under Secretary for International Affairs, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, The Honorable Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC. Panel 2: Dr. Steven Radelet, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC; Ms. Mary E. McClymont, President and CEO, Interaction, Washington, DC; Ms. Susan Berresford, President, Ford Foundation, Washington, DC.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Tuesday, March 4 at 10 a.m. to receive testimony on the financial condition of the electricity market.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Federal Government's initiatives regarding the school lunch and school breakfast programs. Committee on Armed Services

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a classified briefing on current operations.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The Administration's Proposed Fiscal Year 2004 Budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.''

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on March 4, 2003, at 10 a.m. on the nomination of Dr. Charles McQueary to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security; Jeffrey Shane to be Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, Department of Transportation; Emil Frankel to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation; and Robert Sturgell, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, on the issue of Miguel Estrada.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I suspect 15 to 20 minutes.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise once again to support Miguel Estrada's nomination to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Miguel Estrada is being treated unfairly by Senators on the other side of the aisle who continue to practice such blatant obstructionism in an effort to score petty partisan points. Indeed, the obstructing Senators are shirking, in my view, their duty by avoiding a vote on this gentleman, Miguel Estrada, who was nominated 22 months ago by President Bush. This is not mere payback; it is an escalation in a bitter battle by the Senate Democrats to keep judges off this court who properly construe the Constitution and respect the laws duly enacted by the elected legislature. That is disappointing, and it is dangerous. The Senate Democrats' filibuster is a recipe for endless gridlock and a terrible disservice to the American people and the administration of justice. Our protracted debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia makes clear the importance of sound reasoning judges on our circuit courts. For example, look at the recent denial of a rehearing decision by another circuit court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I object to the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which will strip the Pledge of Allegiance from classrooms and over 9,600,000 students in Western United States. This decision is a miscarriage of justice. The majority opinion lacks a clear reading of the constitutional intent and the legal precedent, and there is clearly a lack of common sense. This decision, frankly, is an abuse of power by the majority of those judges who sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We all know well the history of our Nation and the fundamental ideas of freedom, particularly those of religious freedom, which in Virginia we call the first freedom. It was because of the desire to worship freely, to escape religious persecution in European countries that many came to settle in the American Colonies, from Pilgrims to French Huguenots. From New England to Virginia to South Carolina, many came to settle in this country to get away from Europe, ruled in large part by monarchs who served not by any talent, quality, or the consent of the people, but, as they called it, divine right. That divine right was generally conferred upon them by the exclusive monopoly of one church. So there was a co-conspiracy of a monarchy and an exclusive religion. In the Virginia Colony, it was the Anglican Church that was forced upon the people. Baptists, in particular, were forced to pay to that established church. Indeed, when they talk about the Danbury letter to the Baptists, the Baptists were very happy when Thomas Jefferson was elected President. If one looks at what is in the Virginia statute of religious freedom, which was the predecessor of part of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, one gets a better sense of what religious freedom and the so-called establishment clause is all about. I will read from article I, section 16, in the Virginia Constitution that still remains and, of course, is built upon Mr. Jefferson's statute of religious freedom which was also involved in the Virginia Declaration of Rights which became eventually the first amendment to the Constitution. It reads: That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please. That, in my view, is the full historical context, from the founding documents since Virginia first passed the Statute of Religious Freedom, of what the first amendment should be. Obviously, the first amendment of our Constitution is but a few sentences, but this gives the historical and the legal grounding of the Statute of Religious Freedom. We all know well the words written by Thomas Jefferson proclaiming our independence from the religiously oppressive British monarchy. These words allowed our young Nation to: Assume the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which laws of nature and of nature's God. These are words that tell all of us, as Americans, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These words still stir our hearts. They inspire us to continue to build that shining city on a hill, to be that beacon of freedom, religious or otherwise, for people all around the world. Our Constitution, the hallowed document, can be summed up by one word and one idea: Freedom. The Constitution and the institution and the formation of this Government to protect those God-given rights and those freedoms states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. While some conveniently use this to perpetrate actions such as those we saw out in San Francisco last week, it is often forgotten that the Constitution just as clearly states that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I feel confident that the scholarly Miguel Estrada, who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, would have views similar to the dissent written by Judges O'Scannlain and Ferdinand Fernandez. As Judge O'Scannlain notes in his well-reasoned and thoughtful dissent, this decision of the Ninth Circuit Court is wrong on many levels. It is wrong because reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance is simply not a religious act, as the two-judge majority asserts. The decision is wrong as a matter of Supreme Court precedent as properly understood. The decision is wrong because it denies the will of the people of California as expressed in section 52720 of the California education code, and it is wrong as a matter of common sense. I trust the Supreme Court of the United States will grant a writ of certiorari and promptly hear and decide this case. I, of course, hope they will reverse it. Parenthetically, I support the resolution of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance, and I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of that measure.

Mr. ALLEN. In the realm of public education, the Supreme Court--and the Presiding Officer of the Senate right now is well aware of precedent in the various decisions the Supreme Court has made when dealing in the realm and the issue of public education and prayer, or the religious tests. There are at least three different but interrelated tests used to analyze alleged violations of the establishment clause--in other words, the establishment of a religion. It is a three-pronged test, first articulated in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, called the Lemon test, and that is to determine whether that public activity had a primarily secular purpose. Here, the Pledge of Allegiance is primarily a patriotic event and purpose. The second test is called the endorsement test. Here, there is no endorsement of any denomination of any religion. So that test is passed. The third test is called the coercion test, and there is no coercion here for students. The Supreme Court of the United States has commented that the presence of ``one nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. The Supreme Court will have an opportunity to clearly resolve this because sometimes there are judges who have to be reversed on many occasions before they understand the plain intent of the law, of previous opinions and the history of our country. I will not discuss how the Ninth Circuit erred in the applications of the facts of this case to the establishment clause, but I do commend to my colleagues the dissent of Judge O'Scannlain, which I hope will give guidance to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court when they do review this case. As a resource, I direct the attention of my colleagues to some outstanding historical analysis prepared by a gentleman from Texas, David Barton, and an organization called Wall Builders. If reciting the pledge is truly a religious act, in violation of the establishment clause, then so the recitation of our Constitution itself would be, which refers to the ``year of our Lord'' and our Declaration of Independence, which contains multiple references to God. Our Founders claimed the right to dissolve the political bands based on the laws of nature and of nature's God. The most famous passage, of course, is the ``all men are created equal'' and they are ``endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' Subsequently, the signatories ``appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world to rectify their intentions''; our national motto, which is ``in God we trust''; and the singing of the national anthem, a verse which says: ``And this motto: In God we trust.'' Furthermore, the Supreme Court, even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, opens sessions with a call that says, ``God save the United States and this honorable court.'' There is an undeniable and historical relationship between God and our Founders and the Government leaders throughout our history. In fact, it was Congress in 1837, acting on the will of the people, that authorized the motto ``In God We Trust'' to be printed on our currency. We can cite the actions of the entire body of Founding Fathers. For example, in 1800 when Washington, DC, became the Nation's Capital and the President moved to the White House and Congress into the Capitol, Congress approved the use of the Capitol Building as a church building for Christian worship services. In fact, Christian worship services on Sunday were started at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. A scant review of the legislative history in States and the Federal Government and the intent of our Founders, from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, lays out the utter absurdity--no; actually, the arrogance--of this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and this decision. Each of us who has the high privilege to sit in this Chamber is very well aware of the circumstances by which the phrase ``one nation under God'' became a part of the pledge in 1954. It was the will of the Congress, the will of the people, that put it there, and today it is a will, unfortunately, of a few unelected judges who seek to remove it. The State of California is not unique in encouraging students to engage in appropriate patriotic exercise. My Commonwealth of Virginia has a statute requiring the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in every classroom. It is thoughtfully crafted. The Virginia statute provides that: No student shall be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian, objects on religious, philosophical or other grounds to his participating in this exercise. Students who are thus exempt from reciting the Pledge shall remain quietly standing or sitting at their desk while others recite the Pledge. . . . As Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I was proud to have been able to sign into law a commonsense provision to develop guidelines for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in 1996. While we can go on about this, the point is that the pledge is a patriotic exercise. Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Statute of Religious Freedom, had no intention of allowing the Government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the first amendment had been enacted only to prevent the Federal establishment of a national denomination. This patriotic pledge establishes no religious denomination. These Ninth Circuit Court judges discredit, in my view, the judiciary. This is an example of government overreach in a very different and harmful way. It is judicial activism at its very worst. It is activism by unelected judges who, through this decision, and decisions such as this, usurp the policymaking role given to this body and to the people of the States, the rights that are guaranteed to all of us and the people in the States by the U.S. Constitution. Let me take a moment to put this decision into context. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a long recent record of issuing decisions that are clearly out of step with most Americans--I daresay, reality-- and out of the bounds of American jurisprudence. The court has become famous--maybe I should say infamous--for several decisions. The Ninth Circuit Court is the most overturned appeals court in the country. The decisions issued by this court have been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more frequently and by a larger margin than any other court of appeals in the Nation. In recent years, the reversal rate has hovered around 80 percent. In one recent session of the Supreme Court alone, an astonishing 28 out of 29 appeal decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were overturned--97 percent were overturned. What is the next decision out of this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Will they ban the singing of ``God Bless America'' in our schools? Will they redact our founding documents, some of which are the greatest documents in all the history of mankind and civilization? Will the Congress, the Supreme Court, and State legislatures across the land be prohibited from opening their sessions by saying the pledge because that somehow might offend the sensibilities of someone watching a legislative body open with the Pledge of Allegiance? The fact is, this is not an argument of God or no God. It is not an argument about separation of church and state. It is not an argument of the establishment of a religious denomination. Saying the pledge is no more a religious act than is purchasing a candy bar with a coin that says ``In God We Trust.'' Let us understand the fact is this, and I think most Americans agree: The Pledge of Allegiance should remain in our schools and other public functions. As it is today, it should be a voluntary matter of personal conscience. On this issue and so many others, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is out of touch and flatout wrong. This errant decision clearly points out the need to put commonsense, reasonable, well- grounded judges on the Federal bench, rather than dangerous activists who ignore the will of the people of the States, who ignore common sense, and apparently disagree with or are pitifully ignorant of the foundational principles of these United States. This is a wake-up call, a wake-up call for those on the other side of the aisle who are holding up the confirmation of people like Miguel Estrada, while at the same time maybe signing on to Senator Murkowski's resolution or maybe at the same time coming down to the floor to rail against activist decisions such as the one that came out of the Ninth Circuit last week. I have come to this floor many times, as I know the Presiding Officer has, to advocate for Mr. Estrada. The fact is, he is qualified. He has earned the unanimous highest rating from the American Bar Association, the rating that my friends on the other side of the aisle have previously, on other nominees, described as a gold standard for judicial nominees. Mr. Estrada embodies the modern-day American dream that we so fondly talk about. He, like many others who came to this country in recent decades, came from a Latin American country. He, like those who came to Jamestown, VA, in 1607, or in a later year, Cajuns, Irish, Scottish, German, Scandinavian, Italian, Polish, Korean, Vietnamese, Pakistani, Indian, Lebanese, Persians, or even my own mother, all came to this country to seek out a better life. He has overcome tremendous obstacles. He has worked hard. He has embraced the opportunity that became available to better himself and found a fulfilling life in this land of opportunity. Now Miguel Estrada stands at the precipice of service on an important DC Court of Appeals. He is ready, qualified, and more than able to take the next step, and for no other reason than scoring political points his nomination is being obstructed, delayed, and denied. Let me say very clearly, those who deny Mr. Estrada a vote by this body are doing more harm than they realize. For Miguel Estrada and every other person who believes the American dream can happen, that shining city on the hill is dimmed today because of the partisan games taking place in this body. I respectfully encourage those on the other side of the aisle to take a lesson today. Do the right thing. Work your will and constitutional responsibilities. Have the gumption to take a stand and cast your vote. I have no problem in taking a stand in explaining why I support Miguel Estrada. For those who are opposed, have the gumption to vote no and then explain your vote rather than perpetrating this irresponsible, duplicitous filibuster, which is thwarting the will of the majority of the Senators. Concerning both the Pledge of Allegiance and the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, the power of the dream and the promise of America is rooted in one idea: that the direction of our Nation is and will always be determined by the consent and will of the people. The consent and will of the people is not being effectuated by the irresponsibility of a few, whether they be judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Senate. Senators need to exercise their responsibilities to advise and consent on nominees. I hope and pray the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse this egregious decision to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in the Western States of our country. I also hope and pray that Senators will exercise their duty, take a stand, vote yes or no, explain it to their constituents, and the will and the consent of the majority of the people of this country will be effectuated. I close by saying, God bless America. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fairly assist injured Federal employees. This legislation will adjust Federal employees retirement computations to offset reductions in their retirement arising from on-the-job injuries covered by the Workers Compensation program. I introduced similar legislation last session that was passed by the Senate. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Warner the senior Senator from Virginia, for his valuable support in cosponsoring this important effort. This bill addresses a problem in the retirement program for Federal employees that has been recognized but unresolved since 1986 when the current retirement system was established. Unfortunately, complications arising from the Tax Code and the Workers Rehabilitation Act of 1973 have blocked any solution. My resolve to address this problem was inspired by Ms. Louise Kurtz, a Federal employee from Virginia who was severely injured in the September 11 attack on the pentagon. She suffered burns over 70 percent of her body and lost all of her fingers. She has had many painful surgeries and faces additional surgeries in the future. She continues to endure rehabilitation over a year after suffering her injuries, yet still hopes to return to work some day. Current law, however, does not allow Mrs. Kurtz to contribute to her retirement program while she is recuperating and receiving Workers' Compensation disability payments. As a result, after returning to work and eventually retiring, she will find herself inadequately prepared and unable to afford to retire because of the lack of contributions during her recuperation. As Ms. Kurt's situation reveals, Federal employee under the Federal Employees Retirement System who have sustained an on-the-job injury and are receiving disability compensation from the Department of Labor's Office of Worker's Compensation Programs are unable to make contributions or payments into Social Security or the Thrift Savings Plan. Therefore, the future retirement benefits from both sources are reduced. This legislation offsets the reductions in Social Security and Thrift savings Plan retirement benefits by increasing the Federal Employees Retirement System Direct Benefit calculation by one percentage point for extended periods of disability. The passage of this bill ensures that the pensions of our hard- working federal employees will be kept whole during a period of injury and recuperations, especially now that many of them are on the frontlines of protecting our homeland security in this new war on terror. By protecting the retirement security of injured Federal employee, we have provided an incentive for them to return to work and increased our ability to retain our most dedicated and experienced Federal workers. This is a reasonable and fair approach in which the whole Senate acted in a logical and compassionate manner last fall. Let us do so again. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fairly assist injured Federal employees. This legislation will adjust Federal employees retirement computations to offset reductions in their retirement arising from on-the-job injuries covered by the Workers Compensation program. I introduced similar legislation last session that was passed by the Senate. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Warner the senior Senator from Virginia, for his valuable support in cosponsoring this important effort. This bill addresses a problem in the retirement program for Federal employees that has been recognized but unresolved since 1986 when the current retirement system was established. Unfortunately, complications arising from the Tax Code and the Workers Rehabilitation Act of 1973 have blocked any solution. My resolve to address this problem was inspired by Ms. Louise Kurtz, a Federal employee from Virginia who was severely injured in the September 11 attack on the pentagon. She suffered burns over 70 percent of her body and lost all of her fingers. She has had many painful surgeries and faces additional surgeries in the future. She continues to endure rehabilitation over a year after suffering her injuries, yet still hopes to return to work some day. Current law, however, does not allow Mrs. Kurtz to contribute to her retirement program while she is recuperating and receiving Workers' Compensation disability payments. As a result, after returning to work and eventually retiring, she will find herself inadequately prepared and unable to afford to retire because of the lack of contributions during her recuperation. As Ms. Kurt's situation reveals, Federal employee under the Federal Employees Retirement System who have sustained an on-the-job injury and are receiving disability compensation from the Department of Labor's Office of Worker's Compensation Programs are unable to make contributions or payments into Social Security or the Thrift Savings Plan. Therefore, the future retirement benefits from both sources are reduced. This legislation offsets the reductions in Social Security and Thrift savings Plan retirement benefits by increasing the Federal Employees Retirement System Direct Benefit calculation by one percentage point for extended periods of disability. The passage of this bill ensures that the pensions of our hard- working federal employees will be kept whole during a period of injury and recuperations, especially now that many of them are on the frontlines of protecting our homeland security in this new war on terror. By protecting the retirement security of injured Federal employee, we have provided an incentive for them to return to work and increased our ability to retain our most dedicated and experienced Federal workers. This is a reasonable and fair approach in which the whole Senate acted in a logical and compassionate manner last fall. Let us do so again. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Could the Senator share with us what the historical practices are as far as the deliberative memoranda are concerned? Have they ever been asked for in confirmation hearings? We are talking about this double standard. They are asking for something, but what is the record? Has this ever been asked for before?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a final question?

Mr. ALLEN. I ask the Senator from Utah if he saw the responses that all of us were seeing, as this filibuster drags on, this unfair consideration of Miguel Estrada, whom Senator Warner and I introduced to the committee nearly a year and a half after the President nominated him back in September--is he aware as more and more people read about this and hear about it that he is getting more support? Our senatorial committee Web site has had over 20,000 petitions in support of President Bush's nomination of this outstanding hero. Is the Senator aware that Miguel Estrada is the American dream, the American dream being born these days--not in the days of Horatio Alger, but individually came to this country with his own hard work, studiousness, and efforts, rose to lead the Law Review at Harvard, and other positions in government. Is he aware that support is building by the hour for Miguel Estrada and also in opposition to these obstructionist tactics denying this man a fair up-or-down vote?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, Senator Warner, who was presiding earlier, knows the Senator from Utah is not alone in the feelings he is expressing. We see it in Virginia. In fact, we see it all the way across the Nation, from the San Diego Tribune to all the papers in Virginia that have taken a stand on this issue. They state the Democrats are creating a new double standard that applies only to the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Editorials are unanimous in Virginia, whether it is the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, the Richmond Times- Dispatch, even the Winchester Star out in the Shenandoah Valley. They all say, stop filibustering, take a stand and confirm this highly qualified nominee. The Winchester Star in particular--and, by the way, that is a newspaper that is owned by a former colleague of some of our Members, Senator Harry Byrd, and they wrote in particular that the request for the Solicitor General memoranda is outrageous and that to accede to it would compromise that body's ability to properly defend the Government's interests. Is the Senator from Utah aware that even editorial writers in this fine community in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia found this Democratic request so improper?

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. ALLEN. I ask the Senator from Utah to yield for a question.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I recognize Klaus Wust of Shenandoah County, VA, and the contribution he has made to the preservation of American history. Mr. Wust was born in Bielefeld, Westphalia in Germany in 1925. In 1949, he received a scholarship to spend a year at Bridgewater College in Bridgewater, VA. Here he learned a great deal about the contribution German immigrants had made to the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. He was so impressed by these achievements that he permanently settled in the Shenandoah Valley and devoted the rest of his life to researching and writing about the contributions German immigrants have made in this region of the Commonwealth. Mr. Wust's extensive body of work serves as a primer for anyone focusing on the revolutionary period of the 1700s and early 1800s colonial era. He made a significant contribution in helping to restore American/German relations following World War II through his research and writings. He is the author of eight books, coauthor of seventeen books and dozens of articles on the history of German-Americans in the United States. In 2002, Klaus Wust was recognized with the highest civic award authorized by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Federal Cross of Merit. The served as the Founding Director of the Museum of American Frontier Culture in Staunton, VA, and the Strasburg Museum in Strasburg, VA. From 1957 until 1967, he served as Editor of the German language Washington Journal. Mr. Wust also served for seven years with the Leader Program of the U.S. Department of State and served as the personal interpreter for German governmental delegations visiting the United States, including the last four Chancellors. I congratulate Mr. Wust on his impressive body of work and his commitment to preserving the history of our Nation for generations to come.

Mr. ALLEN

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