Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank my friend for his very insightful comments, as always. I yield such time as she may consume to the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Dole.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. As always, he has provided great insight into the way in which judicial nominees are best handled. He does it in a way in which all of us function. It does work. Particular instances we have had on the floor under consideration have also gone through a similar process, where the President has picked nominees he knows are great jurists and great men and women. Unfortunately, we are having to go through the exercise that we are having to go through to hopefully seek the cloture and to vote to ensure that these men and women get an up-or-down vote. I want to talk quickly, in the remaining time we have, about two of the nominees. I had the opportunity to visit this afternoon with the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, who is a justice on the Supreme Court of California, whom the President has nominated for a position on the DC Court of Appeals. Justice Brown has a very distinguished 26-year legal career, all but 2 of which she served in public service. She has a great Horacio Alger story to tell. She was born in a tiny community called Greenville, AL, outside Montgomery. She grew up in the rural South just, as I did and Senator Alexander did, at a time that was very difficult. She made the best of the conditions under which she grew up and she survived in a situation which a lot of people didn't survive. I was so impressed not only with her legal background and her educational background but just with Janice Rogers Brown as a person. She is just a great lady. For her to go through what she is going through now, for one simple reason--that reason being nothing to do with any particular decision she has rendered in the Supreme Court of California. The only reason she is going through what she is going through now is that she gave a speech to about 50 people in which she challenged the young people in that audience and, as a result of that, she is now being filibustered or is in the process of coming to be filibustered by the Democrats. I urge my colleagues to consider very thoughtfully voting positively on the cloture motions we are going to have tomorrow.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for her very insightful comments, as always, about what has been happening in North Carolina with respect to the delay of judicial appointments once again. Now I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Indiana, one of the most respected men in the Senate, Mr. Lugar.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Carolina. He and I served together for 8 years in the House of Representatives. We were both elected in 1994 and came in with a bunch of revolutionaries who came to Washington to change the world. We were staying up all night on the House side on a regular basis. He and I looked over at the Senate, and said: The decorum is great; they go to bed at a reasonable hour. What do you know, here we are. I am sorry the Senator from California has left the floor because she made the point over and over that President Bush had his nominees confirmed 98 percent of the time. The fact is, the Constitution of the United States must be complied with 100 percent of the time. Ninety- eight percent of the time is not good in that particular instance. There are some other situations where 98 percent of the time isn't that great, and that is why I am really sorry she is not here. If I told my wife that I was faithful 98 percent of the time---- (Disturbance in the Galleries.) She wouldn't be all that happy with me. I wouldn't be happy if my food was 98 percent free of E. coli bacteria. I would not be happy if my car started 98 percent of the time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am very proud of the State I represent. The State of Georgia is, in my opinion, the greatest State in our country because that is where I come from, and I am very blessed to represent that State. A number of great individuals from our State have served in this very august body. We have had a tradition of strong leadership in the Senate from Georgia, the Walter Georges, the Richard Russells, the Sam Nunns, the Paul Coverdells. Outside of the Senate, we also have had a history of strong leadership coming from our State. For the past 30 years the man who has epitomized political leadership and strength in our State is now our senior Senator. It has been a great privilege and pleasure for me to have the opportunity, No. 1, to know this man over the past 35 years or so, but to have an opportunity to serve with him in the Senate and for him to be my senior Senator has truly been a great honor to me. It is with great pride, and I consider it a great privilege, to be able to yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Young Harris, GA, senior Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I noticed my friend, the Senator from New York, for whom I have great respect, made a comparison between a hold and a filibuster but yet at the same time he has shown this chart over and over again, showing where we have 168 approved and only 4 filibustered. But as the Senator well knows, the Senators from Michigan have had holds on numbers and numbers of judges for months and months. So his number four, instead of being four, should be about eight, if he really believes a hold was equivalent to a filibuster. So his argument simply doesn't hold water, if I may pose that in the form of a question to the Senator.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the minority leader. In contrast, the approval of Federal judges should occur frequently. I would go so far as to say 100 percent of all qualified nominees should be approved by the Senate. This is why there is no requirement in the Constitution for more than a simple majority to confirm these nominees. The Constitution charges this body with the responsibility of advice and consent on the President's nominations. With this in mind, when the Senate began operations, it required only a simple majority vote to end a filibuster. We have come a long way in the last 214 years. As you have just heard, we have tinkered with the cloture rule on a number of occasions. I am of a mind that the number of cloture rules we have had since the original rule were, or are, unconstitutional, including the present rule XXII, where they are applied to prevent a majority of Senators from confirming the President's judicial nominees. But that has never happened before this year. We have never in our Nation's history had a minority of Senators try to prevent a vote on the President's nominees under the guise of rule XXII. By acting in this way, a minority of Senators has found a way to make the cloture rule unconstitutional in practice. The Framers of the Constitution knew the situations where they wanted more than a simple majority for the Senate to act. Confirmation of the President's nominees was not one of these instances. If you look at the text of article II, section 2, in the second paragraph, you see in the very same sentence where the Framers require two-thirds of Senators present to ratify a treaty, they charge the Senate with responsibility for advice and consent without a word said about a supermajority requirement; just a simple majority is clearly all they thought was needed to advise the President. With respect to the Senate's consideration of nominees, I think the only constitutional cloture rule we have ever had was the first one, which stood for the first 17 years the Senate was in operation. We have tolerated a number of different accommodations over the years, including the absence of any cloture rule for over 100 years, where we could only end debate by unanimous consent and a lot of other compromise cloture rules along the way. Ultimately, what decides whether a rule is constitutional is whether 51 Senators say it is constitutional. We have another proposal offered this year to resolve the impasse that has prevented the Senate from discharging its constitutional duty to advise the President on nominations of the individuals we are here talking about. Senate Resolution 138, of which I am a cosponsor, was introduced by Majority Leader Frist and has bipartisan support from the senior Senator from my State, Senator Miller, who is an original cosponsor of the resolution. S. Res. 138 is a reasonable compromise to break the impasse we now face. Instead of setting a fixed supermajority requirement of 60 votes to end debate and bring a nominee to a vote, S. Res. 138 starts with a 60-vote requirement and gradually reduces the number of necessary votes until ultimately a simple majority of Senators present on the floor can decide whether to consent to the President's nominee. While respecting that the filibuster has a historic role in the Senate, this bill assures that, ultimately, the will of the majority will prevail. Over the past few years, measures similar to S. Res. 138 have received bipartisan support at various times. We have a history of support of this concept from people on both sides of the aisle for a needed change to the cloture rule. Now is the time to come together and make it happen. We can end this filibuster by cooperation in a bipartisan fashion, or we will have to decide other options that might work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Just like the Senator from Alabama, I was somewhat shocked by the comments of the Senator from California about the fact that if you get 98 percent you ought to be happy with what you get and go home. The fact of the matter is, never before in the history of the United States of America has any President gotten 98 percent. Every other President, prior to this President, prior to the obstructionism coming from the other side of the aisle on these judicial nominees, has gotten 100 percent. It is zero and four filibusters out there right now. I remind the Senator from California of her comment made back on March 9, 2000, as per the Congressional Record: I make an appeal, if we vote to indefinitely postpone a vote on these two nominees or one of these two nominees, that is denying them an up-or-down vote, that would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know, ever. So the Senator from California agreed with us back in March 9 of 2000. Again, it would be in line with what Senator Lott said when he said these people deserve an up-or-down vote. The thing about these votes is that if people disagree with them, if any Senator on the other side of the aisle or if any Senator on this side of the aisle disagrees any judicial nominee is qualified to serve on the Federal bench at the district level or on any circuit court, they should have the right to vote against them, but they are entitled to a vote. I agree 100 percent with the Senator from California when she made her comment in March of 2000 that we ought to have an up-or-down vote; that it has never--and I repeat her statement--it has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know, ever. It has never been done. When it comes to saying ``has there been a filibuster'' or ``has there not been a filibuster,'' I agree with the Senator from California; there has never been a filibuster before of a circuit court nominee. There ought not be a filibuster that continues on these judges. We ought to have an up-or-down vote. I yield back to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Here is what he says: The United States Senate is the only place on the planet where 59 votes out of 100 cannot pass anything because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat it. Try explaining that at your local Rotary Club or to someone in the Wal-Mart parking lot or, for that matter, to the college freshman in Political Science 101. You can't, because the strange Senate math stands democracy on its head. He then talks about ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'' and the perception about a filibuster. And he continues: Realizing that with the scrutiny of television, the people would not stand for such nonsense, the ``Old Bulls'' of the Senate fuzzed it up. They made it subtler. These verbal gunslingers can now be forced to shut up, and the process and the Senate move along toward a vote if sixty members remove the cotton from their ears and vote for cloture. A cloture shuts off what is called a debate but isn't because it takes two sides talking to constitute a debate. If this sounds confusing, it is meant to be. That is precisely the objective. The short version of this debacle is that the way filibuster is being used in the Senate gives the minority an absolute veto on just about everything. In fact, the U.S. Senate has become similar to the Security Council of the United Nations where one country can veto the will of a clear majority and castrate the entire process. He goes on and gives several anecdotes about the Constitution and what a great document it has been and cites Jefferson's comment to Washington about the function of the Senate and Washington's statement that has been mentioned several times about the function of the upper Chamber, the Senate. The story is told with Washington asking: Why do you pour coffee into your saucer? To cool it, Jefferson replied. And Washington said: Even as we pour legislation into the senatorial cup to cool it. Here is what Senator Miller says about that: Cool it, yes. But not freeze it into an ice cube. There is a significant difference. Again, he goes on talking about the history of the filibuster. In the history of Democratic Senators, Democratic Senators who are serving in this body today who in recent years have asked that this filibuster rule be changed so that we would not go through the process that we are experiencing today. All of a sudden those Democratic Senators have amnesia and are voting not to invoke cloture. This is the way Senator Miller winds up: For all the good stories that have come down through the centuries inspired by the filibuster, in the end, it has nothing to do with ancient history. The filibuster has nothing to do with the British Parliament. The filibuster has nothing to do with coffee cooling in a saucer. The filibuster has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The filibuster has nothing to do with tradition. The filibuster has nothing to do with the Constitution. The filibuster has nothing to do with protecting minority rights. The filibuster has everything to do with personal political power. It's about Alpha dogs defending their turf in that great big kennel under the dome. I agree with Senator Miller.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Just like the Senator from Missouri, I want to talk for just a second about who cares about these judicial nominations because obviously the folks on the other side of the aisle who have been obstructionists in not allowing circuit court judges to come to a vote think the American public does not care about our Federal judicial system. Sure, our supporters understands it and they care. Sure, every Rotary Club I go to understands it and they care because they ask me about it. Every church where I go to speak, they care, they understand it, because they ask me about it. I have been walking down the street in my hometown and some stranger will come up to me. He understands it and he cares. Obviously, the Senator from Illinois is totally insensitive to these kinds of people. Let me tell you who else cares. That criminal defendant who is sitting in jail and who is having to wait longer than he ought to wait because we do not have Federal judges on the bench, he or she cares. That plaintiff or defendant in a civil lawsuit who is having to sit and wait and wait for justice, whatever that justice may be, on either side of the appellate case, he cares because he is not getting his case served. Obviously, the folks on the other side of the aisle who are complaining about and conducting this filibuster think those people are OK and they do not care. They care. I guess one of the major other differences between the Senator from Illinois and this Senator is that I don't go to the Washington Post to get my anecdotes. I don't go to any conservative newspaper to get my anecdotes. Yesterday I drove to my office over in the Russell Senate Office Building, and as I pulled my car up to the gate, just like all of us-- we stop, the Capitol Police have to come around and run the mirror under your car--the Capitol policeman came over to me and he knew I had been up except for an hour the night before, and I could tell he was dead tired, and he looked at me and he said: Senator how are you doing? And I said: I am tired. He said: Senator, you guys are doing the right thing. Make your point. You know that guy cares because he is like every other law enforcement officer in America. They depend on us to make sure we provide them with good judges to take the bad guys off the street which makes their job easier. There is one other point I want to make because I have heard this comment off and on for the last 38 hours. And that is, the fact that the score of 98 percent is a pretty good score. I don't care whether it is a math, English, or a reading test. They keep bringing this point up that we have confirmed 98 percent of the President's judicial nominees. First of all, the numbers are not right, but I will not get into that. I want to talk about the 98 percent. On its face, that might sound fine. When you come to messing with the Constitution of the United States, when it comes to the confirmation of judges, 98 percent is not good enough. The reason is that every other President in the history of the United States of America--and we have had 43 of them now--every single one of the other 42 Presidents of the United States has had a score of 100 percent when it comes to the issue of not having their judges filibustered. For these folks to stand up on the other side of the aisle and say 98 percent is pretty good, they don't care about the fact that they are the first in the history of the United States of America to filibuster a judge. I repeat, if 98 percent is OK and they are smiling and happy about it, I would like to hear how many of them go home this afternoon and think they would get a good reception from their spouse if they said: You know, honey, I have been faithful to you 98 percent of the time. Or I wonder how many of them would feel good as they get on an airplane this afternoon and head home smiling and thinking, boy, we have done great work defending our judges and defending our filibuster of these judges but that airplane had a safety record of landing 98 percent of the time. There is a difference. We live under this document that has served us so well for so many years and 100 percent of the judges who are nominated have been confirmed by every other Senate for every other President prior to this one as per the language of this great document. I close by reading some comments out of a book written by a man of which I am a big fan. The Democrats in this Senate are not particularly a fan of his right now, but let me tell you, he is a great American. He is a great American who speaks the truth, and he is speaking the truth about what is going on in this body right now. ``The National Party No More, the Conscience of a Conservative Democrat.'' It is written by my colleague, my good friend from the State of Georgia, Senator Zell Miller. I ask unanimous consent that the entire chapter, chapter 8, entitled ``41 Beats 59--That Strange Senate Math,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, from the Meuse-Argonne campaign of World War I to the action in Operation Iraqi Freedom, American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have fought on front lines around the globe to defend our freedom at home. Whether fighting on the battlefield or manning the ramparts against the threat of Communist aggression, it is courage, commitment and endurance of the American fighting forces that have made possible the unprecedented prosperity and political freedom that we enjoy today. As a result of the constant struggle to defend freedom, we now have 26 million American veterans, about 768,000 of which are from my home state of Georgia. With each year that passes, these veterans are growing older. At last count, 37 percent of these heroes are over 65 years old and many of them need medical care. Caring for these brave men and women is an obligation that we must take seriously. In my first year as a Congressman, in 1995, spending on veterans healthcare was $16 billion. Just 9 years later, President Bush's fiscal year budget request was $27 billion, an increase of $11 billion. We can always do better, and we will, but I think that this dramatic rise in funding is remarkable. We have taken other significant steps to help our Nation's veterans, including concurrent receipt legislation in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act, which we will consider today on the floor of the Senate. This provision helps disabled veterans wounded in combat to receive both their disability compensation as well as the pension which they earned in service to our Nation. In addition, the concurrent receipt provision will extend full disability and Veterans Affairs retirement pay for all disabled veterans rated 50 percent and higher. When enacted, this provision does more to honor our Nation's disabled veterans than Congress has done in years. On this day, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the fallen soldiers who were deployed from my home State and throughout the Nation, who served with honor and bravery in the Middle East and Afghanistan. My thought and prayers are also with the family of GEN Ray Davis, who passed away earlier this year and whose legacy of service, honor, and heroism will be remembered for years to come.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report on the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act. I believe this legislation does a tremendous amount of good for the men and women in our Nation's military and their families, for America's veterans, and for our country's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say a special thanks and congratulations to the Chairman from Virginia, Mr. Warner, as well as the Ranking Member, Senator Levin of Michigan, for their bipartisan spirit in the preparation of the original bill that came out of committee and passed on the floor of the Senate, as well as the preparation of the conference report, which we will soon conclude. Senator Warner and Senator Levin showed strong leadership throughout the process. I also wish to point out one particular thing that we in the Personnel Subcommittee tried to address. It is pretty obvious, as we look back at the current conflict in Iraq and the recent conflicts that have taken place around the world, that we are calling more and more upon our Guard and Reserve to serve on a regular basis. It is incumbent upon us that we do more to equalize the status of the Guard and Reserve and the Active Force. As the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, knows, he and I have conducted a number of hearings around the country relative to the treatment of children of military families, including the Guard and Reserve. We want to make sure that we are providing all the support necessary for our Guard and Reserve as well as our Active Force to make sure that military families have the kind of quality of life we want them to have and that they expected to have when they signed up for military service. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services, I am proud of the significant actions that we and our House colleagues have taken in this legislation to help ease the burden for the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who serve our Nation. Specifically, the conference report authorizes an average 4.15 percent pay raise for service members and a higher, targeted pay raise up to 6.25 percent for mid-career personnel. The conference report reduces service members' out-of-pocket housing expenses and it authorizes payment of special pay for positions of unusual responsibility and of a critical nature for our Reserve component, in order to ensure that Reserve and Guard personnel serving in command positions are recognized for their important contributions. The report authorizes continued payment of special pay and bonuses for both Active Duty and Reserve personnel. Payment of increased rates of the family separation allowance and special pay for duty involving hostile fire and imminent danger at the higher monthly rates designated earlier this year are continued. The conference report also provides enhanced access to TRICARE for members of the Reserve components and their families, and in a meaningful gesture of support for the invaluable contribution of our selected Reserve, it provides full commissary access for National Guard and Reserve personnel. I want to particularly thank these Members of the Senate--Senators Landrieu, Graham, Allen, Alexander, and others--who have worked very closely with this Member of the Senate, to ensure that the equalization of the Guard and Reserve with the active force continues to move in the right direction. As we ask our military men and women and their families to do more and more, it is only right that we continue doing all we can for them. This important legislation continues to ensure that we have the best trained, best prepared, and best equipped troops in the world. I am very pleased that this conference report includes an agreement on concurrent receipt, which I believe is long overdue and is directed at the most deserving disabled military retirees. The conference report would extend concurrent receipt for all disabled veterans rated 50 percent and higher phased in over the next 10 years. It would also make special compensation for combat-related disabilities available to every disabled military retiree--Active and Reserve--whose disability was incurred as a result of combat or combat preparation causes. In my 8 years in the House, prior to coming to the Senate this year, Congressman Mike Bilirakis of Florida, was the champion of concurrent receipt. I commend him for his hard work on the House side and his diligent efforts in ensuring that concurrent receipt is finally coming to be a realization. We have had the support of the chairman, and the ranking member, as well as Senator Reid, who has been active on this issue. It is something that is long overdue, and it is time we gave our veterans the just reward they deserve. American veterans have made great sacrifices so that we may live in a safe and secure America. Military retirees who incurred disabilities because of their long and faithful service should no longer have to incur the offset of their retired pay. I view this provision as a historic step in the right direction to help this important class of veterans. Last year, at the conclusion of the fiscal year 2003 authorization bill, the distinguished chairman said that what we did then with respect to concurrent receipt was a step in the right direction and that we would do more. To his credit, and the credit of the ranking member, we are now following through with that commitment and moving in the right direction. This is a huge step and we will continue to look after our nation's disabled veterans in the future. The conference report includes a provision that will enhance the process for achieving posthumous citizenship for deceased, non-citizen service members that was sponsored by myself and Senator Zell Miller, my colleague from Georgia. This legislation was inspired by the dramatic story of Diego Rincon of Conyers, Georgia, a non-citizen member of our Armed Forces who was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq. This provision will instruct the Government to take steps immediately to facilitate and expedite the process of naturalization following an immigrant soldier's death. Diego Rincon is a true American hero and this legislation ensures that he will be honored as one. Included in the conference report is authorizing language to delay the decommissioning of Navy and Marine Corps Reserve aviation squadrons like those at the Naval Air Station Atlanta. This provision, which was also included in the final version of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, prolongs the life of aviation squadrons at NAS Atlanta by preventing the Navy from decommissioning squadrons until the General Accounting Office completes a review of the Navy's plan for tactical aviation integration. This measure restricts funds to be used to decommission aviation squadrons until February 1, 2004. Senator Miller and I have worked hard all year to delay the decommissioning of the aviation squadron at NAS Atlanta and I am particularly pleased we were successful in postponing these decisions until the General Accounting Office conducts a thorough review of the Navy's plans for tactical air integration to ensure that it is done wisely and in a way that ensures the Navy's missions can be met long term. NAS Atlanta Reserve fight squadrons stand ready with great professionalism for a speedy deployment to critical missions around the world. This provision ensures NAS Atlanta will continue contributing to the Navy's crucial missions and war fighting ability. This legislation also authorizes the lease of up to 20 aerial refueling aircraft by the Air Force and extends authority for the Air Force to purchase up to 80 tanker aircraft through a multi-year procurement effort. This agreement will allow the Air Force to begin recapitalizing their tanker fleet in a fiscally responsible manner and save taxpayers approximately $4 billion over the original Department of Defense proposal. This particular provision, Mr. President, has not been without controversy. I commend my colleague, Senator John McCain, for pointing out to the committee several important discrepancies in the process leading up to this tanker provision. The chairman and the ranking member held several hearings on this subject and, for the right reasons, we were able to restructure this lease arrangement so that not only will our men and women in the military benefit from the provision in the conference report, but the taxpayer will benefit as well. The Defense Authorization Act includes several other military programs that greatly benefit Georgia, as well as the country as a whole. For instance, it includes: Funds to authorize the Air Force to begin re-engining J-STARS aircraft. It includes $3.5 billion for 22 FA- 22 aircraft, the next tactical fighter jet for the U.S. Air Force; $336 million for five C-130 aircraft, as part of a multi-year buy arrangement; $931 million to convert two Trident ballistic missile submarines into guided missile submarines, one of which will be stationed at Kings Bay Naval Base in Georgia; $2.1 billion for 11 C-17 aircraft, under, again, our continuing multi-year contract, which, for the first time in the history of the United States Air Force, we have operated in a businesslike manner from a procurement standpoint; $19.7 million to accelerate the C-5 aircraft avionics modernization programs; and an important provision aimed at ensuring that Army or Air National Guard personnel may effectively command Active Duty personnel when they are entrusted with command of a unit composed of both active duty and Guard personnel. This provision will directly benefit the command relationships and operations of the 116th Air Control Wing at Robins Air Force Base that flies and operates J-STARS aircraft. Mr. President, I believe this conference report does a tremendous amount of good for our Nation and, most importantly, for the brave men and women who are serving our Nation overseas and at home. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and again, I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their strong leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today, first of all, to ask that I be associated with the remarks of the majority leader, as well as the Senator from Virginia and my colleague from Missouri, and to also pay a great compliment to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Roberts, who throughout the past 10 months has led the Senate Intelligence Committee through one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, times in the history of the United States of America from an intelligence community standpoint. Today, our men and women are fighting a war that is unlike any war America has ever been involved in before. The intelligence community is playing a more high profile and much more public role than ever before in the history of our great country. Chairman Roberts has been at the tip of the spear when it has come to providing oversight in a bipartisan manner with respect to the activities of our intelligence community. Over the past week, he has provided great leadership with respect to the most sensitive issue that has taken place in the short time I have been a Member of the Senate. We have seen a security breach unlike any other security breach I have ever experienced. As my colleagues have noted, the memo that has been referred to that was prepared by someone on the other side of the aisle--we have yet to find out who--was a blatant political attempt to impede what I consider to be an independent, nonpartisan review of prewar Iraq intelligence. America should expect more from this Congress. The Democrats in this body should expect more from themselves as well as their staffs. The Select Committee on Intelligence was established to be nonpartisan in nature, in which Congress could perform critical oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States. This nonpartisan environment was, and is, a crucial feature. This nonpartisan environment creates a crucial level of trust between the executive branch and the Senate, permitting the President to share sensitive national security information, with the confidence that the committee will protect the information and not use it to engage in rank political misconduct. We have seen just the opposite take place with this blatant political attack that comes from the other side in the form of this memo. We can have our differences over issues involving Iraq, and we have had those differences, and we will continue to debate issues such as weapons of mass destruction. But no one in this body and no one in the intelligence community ever expected a weapon of mass destruction to be dropped on the Senate Intelligence Committee, as was done this week. I implore the leadership on the other side of the aisle to follow the initiative of the majority leader: examine what he has said with respect to what needs to be done from this point forward. I certainly hope the leadership on the other side of the aisle will do just what they are charged to do, and that is to provide leadership and come forward to explain the purpose of this memorandum, its intended use, and where they expect us to go from here because otherwise, that weapon of mass destruction that has been dropped on the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to impede our ability to function in the bipartisan way that is absolutely crucial if we are going to exercise our oversight role in the intelligence community. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chairman for your hard work on this appropriations bill. I would like to bring to your attention a Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service project that is funded in the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill, the Alliance for Food Protection. At the time which the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations marked up the fiscal year 2004 bill, I had not been notified that the work on this project had been completed.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. My intention, with the Chairman's approval, of course, would be to move the funding designated for the Alliance for Food Protection project to the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service Integrated Fruit and Vegetable research project which is in Cooperation with the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I appreciate the Chairman's cooperation with my request.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for conducting this time for morning business. I rise in a very different mood today--different from any other mood I have been in since I had the privilege of becoming a Member of this body. I had the privilege of serving for 8 years in the House of Representatives, and now for a year in my first term in the Senate. During my last 2 years in the House, I served on the House Intelligence Committee. For the past year now, I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, under the strong leadership of the Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, as well as his vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia. We operate in a very bipartisan way in both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I was privileged to serve alongside of the now-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee in conducting a very thorough and detailed review of the intelligence community leading up to September 11 and particularly concluding with a report detailing the failures in the intelligence community leading up to September 11, 2001. All of this oversight work has been done in a very bipartisan way since I have been in the Senate. Again, we have operated within the Intelligence Committee in a very bipartisan way. We can have our differences, and we have had them; but it has been a very healthy debate up to this point in time. Unfortunately, yesterday, the Republicans on the Senate side of the Intelligence Committee came into possession of a two-page memorandum that details a systematic way in which the other side of the aisle intends to undermine and attack the President of the United States on the intelligence information not only leading up to the conflict in Iraq, but also moving beyond that, into the policy area--again, trying to undermine the policy of the President of the United States with respect to the conflict in Iraq. This is a different road than the Intelligence Committees on the House and Senate sides have been down before. It is not the kind of road an Intelligence Committee should be traveling down. I rise to say that I don't know where this memo came from. I have seen a copy of it. I don't know whether it was staff driven or member driven. I have great respect for the members of the Intelligence Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I don't think anyone on the other side of the aisle would intentionally try to undermine the operation of our troops in Iraq today. Yet, as I looked at this memorandum and read through it, there was a very clear and definite outline of undermining the policy of the President of the United States, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and anybody involved in the current conflict with Iraq. If that particular outline were followed, it would be devastating not only to this body--the bipartisan integrity of this body--but it would have the potential effect of truly undermining the operation in Iraq. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will rethink the position if it is one in which they are moving toward. I hope they will certainly disavow any knowledge of the position or intent to undermine the operation in Iraq from an intelligence or oversight standpoint within the Senate Intelligence Committee with respect to a report we are going to be concluding and preparing within a matter of days or weeks. I truly hope we can move forward in a positive way, with a strong, positive attitude toward ensuring the operation in Iraq is concluded in a satisfactory manner, and that the intelligence community can move forward knowing they have the support, in a bipartisan way, of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the matter-of-fact ideas and plans laid out in this memorandum will certainly not be carried out. I thank the chairman for his leadership and position on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I join with the now-junior Senator from Florida--a border State with Georgia--soon to be senior Senator, in commending the now-senior Senator from Florida, Bob Graham. I, too, saw his announcement yesterday. Senator Graham and I have had the opportunity to work on many issues together since our States border each other. He has been a great public servant for this Senate, his State, and for America. He is one of those folks we greatly admire, and we will miss him. I have great respect for Senator Graham. I certainly respect his decision to go back to Florida and enjoy his family. He has a farm in Albany, GA, which is close to my home. We are going to get him over there more often because he and I enjoy bird hunting together. I, too, join with Senator Nelson in commending Senator Graham.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise this morning to speak about a grave injustice that has befallen this Chamber, and that is the denial by a minority of Senators of the right to an up-or-down vote on four of the President's judicial nominees. Last week, the Senate voted 54 to 43 to move forward with a vote on Judge Charles Pickering who now serves on the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and who was selected by the President as one of his nominees for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fifty- four Senators--a majority, in other words--voted to allow Judge Pickering's nomination to proceed to a vote, and yet because of the way the Senate rules are presently being misapplied, a majority of Senators cannot even bring about a vote on the merits of a judge. That is wrong, and it is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a supermajority-- that is, three-fifths, two-thirds, or anything more than a simple majority of Senators--to give advice and consent. The Constitution spells out only five instances where a supermajority is required. Those five instances are: the ratification of a treaty, impeachment, expulsion of a Senator, the override of a Presidential veto, and adoption of a constitutional amendment. These five situations should occur infrequently, which is why the Framers of the Constitution made them difficult to achieve. In contrast, the approval of Federal judges should occur frequently; I daresay 100 percent of the time, when you have qualified nominees. That is why there is no requirement in the Constitution for more than a simple majority to confirm these nominees. Advice and consent often requires debate, always requires deliberation, and always requires a decision. Each Senator should decide how to vote on a given nominee. Vote yes, vote no, but vote. For the first time in our country's history, the filibuster is now being used by a minority of Senators to block the President's nominees to the Federal bench. By shirking their duty to make a decision on the merits of the President's nominees--Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor, Caroline Kuhl, and now Charles Pickering--a minority of this Chamber keeps the Senate as a whole from performing its duties under the Constitution. It is not as though the Senators who are blocking an up-or-down vote can object to the qualifications of these nominees. Let's go down the list. Let's start with Priscilla Owen who, like Judge Pickering, is nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears appeals on Federal cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 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 before being elected to the Supreme Court of Texas in 1994. Justice Priscilla Owen was elected by the people of Texas, the second most populous State in this country, to its highest court. In her last reelection in the year 2000, she was reelected with 84 percent of the vote, along with the endorsement of every major newspaper in the State of Texas. When the opponents of a fair vote on the merits cannot attack a nominee's qualifications, they come up with excuses: She is not in the ``mainstream of legal reasoning.'' Out of the mainstream? The people of Texas obviously don't think she is out of the mainstream. She received 84 percent of the vote in her reelection in 2000. Next we have Caroline Kuhl who is one of President Bush's nominees to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles Federal appeals in many of the States out west. Caroline Kuhl has been a State trial judge in California since 1995. Judge Kuhl is another well-qualified nominee who is being denied an up-or-down vote on her nomination. But you don't have to take my word on her qualifications. The American Bar Association, the gold standard, has rated her as ``Well Qualified.'' Yet, despite her credentials, Judge Kuhl has also been branded as ``outside the mainstream.'' Then there is Bill Pryor, the attorney general for the State of Alabama, a dedicated public servant who has shown time and again that he can separate his personal beliefs from his professional duties. Again, ``outside of the mainstream.'' That is, sadly, what you will hear about Bill Pryor. It doesn't matter that Thurbert Baker, the attorney general for my State of Georgia, Mr. Pryor's counterpart in my State, an elected Democrat, has said that Bill Pryor possesses the qualities and experience needed to serve the people of Georgia on the Eleventh Circuit. Earlier this year, Attorney General Baker wrote a letter to Senators Shelby and Sessions of Alabama to express his support for Bill Pryor. In support of Bill Pryor, Thurbert Baker wrote, and I quote: Bill has distinguished himself time and again with the legal acumen that he brings to issues of national or regional concern as well as with his commitment to furthering the prospects of good and responsive government. Close quotation. Across State lines and across party lines comes this endorsement of Bill Pryor. Again, you will hear the same, lame excuse: ``He's out of the mainstream.'' I mentioned earlier Judge Charles Pickering, who is nominated to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A few weeks ago, in our last Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Pickering's nomination, Senator Kennedy spoke of the important role the Fifth Circuit has played during the civil rights struggle, and he is absolutely correct in that. As a lawyer from Georgia who once was a proud member of the old Fifth Circuit bar, before that circuit was split in half in 1980 to create the Eleventh Circuit, I am well aware of the tremendous role the Fifth Circuit played in the civil rights struggle. It is with a deep and abiding respect for the tradition of the Fifth Circuit that I support Judge Charles Pickering's nomination to that bench as one who deserves the honor of this service. While Judge Pickering's critics have and will continue to unfairly label him as a racist and segregationist and, again, ``out of the mainstream,'' nothing could be further from the truth. Charles Pickering has worked to eliminate racial disparities in Mississippi. Judge Pickering has not just talked about improving race relations, he has backed up his words with a lifetime of action. For example, in Mississippi during the 1960s, he testified and helped prosecute Sam Bowers, the imperial wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, for the murder of a civil rights activist, Vernon Dahmer. He served as a leader in his community to integrate the public schools. In 1976, he hired James King as the first African-American political staffer for the Mississippi Republican Party. He represented an African-American man falsely accused of robbing a 16-year-old girl in 1981. He chaired the Race Relations Committee for Jones County, MS, in 1988. He helped establish a group to work with at-risk African-American youths in Laurel, MS, and he serves on the board of the Institute of Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi. Now, I grew up in the South, and for those who did not grow up in the South, to criticize this man, during a very difficult time in the history of our country, is not only unfair and unjust, it is almost un- American. This man made a commitment to ensure that race relations in Mississippi would improve every single day of his life, and unless one has walked in the shoes of somebody like Judge Pickering and looked race in the eye as he did, they cannot understand the principle, the integrity, and the character of this man. What he did says a lot about Charles Pickering in and of itself, outside of the decisions he has made on the bench as a district court judge. Judge Charles Pickering has tremendous bipartisan support from the people back home who know him best, including the top Democratic elected officials of Mississippi. This shows that he is well within the mainstream of legal thinking in Mississippi today and in the Fifth Circuit, just as Priscilla Owen's reelection by the people of Texas, with 84 percent of the vote, shows that she is in the mainstream in Texas and in the Fifth Circuit. In September, Miguel Estrada withdrew his nomination after a minority of Senators prevented him from getting a vote for 28 months. This is a man who came to the United States from Honduras as a teenager, graduated from Columbia undergrad and then Harvard Law School, worked in the Justice Department for two administrations, including the Clinton administration, and was rated ``Well Qualified'' by the American Bar Association. So I guess we should not forget Miguel Estrada when we tally these filibusters. It is really not four, it is five. I suspect it is about to be six because we have another nomination that will likely come out of the Judiciary Committee on Thursday of this week, and that is the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. The American people will not continue to stand for this inaction, and they will not forget this obstructionist game playing. While we can still try to maintain the dignity and tradition of the Senate, I ask my colleagues to vote to give each of these qualified nominees an up-or- down vote. I ask my colleagues to make up their minds. Their constituents deserve it. Let us move forward on the merits. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's strong leadership on this issue. I rise in the strong support of the nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I want to say, first, that I appreciate the honesty, the integrity, and the forthrightness of my colleague from Georgia on every issue, but particularly on this issue. He has been very much out front, and this Senator greatly appreciates his attitude and his dedication to ensuring that quality judges are confirmed to every circuit of the United States and every district of the Federal bench. I rise with some special appreciation for Judge Pickering's nomination because he is nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1969, when this Senator became a member of the Georgia bar, Georgia was a member of the Fifth Circuit. So I have been a member of the Fifth Circuit bar since my early days. The Eleventh Circuit was created in 1980. We split off at that time, so I no longer argue cases on a regular basis in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has been very blessed with a number of great judges. Look at the judges who came from difficult times, such as my very good friend Judge Griffin Bell who, after serving as a member of the Fifth Circuit, came to be Attorney General; Elbert Tuttle, Judge Frank Johnson--any number of judges such as these judges at the district court level--Judge W.A. Bootle. These individuals came through very difficult times and distinguished themselves as judges. Judge Charles Pickering came through that same very difficult time in the South, a time in the South when race was a very critical and the most forthright issue. Charles Pickering looked the racial issue in the eye and provided the kind of leadership of which every American would be very proud. As we now consider his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, I could not be prouder of any individual than I am of the nomination of Charles Pickering. I am going to have a lot more to say about this, but today we have the opportunity to bring this nomination to an up-or-down vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to give him a vote on the floor of the Senate. Let's put this good man, this good judge on the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I commend the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Thad Cochran, and his staff who have worked tirelessly since this legislation was reported out of Committee to reach a compromise with members on both sides of the aisle who have concerns about this legislation. In the South forest fires pale in comparison to forest fires of the West. In my home State of Georgia, we don't have a significant threat from fire in our forests because we receive adequate moisture throughout the year. According to the Georgia Forestry Commission, my State experiences approximately 8 thousand fires each year damaging or destroying approximately 38,000 acres of forestland. However with 24.6 million acres of forestland in the State of Georgia, which is nearly two-thirds of my home State, major outbreaks of disease caused by pathogens and insects such as the southern pine beetle pose a significant threat to forests in the South. In 2002 alone, damage caused by the southern pine beetle totaled over $150 million. The forest community has waited long enough for comprehensive forest management legislation. It is time for the Senate to pass this legislation so that Americans have the tools to manage our Nation's forests--by putting out fires and by reducing disease and insect pressure. This act will help our Nation's forest to flourish for generations to come.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. Today we are going to have a cloture vote to determine whether or not we move forward with this bill. I hope we obtain the 60 votes to move forward. To a great extent, the bulk of the tort reform--that is needed in this country needs to be handled at the State level. States have their own ideas about what kind of tort reform ought to take place. I hope that is where tort reform--that each State decides it needs in and of itself--does take place. However, as the tort system now stands, there are about a handful of State court jurisdictions in the United States where a tremendously disproportionate number of class action lawsuits are filed. That is just not right. People have referred to these jurisdictions as ``magnet courts'' because they draw in class action suits with their soft juries and pro-plaintiff judges. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, businesses can break loose from these magnet State courts and get a fair trial in Federal court. Over the last 2 days of debate on class action reform, my colleagues have been dispelling a lot of myths about the Class Action Fairness Act that have been spread around by the opponents of the bill. I would like to take some time to address one of these myths about which I feel very strongly; that is, that some critics of the Class Action Fairness Act have argued that the bill is an affront to federalism because it would move more cases involving State law claims to Federal court. But when it comes to federalism, this bill is actually the solution and not the problem. Right now, magnet State courts are trampling over the laws of other States in their zeal to certify nationwide class actions and help enrich, frankly, the plaintiffs' trial bar. The Class Action Fairness Act actually promotes federalism concerns by helping ensure that magnet State court judges stop dictating national policies from their local courthouse steps. It will allow those cases that are truly justified class action lawsuits filed by trial lawyers who are filing them with the right intention to move forward and to obtain justice for their clients. This is why, when it comes to federalism, critics of this bill have it backwards. First, the bill does not change State substantive law. If an interstate class action based on violations of State law is removed to Federal court, the Federal court will simply apply the State law to resolve the case, just as the Federal courts do today in all ``diversity'' cases in the Federal court system. Critics attempting to argue that the bill is an affront to federalism are doing nothing more than attacking the fundamental concept of diversity jurisdiction, a concept enshrined in article II of the Constitution. Second, the cases that would be affected by the legislation are truly interstate in nature. They have a real Federal implication. When the Framers of the Constitution created the Federal courts, they thought that large interstate cases should be heard in Federal court. Interstate class actions often involve thousands of plaintiffs nationwide and multiple defendants from many States. They require the application of the laws of several States and seek hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. It is hard to imagine a better case for diversity jurisdiction. Third, this legislation has a narrow scope. Smaller cases that are truly local and cases involving State government defendants will all remain in State court. Fourth, the bill will stop magnet State courts from trampling on federalism principles by trying to dictate the substantive laws of other States in nationwide class actions. Too often magnet State courts take it upon themselves to decide important commercial issues for the entire country regardless of whether other States have reached different conclusions on the same issue. By allowing these cases to be heard in Federal court where the judges have been much more sensitive to differences in State laws and the need to balance various States' interests in a controversy, the Class Action Fairness Act will put an end to this troubling practice. Is this a perfect bill? It certainly isn't. It is not perfect but it does deal with a very complex issue. That is why it is difficult to reach out and obtain a perfect bill. However, by allowing this to move forward, the amendments that have now been filed, and other amendments that are being contemplated--and I have a couple of amendments myself that I may file to try to improve this bill--at the end of the day we need to make sure that lawyers representing individuals who have been damaged and are part of a class have the opportunity to seek justice; they have the opportunity to seek a fair result in their particular claim, whatever that claim may have arisen from. By the same token, the business community should have the opportunity also to expect fairness and to expect that at the end of the day their particular defense to the cause that has been filed will be justly dealt with. In sum, we have a bill with bipartisan support. Despite the misinformation being spread around, actually this bill will promote the proper assignment of class action cases between State court and Federal court dockets as was originally intended by the Framers. There is one other issue that has been raised that needs to be addressed. That is the issue relative to the potential this bill has to clog the Federal judicial system. That may be the case in some jurisdictions. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, if we see that does happen, it is our obligation as legislators to remove that backlog and to make sure we have enough judges in place to handle any volume of cases that may be filed in respective jurisdictions. We have always done that. We will continue to do that. I ask my colleagues to review this bill very carefully and to allow us to move forward today by voting in favor of the cloture motion, which will allow us to get the bill on the floor and have the debate, talk about the issues of fairness, and talk about the issues necessary to ensure that plaintiffs do get justice in cases where justice is deserved; but, by the same token, that there is some stability on the part of the business community where unjust cases are being filed against them. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the cloture motion. Let's move forward, have the debate. I will be one who agrees with a lot that is in the act and will probably have some questions about the act. I look forward to the debate and look forward to moving forward and to coming out with a good, fair, and just class action reform bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as I sat here and listened to my friend from Iowa once again bring up an issue to which we are all very sensitive, I can't help but respond that I have an entirely different outlook and opinion about what is going on with respect to this issue. Those of us who have been involved in the intelligence community, and as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I, too, am somewhat outraged that we have the so-called ``leak'' or disclosure of a CIA individual that occurred not too long ago. We have a process whereby this is to be handled. That process is working the way the process is designed to work. The White House was outraged about this, and the White House is moving very favorably and very aggressively towards resolving this issue. They are going to resolve the issue. The Justice Department is moving independent of the White House to get to the bottom of this. At some point in time a report is going to be made back to the Congress and to the American people, and we will find out what did happen. Again, there is a process to be followed under law. That process is going to allow us to get to the bottom of this in the way it should be. We don't need to be here banging political heads against the wall when the legal heads are the ones that need to be banged against the wall, and that is taking place.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, a mere 20 minutes from the steel and concrete economic dynamo that is modern Atlanta, you can find a quiet refuge where history and natural beauty still exist side by side. I speak of the area around Arabia Mountain which contains ecosystems home to endangered species, historic structures and archaeological sites. Its proximity to Atlanta makes it accessible to millions of Americans, but also puts it in danger of urban sprawl. No strip mall should obliterate the ancient soapstone quarry which attracted Native Americans over 5,000 years ago. Nor should overdevelopment mar Arabia Mountain, the granite outcropping at the center of the area. This region contains much pristine land, farmland, and the charming town of Lithonia. Lithonia, home to many fine buildings made of locally quarried granite, has a name which means ``stone city.'' The Arabia Mountain area still has a few farms from the days when it was the heart of Georgia's dairy industry, and has remnants of the 1820s Georgia Gold Rush which predated the more famous California Gold Rush by two decades. If we are serious about preserving this irreplaceable history and environment, we must act to designate Arabia Mountain in DeKalb County as a National Heritage Area. This designation will help preserve the endangered and rare species which live nearby and save historic buildings from the wrecking ball. It will also allow the kind of smart development which preserves our heritage while allowing the kind of development which will provide jobs and growth for this beautiful region. Arabia Mountain and its surrounding area are the result of over 400 million slow years of geological changes. Men have made an impact for the last 7,000 years. All this could be changed forever in another decade or so of uncontrolled growth. The need for this action has generated support from both sides of the aisle, in Georgia, and both houses of Congress. I thank Kelly Jordan, chair of the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance, Mayor Marcia Glenn, of Lithonia, Vernon Jones, CEO of DeKalb County, Mark Towe and Glen Culpepper who all have provided strong support to this effort. I also extend my thanks to Congresswomen Denise Majette, for working so hard for this designation, as well as my friend and senior Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, for supporting this designation. Vernon Jones, CEO of DeKalb County says: Nowhere in this great nation is a project more deserving of a National Heritage Area designation than this one. This began as a concept between conservationists, neighborhood activists, landowners and concerned citizens, and over the years has grown in scope to encompass some of the richest landscape Georgia has to offer. DeKalb County citizens voted to tax themselves to support this project. This local funding mechanism was absolutely critical to move this project forward. One visit to Arabia Mountain is all the proof anyone needs to demonstrate the great impact that may be achieved by diverse groups working together to preserve a truly significant natural heritage for future generations. He is right. Let us act now to preserve this spot for succeeded generations and designate Arabia Mountain as a National Heritage Area.