Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged en bloc from further consideration of S. Res. 292 and S. Res. 294, and that the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 295, submitted earlier today by Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Reed, and Chafee.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. On behalf of the leader, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow, at 10:30 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill. The bill managers will be here at 10:30 tomorrow morning, ready to work through opening statements and to begin the amendment process. Votes are possible during tomorrow's session.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution commemorating the 50-year history of rock 'n' roll. Senator Frist, the sponsor of this resolution, and myself are both from the State where rock 'n' roll was born--Tennessee. On July 5, 1954, Elvis Presley recorded his first record, ``That's All Right,'' at the legendary Sun Studio in Memphis and rock 'n' roll was officially born. Memphis being the birthplace of rock 'n' roll should be of no surprise, since rock 'n' roll isn't the first genre of music to be officially born there. During the Civil War era another musical tradition was born from the sons and daughters who followed freedom up the Mississippi River. The soul-wrenching folk melodies of black Southerners laid the foundation for what would become the blues. Memphis has a vast history of being the center of American musical innovation. The heart of this music innovation is grounded in the cultural life of Beale Street. It was Beale Street where W.C. Handy, a wandering black musician and composer, was the first to put down on paper the sometimes grim but always hopeful fix of field hollers, gospel songs, cotton-baling calls, and African tribal songs. Forty years later, Beale Street and those same rhythms infected a young, aspiring musician named Elvis Aaron Presley. Elvis Presley came to Sun Records to make a record for his mother and ended up forever changing music and society. Sun Studios is the place where Sam Philips created his Rockabilly dynasty with Carl Perkins, B.B. King, Roy Orbison, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis. Rock 'n' roll evolved in the 1950s from rhythm and blues, and was characterized by the use of electric guitars, a strong rhythm with an accent on the offbeat, and youth-oriented lyrics. Last July, Senator Frist and I joined Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in a singing ceremony, which designated Sun Records recording studio as a National Historic Landmark. Sun Records in Memphis, TN, is the true home of the blues and the birthplace of rock 'n' roll. No other city in the United States can claim equal influence on the music of this Nation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I express my outrage at events that transpired this weekend in Iraq. No one expects terrorists to follow the rules, but what they did to two soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division this weekend in Mosul is beyond the pale. We have lost 431 men and women in the conflict in Iraq; my heart goes out to the families and friends of each and every one. Here is how the Associated Press describes what happened, as reported in The Tennessean and a number of other papers across the country: Iraqi teenagers dragged two bloodied 101st Airborne soldiers from a wrecked vehicle and pummeled them with concrete blocks yesterday, witnesses said . . . Witnesses to the Mosul attack said gunmen shot two soldiers driving through the city center, sending their vehicle crashing into a wall. The 101st Airborne Division said the soldiers were driving to another garrison. About a dozen swarming teenagers dragged the soldiers out of the wreckage and beat them with concrete blocks, the witnesses said. ``They lifted a block and hit them with it on the face,'' Younis Mahmoud, 19, said. It was unknown whether the soldiers were alive or dead when pulled from the wreckage. That is what the Associated Press wrote. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in full in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER. One can't help but feel a sense of anger when reading a story like that. CSM Jerry Wilson and SP Rel Ravago were on their way from one garrison to another. The terrorists laid waiting for the soldiers to drive by, and ambushed them. Even worse, they made every effort to be as brutal and bloody as possible. It makes me sick to my stomach. At the same time, we also remember how many of our troops have lost their lives in this struggle. 431 men and women from our Armed Forces have given their lives since Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced. Forty- eight of them were from the 101st Airborne, based in Fort Campbell on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. 2,067 have been wounded overall. And as much as we all wish it weren't the case, more will follow. Nothing can prepare you for the loss of a loved one, especially loved ones as young as those that are serving our country in Iraq. We can only hope the knowledge that these soldiers died fighting to keep us safe will provide some comfort in this time of grief. To those families, we can only say this: the hopes and prayers of a grateful nation are with you. But in the midst of this sorrow, we must remember why our troops are in Iraq. We must strengthen our resolve. Iraq is freer today than it has been for more than a generation. An evil dictator has been toppled, his regime is gone. The people of Iraq, by and large, are grateful; according to polls, the vast majority of them support continued American presence in their country. In fact, in the horrible incident involving the two soldiers in Mosul, U.S. troops were alerted to the attack by sympathetic Iraqis. We are making progress in Iraq: the power is on, schools are re- opened, markets are buzzing, the southern port is open. But danger lurks. And we must labor on. A stable, democratic Iraq in the midst of the Middle East could become our greatest ally in the War on Terror. It would change the world. But if we give up and throw in the towel, an unstable Iraq would quickly become a hotbed of terrorism far worse than Afghanistan. The stakes are high. Failure is not an option. Our troops and their families bear the burden of this cause more than any other. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten. In a few days, we will celebrate Thanksgiving. In the first Thanksgiving proclamation, President George Washington ``recommend[ed] to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude.'' Ours is a blessed nation, and we have much to be grateful for. This Thanksgiving we should be especially grateful for the men and women of our Armed Forces, fighting the terrorists over there so fewer can attack us here, at home. Whether helping to open a new school in Kirkuk or securing the area around Baghdad International Airport; our troops are standing in harms way. They are doing it for us. For thousands of families, the Thanksgiving table will have an empty space this year. It will be hard. We should all save a place in our hearts for those military families this Thanksgiving. We give thanks for their courage, too. So today, I say thank you to the men and women of our Armed Forces. We stand in awe of your strength. We are humbled by your sacrifice. We are grateful for your courage.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Other than the war in Iraq, I suppose the subject we hear most about is jobs. We are worried, as are our constituents, about the future. How do we keep good-paying jobs? We are aware that in this country of not very many people, compared to the rest of the world, we have about 25 percent of all the money in the world. We are a fortunate country. How do we, as the country grows, and as we worry about global competition--especially about how China develops--keep our good-paying manufacturing jobs? How do we keep our standard of living? We have struggled through that for a long time. We have worried about it for a long time. After World War II, we helped Europe get back on its feet through the Marshall plan and basically provided direct competition there, as the people making lower wages began to make some of the things we made. We struggled with Japan, worrying about whether the Japanese, in the 1980s, might take us over economically. But that didn't happen. We were able to keep our standard of living. We have watched Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other parts of the world grow and develop, even though people there were making much lower wages than Americans. We have been able to keep our standard of living. I want to talk today about one major reason why we have been able to keep that standard of living and why there is a lesson for us for the future there. I want to talk about our investments in the physical sciences, about our investments in science and technology. Last week Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham released an exciting 20- year plan for the future of scientific facilities in our country. This plan provides for an exciting future for science that will revolutionize science and our society. The plan includes participation in international collaborations to make fusion power a reality. It strengthens our scientific computing capabilities to develop advanced methodologies ranging from modeling chemical reactions to predictions of weather and climate change. It includes facilities to develop and characterize proteins for microbial research on a grand scale. These are just a few of the facilities that are included in Secretary Abraham's visionary plan. This ambitious plan serves as a reminder that since World War II, according to the National Academy of Sciences, half of our job growth can be attributed to our investments in science and technology. This should also remind us, especially in this era of global competition, that future investments in science will be even more important. To create more good-paying jobs for Americans, I therefore recommend Congress and the administration do for the physical sciences what it has done in the last few years for the health and life sciences: double the Department of Energy's Office of Science funding, from the current $3.3 billion to more than $6 billion per year within the next 5 years. Our investments in science and technology have continued to create a remarkable legacy of innovation. U.S. patent rates exceed most other industrialized countries, a direct result of historically strong research and development investments and technological leadership. For example, in 1986, the United States had more than double the number of patents than the rest of the world, with nearly 80,000 patents granted. In 1999, the number of patents granted in the United States was over 160,000, while those in the rest of the world were less than 80,000. There were 160,000 in our country, 80,000 patents in the rest of the world. These patents, these innovations, led to new technologies and new jobs. Nearly 5.3 million new firms were launched between 1990 and 1998 that were mainly high-technology companies. Not all of them succeeded. But these new firms accounted for one-third of the 10 million new jobs created between 1990 and 1997. However, last fall, the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology reported funding for research and development is becoming dangerously imbalanced. They recommended the funding levels for the physical sciences and engineering be improved and that funding levels be brought to parity with the life sciences. To correct this trend, we should increase the authorizations for a variety of scientific and technological endeavors at the DOE. The Department of Energy, through its Office of Science, is the largest supporter of physical science and engineering research and supports many of the federally funded research and development centers in our country. These centers are considered by many to be the crown jewels of the R&D enterprise in the Nation. These centers and our great research universities create the technology of the future that leads to the jobs of tomorrow. Sometimes I think we take for granted these research universities and our great laboratories the Department of Energy runs. We not only have more of the great research universities in the world in our country, we have almost all of them. Nowhere in the world has national laboratories, such as Oak Ridge in my State, or Los Alamos, or more than a dozen others across our country. No other country in the world has the number of federally funded research institutions such as our laboratories that are operated by the Department of Energy, and the great research universities of America, which are funded to a great extent by Federal funding. The Nation must have balanced investment to maintain the overall health of science and technology research. Recent funding increases in the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation cannot compensate for the declines in funding at Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy. Many of the advances in the health sciences could not have been realized without past investments in the physical sciences. Much of the basic work in the physical sciences, on which all other sciences, even the biological sciences, are based, is supported by the Department of Energy. Harold Varmus, Nobel Laureate and former director of the NIH, summed up very nicely the unique relationship between the medical and physical sciences in an editorial in the Washington Post. He stated in that editorial: Medical science can visualize the inner workings of the body. . . . These techniques are the workhorses of medical diagnosis. And not a single one of them could have been developed without the contributions of scientists, such as mathematicians, physicists, and chemists supported by the agencies currently at risk. Although this statement was made 3 years ago, it is still true today for the Department of Energy Office of Science. The fundamental work in high energy and nuclear physics has led to a revolution in medicine. Our quality of life has been greatly improved with the advent of nuclear medicine. As President Bush recently acknowledged, one of every three hospital patients benefits from nuclear medicine. None of this would have been possible without the fundamental research of physicists in the last century and today, physicists who have been supported in large part by the Department of Energy and its predecessors. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging--we call it MRIs in everyday language--could not have been possible without the development of superconductors. Small electron linear accelerators are used in hospitals every day to treat cancer patients. Yet this would not have been possible without our investments in science. Likewise, the development of laser and optics technology has led to a revolution in medical procedures. Surgeries, such as gall bladder removal, that were once invasive and required weeks of recovery, can now be performed with a minimal incision and require minimal recovery time. None of this would have been possible without the basic research performed by scientists at our research universities and National Laboratories funded by our Federal investments in science and technology. We are advancing even further than once imagined, thanks to these investments in science. The Department of Energy is leading the way in developing materials for creating the artificial retina. The development of an artificial retina requires new and innovative materials, research, and nanoscale fabrication techniques that are on the forefront of science. Preliminary models of the artificial retina have enabled patients to see for the first time. I saw some of that research being done at Oak Ridge. Although these patients did not regain full sight, this is just the beginning. This research caused three patients to see for the first time. With advancements in materials and fabrication techniques, sight may eventually be returned to those who cannot see. This is truly amazing. We are just at the edge of what science can do. The physical science and engineering will also play a major role in advancing technology for homeland security. The development of detection systems for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons will require investments in science and technology. Crisis response technologies and analyses will also be dependent on science and engineering. The daunting challenges of developing countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons will be addressed in large part by the development and application of our scientific capabilities. Our Nation has no choice. We must invest heavily in physical sciences and engineering to stay competitive in these fields. Our competitiveness is greatly impacted by the number of graduate students entering these fields. A definite correlation exists between the number of graduate students enrolled in science and engineering and the funding levels for these fields. The funding levels for the medical sciences have increased more than 20 percent over the past decade, and graduate student enrollment has increased more than 40 percent. However, there were 20 percent fewer graduate students in physics and 9 percent fewer in chemistry in 2000 than in 1993 while the mathematical sciences had 19 percent fewer graduate students. These trends cannot be allowed to continue. Science and technology are an integral part of our everyday lives. To sustain our Nation's technical and scientific leadership, we must support increased authorizations for our science programs. The Energy bill reported out of conference will help put our Nation on the path to sustained economic growth. But the Energy bill is not just investing in science; it is investing in jobs. The quality of our lives and the prosperity of our Nation will be greatly enhanced and made better if we agree over the next 5 years to do for the physical sciences what we have done for the health sciences--double our spending--according to the visionary plan that the Secretary of Energy laid out for the next 20 years. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for as long as I may require.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Because it would be in violation of a Supreme Court decision?

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. ALEXANDER. How much time does the majority have?

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that Bridget Lipscomb of my staff be permitted the privilege of the floor during the time I am on the floor until 9 o'clock.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today is Veterans Day. It is a time to pay tribute to those who have fought for our freedom and made us the Nation we are today. On November 11, 1919, Veterans Day began as Armistice Day. It marked the first anniversary of the cease-fire agreement among the Allied powers and Germany to end World War I. It was also to honor the men and women who sacrificed during that conflict. In 1926, a congressional resolution officially named Armistice Day in the United States. It became a national holiday 12 years later. In 1954, Congress passed a law to change the name from Armistice Day to Veterans Day to honor veterans of all U.S. wars. As I think about our veterans and all they have sacrificed, I am reminded of a day 6 months ago when I visited Madisonville, TN, to see and participate in the raising of the largest American flag in our State--1,800 square feet. It was really an awful day. The rain was coming down, there was lightning and thunder, but hundreds of people stood there to participate in that ceremony because we knew we were enduring much less in that rain and in that lightning than men and women from Tennessee who are serving in Afghanistan or Iraq, or had served on the beaches of Normandy, or in the rice fields of Vietnam. Tennessee is the Volunteer State. From the battle of King's Mountain in the Revolutionary War, through the Mexican War, the Civil War, and our World Wars, Tennesseans have volunteered. We have honored those volunteers, and we have honored them as veterans. As this Nation devotes a day to our veterans, we honor both Tennessee veterans and Tennessee soldiers because so many Tennesseans-- thousands--are serving in the battle against terrorism--men and women in active duty, as well as men and women in the National Guard and those in the Reserves. The best thing we all can do on this Veterans Day is to show as much respect and honor to our veterans as our veterans have always shown to our country.