Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to Lorraine Johnson of Newnan, GA. Lorraine Johnson is an outstanding Georgia educator. Lorraine Johnson was recently honored and recognized as one of four finalists by President George W. Bush at the White House for the National Teacher of the Year award. Top notch teachers, like Lorraine Johnson, work day and night to make a difference to our Nation's young people as they prepare for their future. These are our true American heroes in our communities, in our States and in our Nation. As the husband of a retired teacher who spent 35 years in the classroom, I know first hand the deep commitment, tough challenges, and endless efforts that go along with being a dedicated teacher. There is no doubt about it: Lorraine Johnson is a dedicated educator. Lorraine Johnson teaches seventh grade language arts at Arnall Middle School in Newnan, GA. In my home State of Georgia, Lorraine's excellence is no secret. She was named Georgia's Teacher of the Year for 2003 for her remarkable efforts. It was a real honor and a privilege to share in a special White House ceremony praising Lorraine's hard work and dedication. President George W. Bush, U.S. Secretary of Education Rodney Paige and many other lawmakers also commended Lorraine Johnson for her accomplishments. Lorraine Johnson of Newnan, GA, is truly an outstanding educator. Not only is she an inspiration to Georgians, but she is an inspiration to all Americans.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have been sitting in my office today listening to the debate on this nomination, and I am really a little bit taken aback, as I was in the Judiciary Committee hearing when I heard the discussion about Mr. Sutton and the opposition to Mr. Sutton. It is not as though Mr. Sutton is not qualified to be a nominee to the Sixth Circuit. He is a gentleman who graduated first in his class from the Ohio State University Law School. He is a gentleman who has argued 12 cases before the United States Supreme Court, winning nine of them and only losing three. No Sixth Circuit judge currently serving has ever had as much Supreme Court experience before taking the bench. During the Supreme Court's 2000-2001 term, Mr. Sutton argued four cases and won four cases, the best win-loss record of any private lawyer in the country that year. On January 2, 2003, the American Lawyer named Mr. Sutton one of the 45 best lawyers in America under the age of 45. They did not say one of the best 45 conservative lawyers or federalist lawyers, but one of the best 45 lawyers in America under the age of 45. He is an eminently qualified man, and I am really appalled by the objections I am hearing. The critics who are trying to put various labels on Mr. Sutton, such as anti-Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-environment, based on positions that he has taken as an attorney advocate, really miss the whole point about the American adversarial and judicial system. Lawyers routinely adopt positions on behalf of their client as an advocate, positions to which they personally might not subscribe, but that is what makes our judicial system so great. It is the core of our legal system that people are entitled to have attorneys argue their cases for them. If we start to walk down the road where lawyers are accountable for any of the positions they take on behalf of their clients, then we might as well write off any criminal defense lawyer for judicial appointments because they routinely have to argue for some pretty unsavory characters. Our legal system would not be as great as it is without these attorney advocates fighting for and advancing the rights of their clients. As an example of this mislabeling, it is wrong to try to paint Jeffrey Sutton as someone who works against the interests of the disabled. In truth, he has actually worked as an advocate in cases where he represented disabled clients in advancing their rights. This man's father ran a home for disabled children where Jeffrey Sutton worked as a young man. Beverly Benson Long, who is the immediate past president of the World Federation for Mental Health, which is among one of many posts she has held, has said: No doubt that Mr. Sutton would rule fairly in all cases, including those involving persons with disabilities. Mrs. Long described the lobbying against Mr. Sutton by advocates of the disabled as unfortunate and misguided: In my own opinion, it is not only unfortunate and misguided, it is just plain wrong. There was also a quote in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which is really somewhat of an independent-thinking newspaper in our great country. An editorial which ran on June 17, 2001, compared Sutton to John Adams, who represented the British troops accused of perpetrating the Boston Massacre. The Plain Dealer said: It is the duty of a lawyer to represent to the best of his ability the interests of his clients. That, the record shows, Sutton has done throughout his career. A good judge, doing his job, will have but one abiding friend--the law he has sworn to uphold. Sutton's ability to honor that friendship should be the criterion of his consideration. In summary, one cannot deny Mr. Sutton has the intellectual abilities we need in our appellate judges. Moreover, he has tremendous experience, arguing before the State and Federal Courts of Appeal as well as before the United States Supreme Court. Finally, he has another quality we need in our appellate judges. The Attorney General of my home State, who is a dear friend of mine, is a man who is an elected Democrat, and he is a man for whom I have the utmost respect and a man who has had an occasion to work with Jeffrey Sutton. He said it best when he told me Mr. Sutton would have a great judicial temperament. So we have a nominee with intellect, with experience, and with temperament. We cannot ask for more than that in a judicial nominee, and yet his confirmation has been delayed because of partisan bickering. It is no wonder we are in a judicial crisis with so many open judicial seats unfilled. It is no wonder we are stalled in moving forward on other judicial nominees. Jeffrey Sutton is a highly qualified nominee for the appellate bench. Let us move forward. I strongly urge a vote to confirm Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Troops Phone Home Free Act introduced by my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. This legislation would allow troops who are on the front lines in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom to place phone calls to their loved ones without cost to them or their families. It would provide prepaid phone cards for the soldiers and provide more phones in the Middle East and in Afghanistan so our troops can have more flexibility to communicate with their families. This is an important measure not only for the morale of our brave men and women who are overseas fighting in a war but also to their families and loved ones who are sacrificing dearly for their country. There is nobody in this great body that we serve in who has a greater appreciation for a soldier to have the ability to pick up the phone and call his or her family than Senator McCain. I admire and respect him for his service to our country, and I am very pleased to be in support of his bill to make sure that every member of our Armed Forces serving in Iraq today, in Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, has the opportunity to communicate with their families. We think of our brave men and women and the great job they are doing--which they are and I am so proud of all of them--but we have to also remember they have families back home. They have friends and loved ones here who are making just as big a sacrifice as they are making by serving our country. I think it is only right and fair that we give them as many benefits as we possibly can, and this is simply one more way of saying we appreciate the great work they are doing. I also rise in support of S. 721, which is Senator Allen's bill to extend the combat zone where our men and women are serving. Again, from a Guard and Reserve standpoint, we are calling up these men and women on a much more regular basis today than ever before, and it is extremely important that we show support for all of our men and women serving in combat, active duty, Guard, and Reserve. This provides some equity in the payment to all of those men and women who are serving in combat in any part of the world to which they are called. So I do rise in strong support of Senator Allen's bill. I also rise to introduce legislation, along with my colleagues Senator McCain, Senator Graham of South Carolina as well as Senator Allen, that I believe will be a positive step in assisting commanders in the Reserve and the National Guard. The men and women who serve our country in the Reserve and National Guard make up a critical component of an All-Volunteer Force and have chosen to put their lives on the line for the freedom of their families and their country, and we thank them. We continue to be on our knees in prayer for their continued safety and for their families as they serve around the world. The legislation I bring to the floor today represents a small step in recognizing the sacrifices that specifically the commanding officers in the Reserve and the National Guard are making as we speak. This initiative will provide a well-deserved benefit to at least 500 reservists and 1,500 National Guardsmen. Currently, National Guard and Reserve commanders are not entitled to command responsibility pay, even though they serve in a similar capacity to their active duty counterparts. This bill will allow for an added benefit of $50 per month for junior officers, $100 a month for mid-level officers, and $150 a month for Guard and Reserve senior officers who serve as commanders. This pay will apply whether they are full-time wing commanders of a Reserve component airlift wing or whether they are serving as a commander in an inactive duty training capacity. The purpose of this bill is to create further equity between our active and Reserve components. The amount of money involved is relatively small, but this measure serves as a powerful symbol that we value the contribution and sacrifice of our citizen soldiers stationed around the world serving the United States of America and the cause of freedom. There is one special story about which I would like to speak very briefly. It is a story on the front page of virtually every major newspaper in America this morning. It is a story about CPT Chris Carter in the United States Army, a young captain from Watkinsville, GA, of whom I am so extremely proud, a story about Captain Carter who risked his life on a bridge over the Euphrates River, which was under siege, a bridge which they were seeking to have explosives removed from so we could take that bridge to make sure our troops ultimately got safely across the bridge. It is a story of CPT Chris Carter who, during the midst of a firefight, saw some innocent civilians, Iraqi civilians, crossing that bridge, coming over to the side he and his troops were on. He saw innocent civilians being caught in that firefight and one man being killed and a woman, an Iraqi woman, bleeding and pleading for help. Captain Carter got off of his vehicle, rushed to the bridge, behind his vehicle so that he could have some cover, until he got behind an iron post on that bridge. After he got behind the iron post on that bridge and under fierce fire coming from the other side, he risked his own life to go to that Iraqi woman and to pull her to safety and secure medication for her and ultimately have her transported to a medical facility where she is being treated. I am so proud of every one of our men and women who are fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom today. But it is men and women like Chris Carter of whom I am especially proud. He is not just a great Georgian, he is a great American and a great member of the United States Army. I had a great conversation with his father this morning. His father obviously is extremely proud of him. He is one of those young men who will be able to take advantage of these benefits we have been talking about here today, Senator McCain, Senator Allen, and myself. He is one of the young men who will be able to take that phone card under Senator McCain's bill and call home to his family to tell them exactly what did happen and let them have an opportunity to tell him how very proud of him they are. Again, I commend Senator McCain. I appreciate very much the strong support of Senator Allen and Senator Graham as we introduce these measures to try to make life a little more pleasant for our troops as they are separated from their families, and also to make sure their families have the opportunity to communicate with them, and have the financial resources to continue to provide for their families while they are serving in combat areas so that they can concentrate on doing the job they are sent to do and know that their families are being well taken care of, and know they are going to have the ability to communicate by telephone with their families on a regular basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave service men and women from Georgia who are serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Several weeks ago I had the privilege of being in Fort Stewart, GA, which is located in Hinesville, to visit with several hundred of our men and women preparing to leave as soon as we finished our visit to board an airplane headed for Kuwait. They are members of the 3rd Infantry Division, one of the more notable infantry divisions in the history of our great country. I swelled with pride as I had the opportunity to visit with those men and women who were so prepared, so well trained, and so well equipped to ensure that democracy and freedom continue to ring and to do what is necessary on their part to free the people of Iraq from the dreaded rule of Saddam Hussein. The 3rd Infantry Division is known as the ``Rock of the Marne.'' They fought bravely in World War I and they held their ground during the Battle of Marne when surrounding units retreated. Since then they have been operating under the motto ``we'll stay there.'' Their most famous soldier was one of the most decorated soldiers in the history of the United States, Audie Murphy. They have a proud history of serving in World War II, the Korean war, and Operation Desert Storm. Georgia and America can be proud of the history that the 3rd is making today in Iraq. Currently, there are over 7,000 tanks, humvees, Bradley armored vehicles, and trucks in theater. This is undoubtedly one of the largest convoys ever in the history of the United States Military. They are facing heavy resistance and fierce sandstorms, but because of their training and their preparation, thankfully they have suffered only light casualties. This morning, as we speak, the 3rd Infantry Division is less than 50 miles from Baghdad, preparing to encounter the elite Iraqi Republican Guard. Over the last 3 days, soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division have surrounded the city of Najaf and taken captive over 500 Iraqi soldiers in their effort to liberate the Iraqi people and overthrow the oppressive Iraqi regime. In addition to the 3rd Infantry Division, there are many other brave men and women deployed from Georgia to the Middle East and Afghanistan, including the 94th Airlift Wing from Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Atlanta; the 165th Airlift Wing from Savannah; the 4th Supply Battalion from the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, GA, which is near my home; the Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron from the Naval Air Station in Atlanta; the 221st Military Intelligence Battalion in Atlanta, from the Army Reserve, and the 116th Air Control Wing from Robins Air Force Base, who are very proud of flying the Joint Stars weapon system. I have had the privilege of representing Robins Air Force Base for the last 8 years as a Member of the House. I have flown with the Joint Stars about four times. They are so proud of the work they do, and justly so. They are the eyes of the Army when it comes to gathering intelligence on the enemy and its movement. Sadly, they are also prisoners of war and brave soldiers that have been killed and wounded in the line of duty from Georgia. Just this week, there was an Apache helicopter shot down. On that helicopter were two chief warrant officers, Rob Young from Lithia Springs, GA, and David Williams. Both of these men now are prisoners of war of the Iraqi Army. I had the opportunity to visit with Officer Young's father on Tuesday this week. He was obviously, like all of his family and all Americans, very concerned about the health and safety of his son. But he was so proud of the work that his son was doing and so proud that his son was doing exactly what he wanted to do. I share in that pride with his family. Killed in action in Iraq over the last couple of days have been Specialist Jamall R. Addison of the 507th Maintenance Company from Fort Bliss, TX, who is a resident of Roswell, GA; Specialist Gregory P. Sanders from Company B, 3rd Battalion of 69th Armor, stationed at Fort Stewart, GA. Unfortunately, also killed in the helicopter crash in Afghanistan over the last few days, they were flying a Pave Hawk search and rescue helicopter, 1LT Tamara Archuleta, SSgt Jason Hicks, MSgt Michael Maltz, SrA Jason Plite, LTC John Stein, and SSgt John Teal, all from Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, GA. We will be praying for them and their families in this time of hardship and sorrow. The men and women I have described are all part of the All-Volunteer Force that make up the best and brightest our country has to offer. They have chosen to put their lives on the line for the freedom of their families and their country, and we could never adequately express our gratitude for the sacrifice they and their families have made and will continue to make for the United States. I am proud of all of these young men and women. I salute them. We want to make sure they and their families know they continue to be in our prayers. We wish for immediate success and a safe return of all. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it does not seem like all that long ago that efforts were under way to reauthorize the 1996 farm bill. Many of you know that we spent over 2 years listening to ideas and formulating the model for this legislation. I am pleased that I was able to be a part of yet another farm bill that provides planting flexibility, price stability, and allows producers to receive a decent return on their investments. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is a balanced 6- year farm bill which met specified budget requirements and was adopted by Congress. The farm bill provides an adequate financial safety net in times when prices are depressed. This safety net allows crops to be priced competitively in the domestic and world markets. The farm bill is less than 1 year old. The United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, is still working to fully implement some of the remaining provisions. However, the actions taken by the distinguished Senator from Iowa during the markup of this budget resolution was an effort to unravel this carefully drafted legislation. I am referring to a provision that was adopted in the Senate Budget Committee which shifts the Senate Agriculture Committee's mandatory spending, totaling $1.4 billion, from agriculture programs, budget function 350, to the Conservation Security Program, budget function 300. I want to express my strong opposition to this provision as it negates the carefully crafted payment provision during the farm bill. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 contains specific limitations on program benefits and adds an adjusted gross income test that makes participants with substantial nonfarm income ineligible for program benefits. In addition, program participants are required to meet detailed eligibility requirements regarding contributions of management and/or labor requirements. My colleague's further efforts to make these limitations even more restrictive only adds additional transitional costs which producers must absorb and creates additional administrative costs for USDA. As a result of this provision, my distinguished colleague ultimately discriminates against southern crops which are more expensive to produce. Farms in the South tend to be larger than those in the Midwest and other areas of the country where the cost of production is much less. Further restrictions on payment limitations only hurt southern commodity producers. The farm bill has been debated in the Senate Agriculture Committee, passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President of the United States. This provision reopens the farm bill--the farm bill should not be reopened during the budget process--that results in bad farm policy. And it should not be reopened during the appropriations process--that results in bad farm policy. Therefore, I strongly oppose this provision in the Senate budget resolution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I, too, thank my colleagues, Senators Warner, Landrieu, and Durbin for their strong leadership on this issue. We now have a significant number of Guard and Reserve personnel who are in harm's way, protecting freedom and democracy. It is only right that we address some shortfalls in the way in which these folks are compensated. In addition to that, we have provided within this budget number for the ability of the authorizing committees to come back and purchase needed equipment from a hardware perspective, as well as to look after the families of our brave guardsmen and reservists. I think this is a good amendment. I echo what Senator Warner said. I hope we get 100 votes so we can send the right message to all our Guard and Reserve and Active duty personnel that we are concerned about them and we want to make sure we treat them fairly and equitably. This does so.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman very much for yielding time. To the Senator from Louisiana, let me say, I do not think there is anybody in this body who disagrees with you with respect to our need to look at some sort of modernization package--that is the way I refer to it--for our Guard and Reserve. I think when the Guard and Reserve were created decades ago, nobody ever anticipated they would be called to active duty as many times as they have been called over the last 10 years. We do need a modernization package. Now, the Senator from Louisiana has this amendment which applies to increasing hardware purchases for our Guard and Reserve. That is great. We need that, certainly. But there are some additional things I think we need to do immediately. We are not going to send anybody into harm's way--Active-Duty, Guard, or Reserve--who is not properly equipped. But we have families of those guardsmen and reservists who are at home now who need to be taken care of. For the Senator's information, I will tell you, we have a series of bills, some of which I think will reach the floor at the end of this week, in which we are going to be dealing with benefits, both from the standpoint of pay and additional benefits, such as commissary use, and any number of other benefits for the families of those individuals. Over the next several weeks, we are going to have, through the normal process, an additional benefits package, that is a modernization package, where we look at health care benefits, and where we look at long-term retirement benefits for our Guard and Reserve. Because, in my home State, we now have the 116th Guard Wing, the Air Control Wings at Robbins Air Force Base, where the Guard has been blended into the active force. Our Guard folks, today, as we sit here and speak, are flying the Joint Stars Airplane weapon system in Iraq. It is critically important that we continue to look after our Guard and Reserve. And I think there is an ongoing series of packages that are going to be coming forward that are more necessary at the present time than what the Senator from Louisiana is asking for here. But I look forward to working with the Senator to try to do that long term.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Without question. Nobody is going to be sent into harm's way without being properly equipped.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Clyde Taylor, a member of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of S. Con. Res. 23.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me add my appreciation to Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie for his terrific service to this great institution. I have been a Member here for not even 3 months now. Lloyd Ogilvie has added such great inspiration to my life. It has been a joy to get to know him and to have the opportunity to listen to him, to learn from him in our Bible study, to share our Wednesday morning prayer breakfast with him, and to have some private time with him. It has been a real joy, a privilege, and something that truly got my career in the Senate started in the right way. We are all here truly by the grace of God. There is nobody who understands the grace of God and is able to express it better than Lloyd Ogilvie. My wife is a very strong Christian, and the highlight of her week, when she is able to be up here, is the Tuesday Bible study that the spouses attend. Dr. Ogilvie exhibits that same inspiration to the spouses as he does to us. We will miss this guy. He is such a great man, a great spiritual leader, and a great American. What he and Mary Jane have been through over the last couple of years is an inspiration to all of us. It lets us know that good men suffer just like everybody else in the world, and Lloyd Ogilvie and Mary Jane have been through very difficult times. God has a place for all of us, and God truly has placed Lloyd and Mary Jane in the right place at the right time by sending him to the Senate. I told Lloyd this in the last Bible study he led last week. The first time I met him I was not a Member of the Senate. I was a Member of the House, and I attended the funeral of my close friend and Georgia colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. It was in a Methodist church in Atlanta. When they said that Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie, who I knew was a Presbyterian minister, was going to have the service, I said: Who is this guy? Why is he coming down to do my friend Paul's service? I told him the other day, I said: It didn't take but one sentence out of your mouth, Lloyd, to understand why you are where you are, that God had truly placed you in the right position. And what a terrific job he did for the Coverdell family and all of us at a very difficult time in the life of my State, the life of me personally, and certainly the life of the Coverdell family at that point in time. We obviously will keep Lloyd and Mary Jane in our thoughts and prayers every single day as they continue to go through difficult times. Mary Jane had a better day the other day. And when it was reported at the prayer breakfast on Wednesday morning, you could just see the light in the room brighten because we knew that Mary Jane was feeling better, which meant Lloyd was feeling better, which meant all of us were feeling better. We do cherish the moments we have with Lloyd. We thank him for his great service to our country and to this great institution. We wish him and Mary Jane Godspeed. They will continue to be in our prayers every single day.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate a distinguished member of the medical community in Georgia. Dr. James R. Gavin III, M.D., Ph.D. has accepted the offer to serve as president of the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta. Dr. Gavin's experience and expertise in the medical field is exemplary and offers a high standard of excellence for the student of Morehouse School of Medicine to model. In 1966, Dr. Gavin graduated from Livingstone College in Salisbury, NC with a degree in chemistry. He earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry from Emory University in 1970 and his M.D. degree from Duke University School of Medicine in 1975. On July 1, 2002, Dr. Gavin began work as President of Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, GA. Prior to his presidency, Dr. Gavin was the senior scientific officer at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and director of the HHMI--National Institutes of Health and Research Scholars Program. Prior to joining the senior staff of HHMI, he was on faculty at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center as a professor and as chief of the Diabetes Section, acting chief of the Section on Endocrinology, Metabolism and Hypertension, and William K. Warren Professor for Diabetes Studies. He previously served as associate professor of Medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. He was a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Public Health Services from 1971-73 and continues to serve in that capacity as a reserve officer. Among the many honors Dr. Gavin has received are the Daniel Hale Williams Award, the E.E. Just Award, the Herbert Nickens Award, the Daniel Savage Memorial Award, the Emory University Medal for Distinguished Achievement, the Banting Medal for Distinguished Service from the American Diabetes Association, the Distinguished Alumni Award from the Duke University School of Medicine, and the Internist of the Year from the National Medical Association. A committed husband and father, Dr. Gavin and his wife, Annie, have been married for 30 years and are blessed with two sons, Hakkim and Lamar. I am pleased to have someone of Dr. Gavin's caliber leading the students, faculty and staff of Morehouse School of Medicine. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Gavin and his family on his new position and wish him God's blessings in this exciting opportunity.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Clyde Taylor of my staff for today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for his leadership on this resolution and on this issue. Last night, the Liberty Bell of freedom and democracy began to ring again. Last night, the United States of America headed down a path of freeing the people of Iraq from the cruel dictator, Saddam Hussein. I don't know how long President Bush or Prime Minister Blair will be in office, but this has to be the most difficult decision that they have made or will ever make. But I commend them for their courage and their leadership. No one wants to see war. But there are times in our country, in the history of our country, when military conflict is necessary to ensure that America and Americans are safe and secure. I am very proud of all the Active Duty, Reserve and Guard personnel from my State who have been deployed from 8 of the 13 military installations in Georgia. We wish them Godspeed, a successful and quick victory, and wish that they come home safely, sound and soon. I am privileged to yield the remainder of my time to the only member of the Reserve serving in the Senate, my good friend from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, there have been several editorials written by newspapers in my State that are very critical of the Democrats for the obstructionist attitude and filibustering of this particular nomination of Miguel Estrada. One of those editorials was written by the Atlanta Constitution, which is extremely critical of the process the Democrats are going through tonight as they have for the last 3 weeks. The Atlanta Constitution is one of the most liberal papers in the United States of America.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. With respect to this issue of the memoranda that they have requested be produced by Mr. Estrada or by the Justice Department, I note that the Savannah Morning News in Savannah, GA, has written that the ``request is unprecedented''--that ``the Democratic leadership wants to continue trolling further and further from shore in a desperate attempt to find something--anything--they can hang an accusation on.'' They even write that perhaps they could subpoena a list of videotapes that Mr. Estrada rented as they did for Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Does the Senator from Utah agree that this is a true fishing expedition as he has previously alluded, and if the Democratic leadership doesn't like what they have so far they can still vote against Mr. Estrada?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am honored today to read George Washington's Farewell Address before the Senate. The tradition of reading this historical document was begun in 1893 and has continued each year with the exception of 1895. I am humbled to sign my name to the list of Senators who have been privileged to read the Farewell Address in observance of Washington's birthday, especially those from my home State of Georgia, Senators Augustus Bacon and Walter F. George. George Washington, the first President of the United States, was a legend in his own right by 1796, the year that the address was published. Americans knew Washington as the ``Father of our Country.'' He was chosen to serve two Presidential terms, and could easily have served a third term with tremendous support from his fellow countrymen. Washington was a man of high moral character and integrity. He was a farmer, a military general, and a strong political leader whose leadership helped shape the foundation of our Government by balancing a strong central authority with the union of States that held our fledgling Nation together. Washington's leadership earned him the well- deserved title, ``Father of our Country.'' After the President's death, Congressman Henry Lee, speaking on behalf of the House of Representatives, described him as ``the first in war, the first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.'' Washington's Farewell Address was printed in newspapers across the Nation to convey his decision of voluntary retirement. George Washington's retirement after serving two terms may not sound odd to us in this day and time, but we must remember that before Washington the only known entity to rule this country was the English monarchy. With Washington's voluntary retirement, a precedent was set regarding the Office of the President. A statement was made about this announcement, which was although the person who serves in the Office of the President may be disposable, the Office of the President will always be indispensable. This precedent was the fundamental difference between the European monarchy and the Office of the President of the United States of America. Over time many historians have interpreted different meanings from the address. Washington's Farewell Address was a communication to his fellow countrymen, I believe, to advise the country on how to sustain national unity and purpose with or without him as President. This fundamental advice has stood the test of time, and will do so, I am sure, for many generations to come. Interestingly, many of the maxims set forth in the address are still applicable today. Mr. CHAMBLISS, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address, as follows: The Farewell Address of President George Washington, September 19, 1796: To the people of the United States. Friends and Fellow Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience, in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and, every day, the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me, still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite movement that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint councils and joint efforts-- of common dangers, sufferings and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourself too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen, in the negotiation by the executive--and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate--of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such they are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances, in all times, have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.--But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions, that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country, that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable; liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of fraction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it in the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, forments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in governments of a monarchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume. It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that the public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachment for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity, or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation's subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealously, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity gilding with the appearances of virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealously to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel. Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world--so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that is must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have, at least, believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfuenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take--a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress, without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in support of the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I recognize that we are now in our ninth day of debate leading up to an ultimate vote on whether or not Miguel Estrada should be confirmed as the nominee of President George W. Bush to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As part of the debate on both sides of the aisle, there has been a continual question asked on this side of our friends by the other side who are in opposition to the appointment and confirmation of Mr. Estrada. That question has been: Give us a reason we should not have a vote on whether or not Mr. Estrada should be confirmed. I have great respect for the Senator from Massachusetts. He has certainly been a part of this institution for a long time. I listened very closely to his comments which I respect. And I respect his opinion and his right to hold his opinion in opposition to Mr. Estrada. But I think what we have just heard for the last 20 minutes is very indicative of what we have heard for the last 9 days. And that is, there is no reason Mr. Estrada should not be confirmed. There have been reasons put forth from the other side, and every time one of those reasons has been put forth, the chairman of our committee, Senator Hatch, or someone else, has risen to refute that argument. What the other side has now done is, instead of concentrating on the argument in opposition to Mr. Estrada, they have gotten off extensively on to other issues. I go back to the same question we have asked: Why do we not vote on Mr. Estrada? What is the reason you have that Mr. Estrada should not be confirmed as President Bush's nominee to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia? There has been a lot of debate about what was said and the opinion that came out of the conversation between Mr. Estrada and the Hispanic Caucus over on the House side. Let me tell you about some of the folks in the Hispanic community who have come out in support of the nomination of Mr. Estrada: The League of United Latin American Citizens, which is the Nation's oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization, has come out in support of the nomination and confirmation of Mr. Estrada; the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; the Hispanic National Bar Association; the Hispanic Business Roundtable; the Latino Coalition; the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses; the Mexican American Grocers Association; the Phoenix Construction Services; the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City; the Hispanic Engineers Business Corporation; the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces; Casa Del Sinaloense; the Republican National Hispanic Assembly; Hispanic Contractors of America, Inc., and Charo Community Development Corporation--a long and distinguished list of Hispanic entities that have come out in strong support of the nomination and confirmation of Miguel Estrada. Let me go further and quote from statements from some individuals who are involved in some of these organizations. The League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization--the president of that organization is a gentleman named Dovalina. Here is what he says about Miguel Estrada: On behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation's oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization, I write to express our strong support for the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. . . .Few Hispanic attorneys have as strong educational credentials as Mr. Estrada, who graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy in the United States Supreme Court, making him one of a handful of Hispanic attorneys to have had this opportunity. He is truly one of the rising stars in the Hispanic community and a role model for our youth. The Latino Coalition, of which the president is, Mr. Robert Deposada--here is what he said about Mr. Estrada: To deny Latino's, the nation's largest minority, the opportunity to have one of our own serve on this court in our nation's capital is unforgivable. The president of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Elizabeth Lisboa-Farrow, stated: We unanimously endorse this nominee and strongly urge you to move on the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. As a judge, he will be a credit to the federal judiciary, the President, Hispanics, and all Americans. That emphasizes something I said on the floor a few days ago. There has been a lot of debate about Mr. Estrada being a Latino. Mr. Estrada is a Latino. I am sure he is very proud of that. But the thing I like about Mr. Estrada is that he is qualified to be appointed to the Circuit Court for the DC Circuit. He is qualified because he is an intellectual. He is bright. His record proves that. He is a world class lawyer who happens to be a Latino. This man needs to be appointed and confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals because he is a good lawyer. Even more than that, he is an outstanding lawyer. The president of the Hispanic National Bar Association, Mr. Rafael Santiago, stated as follows: The Hispanic National Bar Association, national voice of over 25,000 Hispanic lawyers in the United States, issues its endorsement. . . .Mr. Estrada's confirmation will break new ground for Hispanics in the judiciary. The time has come to move on Mr. Estrada's nomination. I urge the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to schedule a hearing on Mr. Estrada's nomination and the U.S. Senate to bring this highly qualified nominee to a vote. Mr. Henry T. Wilfong, Jr., president of the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses, stated as follows, in a letter to Senator Leahy on July 12, 2001: The [National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses] would like to add our support . . . for Miguel Estrada's nomination as United States Court of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Estrada is a brilliantly talented and accomplished attorney who will make an outstanding addition to the prestigious DC Circuit. . . .While we do not dwell on symbolism, we feel that Mr. Estrada's appointment as the first Hispanic member of the DC Circuit will be of benefit to us in further illustrating the wide range of talent in the minority communities, just wanting to be effectively and fully used. Well, I could go on quoting comments from other members of the Hispanic organizations around the country. All of the major Hispanic organizations have said this man needs to be confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He needs to be confirmed, yes, because we are proud of him as a Latino, but he needs to be confirmed because he is one of America's outstanding lawyers. Now, some of the criticism that has been directed at Mr. Estrada has been for totally unfounded reasons. I wish to talk about a couple of those. I wasn't here back in September of 2002, when the hearing of Mr. Estrada was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But at that point in time, the Judiciary Committee was controlled by the Democrats. The chairman of that committee was Senator Leahy, who I have come to know. He is a very fair man. He is a very strong advocate for his beliefs. But I have seen him operate within the Judiciary Committee, and I know him to be a person who is very deliberate in the way he presents himself on that committee. So I have no doubt that at the time of Mr. Estrada's hearing in September of last year, Mr. Estrada was treated very fairly and was given due accord. One of the criticisms that has been repeated today is the fact Mr. Estrada, during the course of that hearing, in September of last year, was that he was nonresponsive to questions that were presented. Under the leadership of Senator Leahy, the hearing began at around 10 o'clock in the morning. I am told it lasted until 5:30 in the evening; and although there were few district court nominees who were also testifying at that hearing, the great bulk of the time was given to Mr. Estrada. That is the case, as I have seen it, over the last several weeks since I was elected and sworn in as a Member of this body and appointed to the Judiciary Committee. After the hearing, every member of the Judiciary Committee was given an opportunity not just to ask every question they wanted to ask, but if they weren't satisfied with the answers they received, whether it was what they wanted to hear or not, they had the opportunity to ask that Mr. Estrada come back for another series of questions. But they did not do so. He was not asked to come back and appear before the Judiciary Committee again. In addition to that, at every hearing we have on judicial nominees-- and I know this to have been the case last year under the direction of Senator Leahy--every member of the Judiciary Committee has the opportunity to submit written questions to every nominee who has their confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. So if there was any member of that committee who was not satisfied with the answers they received, or wanted a written answer in addition to the verbal answer that was given that day, or if they didn't feel as if the nominee was being totally forthcoming, they could ask the question again and get an answer in writing. After the hearing of Mr. Estrada before the Judiciary Committee, only two Democratic Senators submitted written questions. Some of those folks who are on the other side of the aisle, over the last 9 days who have been complaining the loudest about not knowing enough about Mr. Estrada, did not submit any written questions at all. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Is that the way this body ought to function with respect to the confirmation of our judicial nominees? I don't think so. I don't think that is the way our Founding Fathers intended this body to operate. Let me look at another couple of objections that have been raised by the other side with respect to Mr. Estrada. There has been an issue regarding the fact that he has no judicial experience and, therefore, he should not be confirmed. Well, let me say that if that were the case, if experience in an area in our line of work, politics, was a requirement to be elected, I never would have been elected to the House of Representatives where I gained experience before I was elected to the Senate. I had never run for political office before. You know what? I brought a lot of assets to the House of Representatives because I was not involved in politics before. I had about 72 other Republican classmates in my class in 1994. Some of them had been involved in politics. The one common thread we all had was that we came from a business background. Most of us have had to meet a payroll, and we knew and understood about business and about balancing budgets. And one of the focuses of the class of 1994 in the House of Representatives was to move forward to balance the budget of this country, which had not been balanced for decades prior to that election. We achieved that. We achieved it because we knew and understood that is what was required of families in America who sit around their kitchen table every single month, and it was only right to ask Congress to do that. That is the kind of lack of political experience that my class had when we were elected in 1994. For the contention to be made that Mr. Estrada has no judicial experience and that is why he ought not to be confirmed, I think is just ludicrous. I think because he lacks judicial experience, that may be an asset. There have been some pretty significant judges appointed to the bench who did not have judicial experience. Byron White, nominated by President Kennedy, and William Rehnquist, currently Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had no judicial experience when they were appointed to the court. Of the eight judges who are today serving as members of the same court to which we seek to have Mr. Estrada nominated, five had no previous judicial experience at the time they were nominated and confirmed by this body. I don't know whether the same objection was raised then or not, but if it was, it has obviously been proven that it was not a valid objection. There has been an allegation that the administration has refused to produce memoranda that Mr. Estrada wrote as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. Mr. Estrada was Assistant to the Solicitor General both in the Clinton administration as well as in the Bush administration. There is just a wealth of knowledge that he gained by virtue of the fact that he worked for the Government in addition to serving in the private sector as a lawyer. But while he was in the Solicitor General's Office, sure, he did what his boss told him to do. If it required research and giving his boss a memorandum on a particular issue, he did what he was told to do and, obviously, did it in a very efficient manner, because every single living Solicitor General has come forward, including those for whom Mr. Estrada worked, and has said that it would be improper for the Justice Department to produce the memoranda that Mr. Estrada worked on and provided to his boss. And also, the Solicitor General for whom he worked, both in the Clinton administration as well as in the Bush administration, have both talked about how highly qualified and how competent this individual is. For an objection to be made that he failed to produce memoranda that the Justice Department says would not be proper to present, and that Republican and Democratic Solicitor Generals say would not be proper for the Justice Department to present, I think totally negates any argument about the fact that those memoranda have not been produced. I could go on and on about the issues relative to Mr. Estrada's nomination that had been presented by the other side. I repeat, every time one of those issues has been raised, Chairman Hatch or some other member on this side has totally refuted that argument. I go back to the point of why are we here? Why are we, 100 Members of this body, here? We are here to do the people's work. We are here to do what is in the best interest, not just of our constituents, but in the case of judges, we are required--and I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, we ought not be a rubberstamp. But we have a process we go through to nominate and confirm judges. We ought to have full, open, and free debate on each and every one of those nominees, and we have done that. We are here to do the work of the people of the United States of America. The people of the United States of America elected us to have full, free, and open debate on judges, as well as the many other issues with which we have to deal. We have done that. We have had 9 days of debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada. It is time now that we do what the people elected us to do, and that is to vote. If a Member thinks he ought not be confirmed, vote against him. I think he ought to be confirmed because he is well qualified and his time to go to the Federal bench has come. I am going to vote to confirm him. Because we are here as elected officials and because we have a duty to represent not just the people who sent us but the people of America when it comes to the confirmation of judges, we owe those people who sent us here and the people all across America a response to that obligation. We should move this nomination forward to a vote. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I don't think I will take my full 3 minutes. I just want to rise and say that while, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for the omnibus bill, I am really disappointed with the agriculture disaster portion in this omnibus bill. On the Senate side, we debated and discussed this issue at length. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who is also chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, I thought did an excellent job of putting together a package that accomplishes the goal of getting funds immediately in the hands of farmers all across America. My farmers have had 5 rough years back to back, and they need money now. Under the provisions that came out of the conference committee, which was basically the House provision, farmers across America are not going to be getting funds until probably August, September, or October. Farmers are going to be out of business if they don't get relief now. To pass this provision in this bill I think is the wrong approach. I don't like that provision in the bill. I do support it. I know the chairman had a very difficult time with this particular issue as well as other issues, but I think that is wrong and I wanted to register my objection. I yield back my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I concur with everything just stated by Senator Thomas. We have been debating this nomination, now, for over a week. As a new Member of this body, and as a new member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have a difficult time understanding, as a lawyer, why the delay when you have an individual who has the qualifications this man has, who has the legal background this man has, who has the legal training this man has--both from an educational standpoint as well as a practical standpoint, having practiced law. He clerked for a judge. He was involved with the Government side of practicing law, being in the Solicitor General's Office. He argued cases at the appellate level, at every appellate level all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been very successful at every level in his judicial career. Why, just from a purely legal standpoint, we have not already moved to a vote on this man is just beyond me. But it goes a little further than that. Miguel Estrada is a true success story. He is a man who, if anybody ever lived the American dream, is living it. He is a man who, at 17 years of age, came to the United States from Honduras speaking very little English. He is a man who was not self-taught but who entered the educational system in this country and took advantage of that educational system, just the way all Americans subscribe to do. This man not only had a great academic record but he went on to law school at Harvard University and was editor in chief of the Law Review. As a law school student at the University of Tennessee--where the Presiding Officer formerly served as president--I did not make the Law Review. I worked hard, but I didn't quite get there. But here is a man who achieved great success. Anybody who is editor in chief of the Law Review at any school of law is the most outstanding student in his class at that law school--in almost every situation. Miguel Estrada achieved that pinnacle in his education career. He then went on to clerk for a judge, and not just any judge, he clerked for a judge at a very high level. Then, as I said, he went to work for the Federal Government, as an assistant to the Solicitor General, not just in a Republican administration but also in the Clinton administration. So he is not a judge who should be perceived in any way as an activist, particularly a conservative activist. I don't look at other graduates of this great institution, graduates from Harvard, who are particular activists. They are good solid citizens, but they are not conservative activists, certainly. To perceive Miguel Estrada as an activist--I have heard him so characterized--certainly doesn't fit the man when you look at his background. I want to highlight a few things about Miguel Estrada. He is truly an American success story who represents the mainstream of American law and American values. He came to this country, at age 17, an immigrant from Honduras, speaking very little English. He has risen to the top of his profession, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Federal prosecutor in New York, Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States for 1 year in the Bush administration and for 4 years in the Clinton administration, and leading appellate lawyer at a national law firm. Miguel Estrada has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including 1 case in which he represented a death row inmate pro bono. He has strong bipartisan support from prominent Democrats, including many high-ranking officials in the Clinton administration such as Ron Klain, Seth Waxman, Bob Litt, and Randy Moss. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Miguel Estrada well- qualified. That is its highest possible ranking. Miguel Estrada has strong support in the Hispanic community, including from LULAC, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other Hispanic organizations. This is truly a very historic appointment. If confirmed, Estrada would be the first Hispanic ever to serve on the DC Circuit Court. Many consider the DC Circuit Court to be the second most important Federal court in America. Miguel Estrada's nomination has been pending now since May 9, 2001. We should bring this nomination to the floor of this body and let it go for an up-or-down vote. Those who have been very vocal and emotional and very passionate, pleading against the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, will have their day. They can vote no. But this man, and America, deserves to have a vote on this very well qualified lawyer, and a very well qualified man. Those of us who believe strongly that Miguel Estrada should be confirmed will also have our day. We will have our opportunity to stand up and say: You have earned this, Mr. Estrada. You have earned the right, not just to have your nomination brought to the floor of the Senate, but we think you have earned the right to be confirmed to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. You have been here in America for now over 25 years. We think you have worked hard to achieve the educational benefits that have been afforded to you. We think you have worked hard to come from a very lowly--not necessarily menial background, because I don't know all the details of his background, but I know Honduras is a very poor country. I know he started out with a very rough, hard life before he came to America--and probably for awhile after he got here. But he has taken advantage of the opportunities that were presented to him, the same opportunities that everybody in this body has had over the years, to achieve an education and a profession in America-- America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. This man chose to come to our country and abide by all of the laws, take advantage of the opportunities that were afforded to him, and he has done that. He has achieved great success. Everybody who has written in support of him and from the standpoint of folks who have worked with him, both Republicans and Democrats, have said two things consistently about this man. First, from an intellectual standpoint, he is second to none. He has all of the intellect necessary that would be required of any member of the bench. The second thing that has been said about him by every individual Republican or Democrat that has written and who he worked for is that this man is one of the hardest working men and one of the most dedicated men they have ever had in their employment. That is true, irrespective of whether it is the law firm in which he has worked, whether it is the judges he has clerked for, or whether it is the individuals in the Office of the Solicitor General for whom he worked. They have been very consistent in stating that this man deserves to be confirmed by this body. We have just had another hearing this morning on another set of judges before the Judiciary Committee. I went to the meeting this morning with the idea that we were going to vote out a minimum of three judges who have been appointed by President Bush for circuit courts in different parts of the country. When I got to that meeting today, it became very obvious that the same folks who are opposing Miguel Estrada's confirmation on the floor of the Senate did not want those nominees to be voted out of the Judiciary Committee today. We did, in fact, wind up voting out 1 nominee, but we left on the table probably 8, 9, or 10 other judges who should have been voted out. There was no reason not to vote those judges out. But once again, it was a dilatory tactic being imposed on the judicial system in this country by the same folks who are now opposing Miguel Estrada within the Judiciary Committee who decided we should not vote those nominees out. I just do not think that is right. I don't think that is the real system that our forefathers intended us to operate under when it comes to the appointment of judges to the Federal bench in this country. I say in closing that I am overwhelmed by the opportunity to serve the people of my State in this great institution. I am in awe of the individuals with whom I serve here on both sides of the aisle who I know are very passionate. They are here for the same reason I am here; and that is, to make America a better place for us and for our children to live. But I don't understand sometimes why we take issues such as the confirmation of Miguel Estrada and delay and delay and delay and obstruct and obstruct and obstruct at a time in the history of our country when we are fighting to win the war on terrorism--when we are literally under siege. If you go outside today on the streets of Washington, DC, you see police cars on virtually every corner with their lights flashing indicating they are on high alert. At a time in the history of our country when we are on the brink of possibly going to war and putting young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America in harm's way, I just don't understand. And the people who are calling my office don't understand why we are not dealing with issues of that nature instead of seeing the obstructionist attitude that is taking place on the floor of the Senate. I certainly hope we are able to conclude this debate which has been long lasting now for over a week. There has been much said on both sides of the aisle about this man. I think it is time to bring the nomination of Miguel Estrada to a vote. Let those folks who have been vocal and have been emotional cast their vote in the way they think is proper and let those of us who believe--I think a majority of us do believe--he is qualified and he ought to be confirmed have a vote to confirm Miguel Estrada to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the Senator will continue to yield, is it not true he did serve as a Solicitor General in the Clinton administration for several years, advising that administration the same as Republican administrations?