Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who has been at the front of our country's fight for civil rights. Born a son of sharecroppers in Troy, AL, John grew up to become one of the leading proponents fighting on the frontlines of the civil rights movement. John grew up listening to speeches from the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and observing many courageous acts, such as the Montgomery bus boycotts. Through those examples, Lewis could no longer stand idly by while others suffered for his sake. He was motivated to become an active participant in these historical events. From organizing peaceful demonstrations, to riding in the fronts of buses, Lewis was a key leader and played a dynamic role in the civil rights movement. From 1963-1966 Lewis served as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. In 1963 Lewis was named one of the Big Six Civil Rights leaders along with Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and A. Phillip Randolph. In August 1963, John Lewis was a keynote speaker at the momentous March on Washington where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his ``I Have a Dream'' speech. On March 7, 1965, Lewis helped the now pivotal voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, AL. Sustaining physical injuries for the principles he believed in, John Lewis remained steadfast in his commitment to promoting human rights in the United States. The violent reactions by Alabama state troopers that day sparked an outcry and eventually served to facilitate passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. President, as a congressman, statesman, humanitarian, the Nation has benefited greatly from the lifelong contributions of John Lewis. I am proud to introduce legislation honoring John Lewis.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his comments. Again, I strongly oppose the RPS, but if there must be one in the Energy bill, I ask the distinguished chairman if he will commit to work with the Senator from Oregon and myself in conference to make these modifications to the provision to ensure that the RPS promotes renewable energy where it is most needed without harming consumers.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I would like to respond to the accusations by some of my colleagues concerning Bill Pryor's comments related to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Judge Pryor has an outstanding record on civil rights and a demonstrated commitment to seeking equal justice for persons of all races. Nevertheless, some of my colleagues on the other side have tried to characterize Bill Pryor as ``out of the mainstream'' because, as you have heard, he has called for the amendment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Judge Pryor is not out of the mainstream on this issue, and I'll explain why. After you hear who agrees with Judge Pryor on his reasoning here, I think you will agree with me that if Bill Pryor is ``out of the mainstream'' on his critiques of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, he's ``out there'' with some great Americans. First, let me explain what Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is about. Section 5 requires any ``covered States''--States that are subject to the Voting Rights Act--to pre-clear any decision to change ``any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.'' The Supreme Court in Allen v. State Board of Elections has made it clear that the: legislative history on the whole supports the view that Congress intended to reach any State enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way. In practice, this means that Section 5 requires Federal officials at the Department of Justice to approve even very minor practices related to voting. For example, if a State moved a polling place from one side of a street to another, this action would have to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department pursuant to Section 5. Bill Pryor has called the Voting Rights Act ``one of the greatest and most necessary laws in American history,'' but he has taken to task Federal courts that have ``turned the Act on its head and wielded . . . power to deprive all voters of the right to select . . . public officers,'' even though the Act ``was passed to empower minority voters in the exercise of the franchise.'' As Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor was by no means alone in his criticisms of the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In a brief before the Supreme Court in the case of Georgia v. Ashcroft, Thurbert Baker, our State Attorney General in Georgia, who himself is a Democrat and African-American, called Section 5 an ``extraordinary transgression of the normal prerogatives of the states'' and ``a grave intrusion into the authority of the states.'' General Baker also stated that: Section 5 was initially enacted as a ``temporary'' measure to last five years precisely because it was so intrusive. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of a letter that General Baker wrote back in 2003 to Senators Shelby and Sessions of Alabama, in which General Baker describes Bill Pryor as ``an excellent candidate for a slot on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals,'' printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. General Baker goes on in his letter to my colleagues from Alabama to say: My only regret is that I will no longer have Bill as a fellow Attorney General fighting for what is right, but I know that his work on the bench will continue to serve as an example of how the public trust should be upheld. Judge Pryor's concerns about Section 5 have been borne out in Georgia, where the State appealed to the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Ashcroft to have a recent redistricting plan approved following the 2000 decennial census, and after a Federal district court found that Georgia's plan violated Section 5. During the litigation in the district court, Congressman John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, testified on behalf of the State of Georgia in support of the plan, noting that Georgia: is not the same state it was. It's not the same state that it was in 1965 or in 1975, or even in 1980 or 1990. We have changed. We've come a great distance. John Lewis knows that thoughtful review of Section 5 could be of some benefit. According to the New York Times, Georgia's plan, pushed by both ``white and black Democrats,'' represented an attempt: to reverse [a] trend in Georgia and elsewhere by redistributing some of the black voters and re-integrating suburban districts to gain a better chance of electing Democrats. That is a quote from a New York Times article of January 18, 2003 at A12. The New York Times further notes that Georgia currently has: some safe Democratic districts with large black majorities, along with a sharply increased number of Republicans elected from suburban districts that had become increasingly white. In his brief in Georgia v. Ashcroft, Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker cited his own election as an example of how African- American candidates can take ``the overwhelming majority of the total vote against their white opponents'' without the benefit of supermajority districts. The Federal Government opposed Georgia's plan on the ground that Section 5 does not give Georgia the power to eliminate supermajority minority legislative districts, even in the name of increasing overall minority voting power. Section 5 has not only placed a burden on covered States, but also on the Justice Department, which has wasted time by being forced to pre- clear a huge number of changes in voting practices that have nothing to do with minority voting rights. Section 5 requires covered states to pre-clear any decision to change: any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting. Again, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the: legislative history on the whole supports the view that Congress intended to reach any state enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way.'' That statement is included in Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 566. For example, if a State moved a polling place from one side of a street to another, this action would have to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department pursuant to section 5, which indicates that ``any change in the boundaries of voting precincts or in the location of polling places'' requires pre-clearance. Another great American, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell also criticized section 5 of the Act. President Clinton has called Justice Powell ``one of our most thoughtful and conscientious judges'' and a Justice who reviewed cases ``without an ideological agenda.'' In 1973, in another case styled as Georgia v. United States, Justice Powell wrote in a dissenting opinion that: It is indeed a serious intrusion, incompatible with the basic structure of our system, for federal authorities to compel a state to submit its [reapportionment] legislation for advance review [under section 5]. The most important point I would like to stress is that despite Mr. Pryor's well-documented concerns about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, he has vigorously enforced all provisions of the Act. Let me give you two examples. First, when Alabama state legislator J.E. Turner died and the new candidate wanted to use stickers to place his name on the ballot, Attorney General Pryor issued an opinion stating that the use of stickers required pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Act. Certainly this illustrates that Bill Pryor was able to separate his personal disagreement with the requirements of Section 5 from his duty as Alabama's Attorney General to enforce the provision despite his personal views. A second example involved Mr. Pryor's successful defense of several majority-minority voting districts, approved under Section 5, from a challenge by a group of white Alabama voters in the Sinkfield v. Kelley case. The voters, who were residents of various majority-white voting districts, sued the State of Alabama in Federal court, claiming that Alabama's voting districts were the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The districts were created under a state plan whose acknowledged purpose was the maximization of the number of majority-minority districts in Alabama. Attorney General Pryor personally defended the majority-minority districts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the white voters could not sue because they did not reside in the majority-minority district and had not personally been denied equal treatment. When some of these provisions of the Voting Rights Act are up for renewal, we should review and consider them in a very deliberative, bipartisan manner to make sure that the law today reflects the realities of our society here in the 21st Century. Thurbert Baker and Bill Pryor, as attorneys general of two neighboring states in the South, know this to be the case one is African-American and one is white; one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican, but together they share a vision of making the voting rights laws of our country effective and enforceable in today's times. To sum up, Bill Pryor has established an impressive record as a fair, diligent, and competent public servant. Two of my fellow Georgians, John Lewis and Thurbert Baker, have expressed concerns with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, just as Bill Pryor did and just as the late Justice Lewis Powell did. This is not out-of-the-mainstream thinking; it's thoughtful and sincere analysis. Even the liberal New York Times had to concede as much in its comments regarding Georgia's redistricting plan. Bill Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh Circuit enjoys strong bipartisan support in his home State of Alabama, and in my home State, which is also part of the Eleventh Circuit. A month ago, I visited with a number of my district court judges, all of whom said that in their contact with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, they had nothing but great things to say about the job Bill Pryor is doing as an interim appointee to the Eleventh Circuit. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation today.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to echo the comments of the senior Senator from Mississippi regarding the ``Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2005.'' The importance of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to the agricultural industry cannot be understated. However, its use in acts of terror has led the industry and public alike searching for a way to further secure the handling and use of ammonium nitrate. I believe this legislation accomplishes that goal. If passed, this bill will help us to track both where this fertilizer is, and who is in possession of it. The answers to both of these very important questions will further ongoing efforts to keep our Nation safe from people who may wish to do it harm. I feel this legislation provides additional security for ammonium nitrate while maintaining its viability as an agricultural fertilizer. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to echo the comments of the senior Senator from Mississippi regarding the ``Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2005.'' The importance of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to the agricultural industry cannot be understated. However, its use in acts of terror has led the industry and public alike searching for a way to further secure the handling and use of ammonium nitrate. I believe this legislation accomplishes that goal. If passed, this bill will help us to track both where this fertilizer is, and who is in possession of it. The answers to both of these very important questions will further ongoing efforts to keep our Nation safe from people who may wish to do it harm. I feel this legislation provides additional security for ammonium nitrate while maintaining its viability as an agricultural fertilizer. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to fix a problem that some of my colleagues have experienced in serving their constituents. Immigration case work is one of the top issues that my State offices handle on a regular basis. Occasionally, people who are in our country legally and playing by the rules can slip through the cracks as they wait on the immigration process to run its course. With the massive caseload handled by immigration services, there are bound to be mistakes, and this legislation allows the agency to remedy those mistakes in the limited situation of the Diversity Visa program. The case of an Atlanta couple, Charles Nyaga and his wife, Doin, came to my attention about a year ago. Charles Nyaga, a native of Kenya, came to the U.S. with his family as a student in 1996, and he is currently pursuing a master's degree in divinity. In 1997, he applied for the fiscal year 1998 Diversity Visa program and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) selected him. In accordance with the Diversity Visa requirements, Nyaga and his wife submitted an application and a fee to adjust their status to legal permanent resident. A cover letter on the Diversity Visa application instructed: ``While your application is pending before the interview, please DO NOT make inquiry as to the status of your case, since it will result in further delay.'' During the eight months that INS had to review his application, Nyaga accordingly never made inquiry, and he unfortunately never heard back. His valid application simply slipped through the cracks. At the end of the fiscal year, Nyaga's application expired, although a sufficient number of diversity visas remained available. Nyaga and his wife took their case all the way to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a decision last year, the Court found that the INS lacks the authority to act on Nyaga's application after the end of the fiscal year, regardless of how meritorious his case is. The court even went so far as to note that a private relief bill is the remedy for Nyaga in order to overcome the statuary barrier that prohibits the INS from reviewing a case in a prior fiscal year. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up this case. My legislation would overcome this statutory hurdle for Charles Nyaga, his wife, and others who are similarly situated. The legislation would give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the opportunity to reopen cases from previous fiscal years in order to complete their processing. It is important to understand that this process would only be available to those individuals who have been here since the time they filed their claim. The bill would still give DHS the discretion to conduct background checks and weigh any security concerns before adjusting an applicant's status. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with Homeland Security officials to pass this legislation this year. We must provide relief in these cases. I believe this targeted legislation strikes the proper balance to provide thorough processing of Diversity Visa applications while not compromising the Department's national security mission.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to fix a problem that some of my colleagues have experienced in serving their constituents. Immigration case work is one of the top issues that my State offices handle on a regular basis. Occasionally, people who are in our country legally and playing by the rules can slip through the cracks as they wait on the immigration process to run its course. With the massive caseload handled by immigration services, there are bound to be mistakes, and this legislation allows the agency to remedy those mistakes in the limited situation of the Diversity Visa program. The case of an Atlanta couple, Charles Nyaga and his wife, Doin, came to my attention about a year ago. Charles Nyaga, a native of Kenya, came to the U.S. with his family as a student in 1996, and he is currently pursuing a master's degree in divinity. In 1997, he applied for the fiscal year 1998 Diversity Visa program and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) selected him. In accordance with the Diversity Visa requirements, Nyaga and his wife submitted an application and a fee to adjust their status to legal permanent resident. A cover letter on the Diversity Visa application instructed: ``While your application is pending before the interview, please DO NOT make inquiry as to the status of your case, since it will result in further delay.'' During the eight months that INS had to review his application, Nyaga accordingly never made inquiry, and he unfortunately never heard back. His valid application simply slipped through the cracks. At the end of the fiscal year, Nyaga's application expired, although a sufficient number of diversity visas remained available. Nyaga and his wife took their case all the way to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a decision last year, the Court found that the INS lacks the authority to act on Nyaga's application after the end of the fiscal year, regardless of how meritorious his case is. The court even went so far as to note that a private relief bill is the remedy for Nyaga in order to overcome the statuary barrier that prohibits the INS from reviewing a case in a prior fiscal year. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up this case. My legislation would overcome this statutory hurdle for Charles Nyaga, his wife, and others who are similarly situated. The legislation would give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the opportunity to reopen cases from previous fiscal years in order to complete their processing. It is important to understand that this process would only be available to those individuals who have been here since the time they filed their claim. The bill would still give DHS the discretion to conduct background checks and weigh any security concerns before adjusting an applicant's status. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with Homeland Security officials to pass this legislation this year. We must provide relief in these cases. I believe this targeted legislation strikes the proper balance to provide thorough processing of Diversity Visa applications while not compromising the Department's national security mission.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Let me start by asking, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Are we in morning business or are we prepared to proceed?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to discuss the nominations of two nominees, actually, to the Federal Court of Appeals. First, Justice Priscilla Owen of the Supreme Court of the State of Texas to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and then Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the Supreme Court of California to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, along with why we need to move forward to a fair up-or-down vote on the nominations. I would like to start with Judge Priscilla Owen. Justice Owen's qualifications to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court are readily apparent to anyone who looks at her background and experience. Speaking to her in person--as I did 2 years ago, shortly after I came over to the Senate--only reinforces her obvious capabilities as a judge. Justice Owen graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School and then proceeded to earn the highest score on the Texas Bar exam that year. She practiced law for 17 years and became a partner with Andrews & Kurth, a highly respected law firm in Texas, before being elected to the Supreme Court of Texas in 1994. Before I talk any more about Justice Owen's qualifications as a judge, I want to speak briefly about Priscilla Owen and the kind of person she is. Priscilla Owen has spent much of her life devoting time and energy in service of her community. She serves on the board of Texas Hearing & Service Dogs, and is a member of St. Barnabas Episcopal Mission in Austin, TX, where she teaches Sunday school and serves as the head of the altar guild. Having been a Sunday school teacher myself, and having grown up in the Episcopal Church--and my mother was the head of the altar guild for several decades--I know how much work that involved from a civic and religious standpoint. She has worked to ensure that all citizens are provided access to justice as the court's representative on the Texas Supreme Court Mediation Task Force and to various statewide committees regarding legal services to the poor and pro bono legal services. She was part of a committee that successfully encouraged the Texas legislature to provide millions of additional dollars per year for legal services for the poor. Justice Owen is a member of the Gender Bias Reform Implementation Committee and the Judicial Efficiency Committee Task Force on Staff Diversity. She was instrumental in organizing Family Law 2000 to educate parents about the effect of divorce and to lessen the negative impacts on children. Justice Priscilla Owen was elected by the people of Texas, the second most populous State in this great country, to its highest court, the Supreme Court of Texas, where she serves today. In her last reelection in the year 2000, she won 84 percent of the vote and had the endorsement of every major newspaper in Texas. Yet, there are still people who want the United States Senate to reject her nomination to the Federal bench because she is supposedly out of the mainstream in her legal reasoning. Out of the mainstream? The people of Texas obviously don't think she's out of the mainstream. In fact, I submit to you that in Texas and in the Fifth Circuit overall, she represents the mainstream of legal thought. I would imagine my friends on the other side of the aisle would agree with me that the American Bar Association is an organization considered by many to be well within the mainstream of legal thinking in this country. The ABA rated Justice Owen as ``Well Qualified'' for the Fifth Circuit--this is its highest rating, often called the ``gold standard'' and indicating the best possible qualifications to serve on the Federal bench. By their opposition to Justice Owens confirmation, my colleagues on the other side seem to be telling the ABA: ``Don't bother with your rating; it just doesn't matter to us.'' Even though they used to refer to a well qualified rating as the ``golden standard'' for judicial nominees, now it seems this is just not about qualifications. A judicial nominee's qualifications should matter most, and that nominee's qualifications should be the sole criterion for approving or blocking a nomination. The focus should be on these candidates and their legal knowledge and experience. It should not be reduced to partisan battles over politics or ideology. The essential principle for picking a Federal judge should be their commitment to the law. We need judges who put the law before personal philosophy, ideology, or politics. That is what separates the judiciary from the legislative branch. Senators should not inject politics into the process, and nominees should keep their politics out of the process as well. The comments of some of my Democrat colleagues underscore that this debate is not about whether Priscilla Owen is well qualified as a judge. Her record reflects it, the ABA acknowledges it, and so do many of my colleagues on the other side. For example, consider these comments: Senator Durbin on September 5, 2002: There is no dispute that Justice Owen is a woman of intellectual capacity and academic accomplishment. Senator Feinstein on July 23, 2002: Justice Owen comes to us with a distinguished record and with the recommendations of many respected individuals within her State of Texas . . . [She is] personable, intelligent, and well spoken. It is clear to me that Justice Owen knows the law. Senator Kennedy on September 5, 2002: Justice Owen is an intelligent jurist. Senator Kohl on May 1, 2003: We all recognize her legal talents. And Senator Schumer on July 23, 2002: I don't think there is any question about your legal excellence. You have had a distinguished academic and professional career . . . I think anyone who has listened even to 10 minutes of this hearing today has no doubt about the excellence in terms of the quality of your legal knowledge and your intelligence, your articulateness, et cetera. I take my colleagues at their words. These comments are true and genuine. With that in mind and knowing that Justice Owen has the endorsement of the ABA as ``well qualified,'' since she was reelected with 84 percent of the vote in her home State, how can anyone try to say she is out of the mainstream? Why is it wrong to simply give her a fair up-or-down vote to see whether a majority of Senators believes she is qualified for this position? Let me remind Members again that the Fifth Circuit seat to which she has been nominated has been designated as a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The judges down in the Fifth Circuit need some relief. Dockets are getting backlogged. Cases are being delayed and not moving as they should. People who live in the Fifth Circuit need some relief. Last week, on May 9, we marked the fourth anniversary of Justice Owen's nomination to the Fifth Circuit bench. Obstructing a nominee of the caliber of Priscilla Owen to a seat characterized as a judicial emergency is wrong. We cannot afford to drag this process out any further. Now is no time for obstructing the nomination of an eminently qualified jurist, one the American Bar Association has unanimously rated as ``well qualified,'' for confirmation to this Fifth Circuit seat. Let's get beyond the politics and confirm this nominee. I urge my colleagues to give Priscilla Owen a fair up-or-down vote on her nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I now will move on to discuss another nominee being considered by the Senate, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who the President has nominated to sit on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Since 1996, Janice Rogers Brown has been an associate justice for the Supreme Court of California, our country's most populous State. Justice Brown was initially appointed to the California high court by then- Governor Pete Wilson. She was reelected to the California Supreme Court in 1998 by the citizens of California, at which time she received 76 percent of the vote in favor of her reelection. Prior to her service on the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown served for 2 years as a State appellate judge in California. Before that, she served as legal affairs secretary for Governor Wilson. For all but 2 of the past 24 years, Justice Brown has dedicated her career to work in public service positions. Despite this background of public service and accomplishment, Justice Brown, unfortunately, has become the target of liberal interest groups who claim she is out of the mainstream of legal thinking. Those who oppose confirmation of these two fine State supreme court justices, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, apparently have no regard for the people of our two most populous States, California and Texas, the people who know these judges much better than anyone in this room or this body. I submit again, in California, our Nation's most populous and one of our more diverse States, reelection of Justice Brown was 76 percent of the vote. That proves she is regarded as in the mainstream of legal thought. Justice Brown rose from her early years as a child of sharecropper parents in the State of Alabama in the 1950s, one of the more difficult times in the history of our country for minorities, to sit on the highest court in the State of California. With a 76 percent reelection tally, it is obvious that a lot of people like Janice Rogers Brown. But nevertheless, Justice Brown has overcome adversity through her life and now she is facing it in her nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a core fundamental principle of the American judicial system that justice is blind. The 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. Americans have a right to know where their Senators stand. Americans have a right to hold their Senators accountable. If a Senator opposes any nominees, he or she should vote against them, but they should vote. They should not hide behind Senate rules and parliamentary loopholes to block a vote. Our Nation's legal system is more important than, and should be above, petty partisan politics. There is never any reason under any circumstances that either political party should stall the courts from doing their necessary work just for political gain. As Americans, we deserve a fair, functioning legal system that is responsive to the law and not to some special interest group. We already have too much politics in America. We already have too much politics in our legal system. While it is an unfortunate truth that partisan politics infects Washington, it has no place in our courts, it has no place in the verdicts delivered by our Federal judges, and it has no place in the confirmation process. We need the most qualified judges, not those who know how to work their way through the political system. It is and must always be a core fundamental principle of the American judicial system that people can get a fair hearing. Surely nominees to the Federal bench deserve the same rights to a fair hearing as any of us. The confirmation of judges should not be about ideology or partisanship. We need to adhere to a consistent process of investigation and decisionmaking that upholds the independent nature of our judicial system. Nominees should be judged by their qualifications, nothing less and nothing more. Once the investigation is done, nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. Just as the Senate has been granted by the Constitution the right of advice and consent, the Constitution has also bestowed on them the responsibility to decide yes or no. If the nominee is found wanting, a ``no'' vote should be cast. But the permanent indecision and passing the buck serves no one. The essential principle in picking a Federal judge should be their understanding and commitment to the law. We need judges who put the law before personal philosophy, personal ideology, and, certainly, personal politics. That is what separates and protects an independent judiciary system from the mere politicized legislative branch. When it comes to confirming judges, the primary criteria should be judicial and legal competence. The men and women who make up the Federal judiciary should be the best people available for the job, experienced, knowledgeable, and well versed in the law. Their job is too important to be determined by any single issue or political litmus test. I hope at the end of this debate, whether it ends tonight, whether it ends tomorrow, whether it ends next week, that we can come together in a bipartisan way to look these two judges in the eye and say: We are going to give you an up-or-down vote. I think you are qualified and I will vote yes, or I think you are not qualified and I will vote no. That is our obligation. That is our duty. That is the direction in which we must move. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I congratulate Riverside Manufacturing Company on Riverside being named ``Manufacturer of the Year'' for the State of Georgia. Riverside is located in my hometown of Moultrie, GA. Riverside was founded in 1911 by William J. Vereen, in Colquitt County, and has maintained its headquarters there to this day. Riverside is known worldwide both for producing business uniforms of superior garment quality and for the dedication of its employees. Riverside sells uniforms in all 50 States, as well as in over 200 foreign countries. Riverside warehouses products in Atlanta, GA; Dundalk, Ireland; Moultrie, GA; Prichard, WV; and Reno, NV. Riverside won this year's distinction of Georgia's Manufacturer of the Year in the large company category; that is, those with more than 750 employees. Riverside was nominated for the award by Moultrie Technical College. Governor Sonny Perdue presented this coveted award to my good friend Jerry Vereen, who is president and chief executive officer of Riverside, last Thursday in Atlanta at an annual awards ceremony as part of Georgia Manufacturing Appreciation Week. Jerry was quoted as saying: We were very pleased that the award recognized all the dedication and hard work that Riverside's associates have put forth to look after all our great customers. The only sustainable competitive advantage any company can have is based strictly on its people. You can buy technology, equipment and buildings but it takes the dedication of a lot of people to give Riverside the competitive edge with our customers, especially when all of our competitors have taken their manufacturing offshore. This award recognizes our associates' dedication to exceeding our customers' expectations. It also acknowledges their efforts to contribute significantly to the communities where we are located. We feel that Colquitt County and Georgia are great areas to build a company. We are very appreciative to Jackie Rohosky and her Quick Start team, Tina Anderson and her Moultrie Technical College team, Darrell Moore, Jimmy Jeter and the members of the Moultrie Colquitt County Industrial Development Authority, as well as the Colquitt County Commissioners, Moultrie City Council and the Colquitt County Chamber of Commerce for all the assistance they have given Riverside and our associates over the years. I am so proud of Jerry, of Riverside, and of all of Riverside's many employees, 600 of which call Georgia home. I extend my deepest and most sincere congratulations on their receipt of this prestigious award in recognition of a job well done.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 472, as modified, which is at the desk.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lugar, Roberts, Harkin, Dorgan, Enzi, and Johnson be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 472, as modified.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and the second-degree amendment thereto. I thank my friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, as well as Senator Craig from Idaho. All three worked very hard to come to a compromise on this very sensitive issue. What we are doing is basically restoring the normal trade discourse between our two countries to what it was before this change in a regulation that occurred about 2 months ago. We think the regulation does not state what Congress intended with the act that was passed 4 years ago. Mr. President, 4 years ago, we did pass the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act which allows sales of food and medicine only to Cuba for the first time in nearly four decades. The act did not signal an end to the embargo, exactly as Senator Baucus said, or efforts to do so but merely exempted food and medicine from unilateral sanctions that harm populations. U.S. exporters require payment before turning over title and control of the goods. That is a standard operating procedure in the shipping business. The exporters routinely ship U.S. goods to Cuba where they remain under the custody of the seller until such time as the seller certifies full payment. Only then are goods released to Cuba. At no time is credit extended in any form to Cuba. I cannot overemphasize that because that is exactly what the act requires. This standard method of doing business has been in practice since sales to Cuba began. This amendment will overturn OFAC's new definition of ``cash in advance.'' The legislation allows exporters to resume normal trading and does not include any extraneous provisions that are unrelated to the immediate problem. I again thank my colleagues for working on this issue and coming to a good resolution to return to the way trading was done prior to the arbitrary change in the regulation by OFAC. I thank Senator Cochran for his cooperation in letting us get this to the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Where under our bill they come in and an employer says: I need this employee, and I want to make application for the H2-A or the blue card.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we are coming to the close of the debate on this issue. I think it is important that we review for those of our colleagues who are listening, as well as to the American people who are listening relative to this issue, concerning whether we should grant amnesty to illegal aliens who are in this country, who are working in the agricultural field and given a pathway to citizenship, or should we grant to those individuals an accommodation to stay here, assuming they are law abiding, assuming they are working in agriculture for an employer who needs them and they are not displacing an American worker, and where they will always be categorized as a temporary worker. That is the fundamental difference between our two bills. I say to the Senator from Idaho, as well as the Senator from Massachusetts, again, I appreciate the debate we have had this morning because we have struck at the nerve of this issue relative to the agricultural sector. The Senator from Massachusetts is right. This is, in all probability, going to lay the groundwork for the broader overall issue we will deal with relative to immigration. I hoped we could have dealt with this issue in a broader immigration bill, but with the rules of the Senate being what they are, we are here today talking about the supplemental for the Iraq war, and this is an issue which, under our rules, can be brought forth, has been brought forth, and that is obviously why we are here. There are a number of organizations on both sides that have come out in favor of the AgJOBS bill, as well as the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. I want to make sure that all of my colleagues understand that the most recognized agricultural group in America, the American Farm Bureau, has endorsed the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. They have sent a letter to every Member of the Senate. They have sent letters to all of their membership around the country, as well as being on the telephone calling those folks today asking that they contact their Senators and request that they vote for the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. The reason the American Farm Bureau has done that is the American Farm Bureau knows and understands that we do need that stable, quality supply of agricultural employees for our farmers and ranchers around America, and they agree with Senator Kyl and myself that we need to do it in a way that gives these workers a temporary status, does not displace American workers, allows our employers--our farmers and ranchers--to only hire those individuals who have had a background check by the Department of Homeland Security and have no criminal record whatsoever, as we provide for in the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. Only then can you come to the United States and be recognized as an eligible agricultural employee under the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. Under the AgJOBS bill, you can have up to three misdemeanors and still qualify for the adjusted status, which means you are here legally, which means you can apply for a green card while you are here, which then means you can apply for citizenship while you are here, even though you came to this country illegally to start with and even though you have committed up to three misdemeanors and have been convicted of three misdemeanors while you have been here. We know a supply of agricultural workers is needed. Senator Kyl and I have worked very hard on this measure over the last several months to try to ensure that we accommodate all of our farmers' and ranchers' needs across America. Today we think streamlining the H-2A process, which will give us a prevailing wage rate that our employers can pay to their agricultural employees, will provide a streamlined paperwork process to allow our H-2A employers to have that ready supply of labor in a short period of time and to make sure that when they complete the job they have been allowed to come here to do, they go back to their country as available to our farmers and ranchers. Also, with the blue card provision we have in our bill, farmers and ranchers who need employees for a period in excess of a small window will have available to them employees who can be here for up to 3 years provided the Department of Homeland Security has done a background check and determined that they have never violated the law in this country, provided that those employees never be given anything but a temporary status, and provided that those employees agree and acknowledge that they will never be allowed to apply for a green card for permanent status or for citizenship in any way whatsoever, other than under what is existing law today. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is absolutely not the case. There is no way, under the Chambliss-Kyl amendment, anyone, anybody who is here illegally and who gets a blue card by virtue of the employer of that individual requesting the blue card, ever becomes anything other than a temporary resident of this country. Under our law--and we maintain current law--under current law, there is no way someone who is in this country on a temporary basis can ever apply for a green card--and can never apply for citizenship.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Sure.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this is going to be a very interesting debate. I hope all of our colleagues are watching this. I wish to respond to a couple of things my friend said relative to our legislation. First of all, this is not a stop-gap measure. This is not something we conceived over the last several weeks--even the last several months. I have actually been working on this issue for the entire 11 years I have served in the House of Representatives and now in this body. In fact, on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1995, Congressman Richard Pombo of California and myself proposed a very similar piece of legislation to what the Chambliss-Kyl amendment is today to reform the H-2A program. We weren't as expansive back then because we didn't conceive the blue card concept. But we had a very similar proposition relative to H-2A because H-2A has been a good program, if it were streamlined. And if it were not so cumbersome for employees to use, it would be used more often than what it is today. Second, I want to talk about this issue relative to the control of the borders. Senator Kyl is exactly right. I think it is very dangerous for anybody to argue during this process or any other process that we cannot control the borders. We can control the borders, and we must control the borders. If we don't control the borders to our country during this process or conceive of some way to make sure that Homeland Security does so during this process, then we are going to accomplish nothing. Our goal is--I know what the goal of Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy is--to provide our agricultural sector in this country with a stable, with a quality, and with an abundant labor force pool from which to choose, and that they must be legal. That we can agree on. But we can control the border, and under our legislation--it is absent from Senator Craig's legislation--we demand that the Department of Homeland Security, within 6 months after the effective date of this amendment, come forward to Congress with a proposal as to how they want to seal the border and control it from allowing illegal immigrants to come across that border. It can be done, it should be done, and it must be done as a part of this process. I want to go back to the AgJOBS bill and talk about what is truly the major significant difference; that is, the issue of amnesty. Under the AgJOBS bill that Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy have, first, illegal aliens are eligible for temporary work visas if they have worked in agriculture a minimal amount of time. I will not go through what Senator Kyl just said but, basically, if they have been here for 100 days and worked 1 hour each day, then they can apply for what is known as ``temporary adjustment status'' under the Craig- Kennedy bill. That makes them legal. We simply do not do that. We intentionally put the burden on the employer to make sure the employee is who he says he is. First of all, I need the workers; second, that these workers will be coming here as law-abiding citizens; and, they have not violated the law--as you can do under Senator Craig's and Senator Kennedy's amendment, not once, not twice, but you can have three misdemeanors on your record and still get the legal adjustment status. We have zero tolerance. We think folks who come here and say they want to work in the United States must be law-abiding citizens, if that is what they want to do. We say, unlike Craig-Kennedy, that the burden must be on the employer to, first of all, go out and say, I want to hire American workers to fill these jobs. Then, if he can't do that, it is the employer who comes in and says: I have tried to hire American workers to fill these jobs. I cannot find the American workers to do it. Therefore, under the H-2A reform provision, I need these workers for a temporary period of time--X number of days--to do this job. Then they will return to their native country. In the case of the blue card, it is a little bit different. There are some agricultural industries in this country--for example, the landscape or the nursery business--where employees are needed for a 12- month period every time, not just for a temporary 90-day or 120-day period of time. In that particular instance, these employers--again, the burden is on the employer--make the estimation that they need these employees--this individual is here, is law abiding, and that they want to have a blue card issued to that individual. That individual, again, can work only for that employer. When he leaves the employ of that individual, the burden is on the employer to let the Department of Labor know he has left. If he goes to work for another employer, which he can do in the agricultural sector, the employer for whom he goes to work must again file the proper documentation with the Department of Labor as well as with the Department of Homeland Security so they can track that individual. That is critically important. The major difference in that provision versus the Craig-Kennedy provision is they grant the temporary adjustment status which says they are here illegally. After a 3\1/2\ month period of time, they can then work for a year and get a green card, which means they basically can stay in the United States forever with that green card. If they want to apply for citizenship, they can apply for citizenship while they are in the United States. Under Chambliss-Kyl, they must comply with current law in order to get a green card. In order to do that, you must go back to your native country. You must stand in line, as everyone else is required to do today, in order to make application for a green card. They do not get any preferential treatment. If they want to secure what we think is the most precious asset an American has, and that is American citizenship, that individual, under the Craig-Kennedy amendment, simply can stay in this country legally with a green card, and while they are here under that green card--even though they came illegally--they can make application for citizenship. I don't know whether it will be granted in 5, 6, 7 years, but that is immaterial. They can do so outside of what is current law. Under the Chambliss-Kyl amendment, you cannot do that. If you are going to apply for a green card, you must go back to your native country and stand in line with everyone else and come in under the cap provided for in current law, make application, go through all the process, and maybe get your green card. If you want to apply for citizenship, again, you have to follow current law. You have to go back to your native country, you have to make the proper application, and go through all the appropriate steps before you can secure citizenship. That major difference of rewarding those people here illegally in the Craig-Kennedy AgJOBS amendment versus not rewarding individuals who are here illegally but only granting them a temporary status under the Chambliss-Kyl amendment is the major difference in these two bills. Why should we even grant anyone here illegally the right to stay in this country? The Department of Labor estimated 2 years ago we have between 8 million and 13 million people in this country illegally. We have no idea who they are. Sure, we see them standing on the street corner from time to time looking for jobs. We know, in the agriculture sector, about 85 percent of the employees are here illegally. They all have false documentations. They are pretty easy to get. You can go to almost any street corner, unfortunately, or across the border in Senator Kyl's State of Arizona and pay somebody somewhere between $300 and $1,000--I understand is the current market rate--and you will get a fake Social Security card and other fake documentation that will allow you to stay here. It is illegal for an employer, before he hires somebody, whether it is the agricultural sector or not, to ask that person for further verification of the fact they are here legally in this country. That is a weird provision in our law, but it is a fact, so we don't know who these people are. The mere fact we have a 5-million gap between 8 million and 13 million tells how serious the problem is. It is serious from the standpoint these people are taxing our education system, our judicial system, and our health care system. We need to identify who these people are. We are firing the first rifle shot. Again, on this, Senator Craig, Senator Kennedy, and I agree. I applaud them, particularly Senator Craig, for continuing to push this ball forward. We need this debate in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives. Once we identify those people who are involved in agriculture and are here illegally, we have to make a fundamental determination, as legislators, and that is are we going to try to round those people up? Are we going to try to hire the hundreds of thousands of additional border patrol agents and INS agents, round those people up, and send them back from where they came and expect them to stay there? Or are we going to be practical, and are we going to identify those people--we will not look at them and say: We will give you permanent status in this country, but we will allow you to stay here legally for a temporary period of time if you are law abiding. As I say, we have zero tolerance. The AgJOBS bill will allow for three misdemeanors and still allow them to stay here. Second, we ask: Are you displacing an American worker? We agree on that. Both of us say we should not displace an American worker. But if they are not displacing American workers, if they are law abiding, and if their employer--one other critical difference in the two bills--if their employers make the attestation here he has complied with all the laws, he has sought to hire American workers, and he cannot do so, the employer will be granted the right to either have those workers come in under the streamlined H2-A process or the employer will be the one who secures the blue card for that employee that he needs on more of a full-time basis. I submit there are significant differences in these two bills but the basic overall difference is we think the Federal Government has the obligation, No. 1, to control the border. We think you can control the border. We think, if you did not control the border, I don't care how sophisticated a piece of legislation we pass in this Senate or the House of Representatives, or it might go to the President's desk, we will have accomplished nothing. We do request and mandate the Department of Homeland Security give us that plan within 6 months as to how they will control the border. As Senator Kyl said, they have a plan in place in Texas and California that is working better than what we have in place in Arizona, where it simply is not working. It is working much better than what we have in my home county of Colquitt County, GA, where it is not working. They are getting into our county somehow. We need a provision to control the border. Second, the major difference is a question of whether you want to vote to grant somebody who is here illegally, who may have violated our law on three separate occasions with misdemeanors, a pathway to citizenship or whether you want to give somebody who is here for the right reasons, and who has not violated the law but who is needed by an agricultural employer, give them the opportunity to work for that agricultural employer for a temporary period of time and never, during the whole time he stays in the United States, be given anything other than a temporary status.