Elizabeth Dole

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I am speaking today to offer my unconditional support for the nomination of Frank DeArmon Whitney to serve as a U.S. district judge in the Western District of North Carolina. Mr. Whitney has an impressive record of accomplishment and achievement, and he will make an outstanding judge. Frank Whitney has deep roots in North Carolina and in public service. He attended Wake Forest University and the business and law schools at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. After receiving his law degree with honors, Frank clerked on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for the Honorable David Sentelle. Upon completing his clerkship and a year in private legal practice, Frank returned to North Carolina and dedicated himself to public service. For nearly 11 years, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, where he acquired substantial trial experience--both criminal and civil--and earned the abiding respect of his colleagues and peers. In 2002, Frank was elevated to the post of U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. As a result of his leadership, energy, and enthusiasm, the Eastern District has experienced a period of robust and resounding success. Among his many accomplishments, Frank Whitney has supervised what has been called the most successful public corruption prosecution in North Carolina history. He also has helped prepare Iraqis for the process of drafting a constitution and establishing a judicial system. He has even recovered North Carolina's original copy of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which was stolen from the State capitol in 1865. His performance as U.S. attorney has elicited high praise. The Raleigh News & Observer credited Frank Whitney for awakening elected officials to the ``importance of ethics in government,'' and the newspaper attributed his incredible success to his ``restless mental and physical energy'' and ``Boy Scout idealism.'' Others who have had the opportunity to observe Frank's work have described him as determined, yet fair. Those who know Frank best--including those who have worked for him in the U.S. Attorney's Office--are effusive in their support for his nomination. One of Frank's colleagues made the following assessment: ``Frank is personable and gracious, yet knows the law and seeks justice. He has an abiding love for our country and is deeply committed to the principles that have made it great. He appreciates the historic separation of powers and understands judicial self-restraint. Frank possesses vast legal knowledge and demonstrates admirable judicial temperament.'' This description is consistent with everything that I know about Frank Whitney, and I submit to my colleagues that this is precisely the type of person we need on our Federal courts. There is another component of Frank's career that I must commend. That is his impressive record of military service, which began during his collegiate days at Wake Forest, where he participated in ROTC. Frank is presently a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves, and has worked as an intelligence officer and as a judge advocate. He has been awarded numerous military honors, including a Parachutist's Badge and three Meritorious Service Medals. Frank Whitney truly has dedicated his life to serving his country--as a civilian and as a soldier. Frank comes to the Senate floor with impeccable credentials and with the unanimous approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am confident that he will serve with great distinction as a member of the Federal judiciary, and it is my great privilege to give him my strongest endorsement. I implore my colleagues to confirm him.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Gerald R. Murray on the occasion of his retirement from the Air Force after 29 years of faithful and selfless service. Chief Murray grew up in Boiling Springs, NC, and entered the Air Force in October 1977. His background includes various duties in aircraft maintenance, and as a command chief master sergeant at wing, numbered Air Force, and major command levels. He served this great Nation in assignments in the States of Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Washington, Hawaii, Washington, DC, and also served overseas in Turkey, Japan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in support of operations Desert Storm and Southern Watch. As the 14th Chief Master Sergeant appointed to the highest noncommissioned officer position, Gerald R. Murray represents the highest enlisted level of leadership within the Air Force. He provided direction for the enlisted corps and represented their interests to the American public and to those in all levels of Government. He served as the personal adviser to the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force on all issues regarding the welfare, readiness, morale, and proper utilization and progress of the enlisted force. Chief Murray served our country with great responsibility, dedication, loyalty, and integrity. I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating him on his retirement, and I am proud to publicly commend him on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. I wish him every success in the years to come.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, for the past 3 years I have come to the Senate floor on National Hunger Awareness Day to help raise concerns about the far too prevalent problem of hunger, both here in the United States and around the world. In fact, as a freshman Senator, I delivered my maiden speech on this topic and have since made it one of my top priorities in the Senate. Two years ago on Hunger Awareness Day, Senators Smith, Durbin, Lincoln, and I launched the Senate Hunger Caucus, with the express purpose of providing a forum for Senators and staff to focus on national and international hunger and food insecurity issues. Today we have 37 Members dedicated to this cause. I have stated repeatedly that the battle against hunger can't be won in a matter of months or even a few years, but it is a victory that we can certainly claim if we continue to make the issue a top priority. It is truly astounding that 34 million of our fellow citizens go hungry or are living on the edge of hunger each and every day. In my home State of North Carolina, nearly 1 million of--our 8.6 million residents are dealing with hunger. Our state has faced significant economic hardship over the last few years, as once-thriving towns have been hit hard by the closing of textile mills and furniture factories. I know this story is not unlike so many others across the Nation. While many who have lost manufacturing jobs have been fortunate to find new employment in the changing climate of today's workforce, unfortunately having a steady income these days doesn't always guarantee a family three square meals a day. Our Nation is blessed to have many faith-based and other nonprofit service organizations that seek to address this need. Feeding the hungry is their mission field--groups such as the Society of St. Andrew, the only comprehensive program in North Carolina that gleans available produce from farms, and then packages, processes and transports excess food to feed the hungry. In 2005, the Society gleaned nearly 7.2 million pounds of food--or 21.5 million servings--just in North Carolina. Amazingly, it only costs about 2 cents a serving to glean and deliver this food to those in need. And all of this work is done by the hands of 13,000 volunteers and a tiny staff. The Society of St. Andrew has operations in 21 other States, and just last year, the organization saved 29.5 million pounds of fresh, nutritious produce and delivered 88.6 million servings to hungry families in the 48 contiguous States. We should be utilizing the practice of gleaning much more extensively today--considering that 96 billion pounds of good food--including that at the farm and retail level--is left over or thrown away in this country each year. Like any humanitarian endeavor, the gleaning system works because of cooperative efforts. Private organizations and individuals are doing a great job--but they are doing so with limited resources. It is up to us to make some changes on the public side and assist in leveraging scarce dollars to help feed the hungry. One of the single biggest concerns for gleaners is transportation-- how to actually get the food to those who need it. I am proud to say that with the help of organizations like the American Trucking Association, America's Second Harvest, and the Society of St. Andrew, we are taking steps to ease that concern. Last year, I reintroduced legislation, S. 283, which would change the Tax Code to give transportation companies incentives for volunteering trucks to transfer gleaned food. I am also proud to be an original co-sponsor of S. 1885, the so- called FEED Act, with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg and Lincoln. The basic idea behind this legislation is simple: Combine food rescue with job training programs, thus teaching unemployed and homeless adults the skills needed to work in the food service industry. It is astonishing that each year, approximately 20 percent of the food produced in this country never even reaches a consumer's table. With support from the FEED Act, community kitchens across our Nation have the potential to make good use of this food and to serve more than 2 million meals to those in need each year. In Charlotte, NC, the Community Culinary School is already recruiting students from social service agencies, homeless shelters, halfway houses and work release programs who rescue food from restaurants, grocers and wholesalers and then prepare nutritious meals, while receiving training for jobs in the food service industry. Hunger also affects far too many children in our Nation. In fact, an estimated 13 million children in America are dealing with hunger. This is a travesty that can and must be prevented. As we know, when children are hungry they can not learn, but the obvious way to ensure that these children have a hot meal--and therefore the potential to do well in school--is through the National School Lunch Program. It feeds more than 28 million children in 100,000 schools each day. While the program provides reduced price meals to students whose family income is below 130 percent of the poverty level, State and local school boards have informed me that many families struggle to pay this fee, and for some families, the fee is an insurmountable barrier to participation. That's why I am a strong supporter of legislation to eliminate the reduced price fee for these families and to harmonize the free income guideline with the WIC income guideline, which is 185 percent poverty. I am very proud that a five State pilot program to eliminate the reduced price fee was included in the reauthorization of Child Nutrition and WIC in 2004. And this year, 13 of my colleagues, including the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, have joined me to encourage the Appropriations Committee to include funding for this pilot program. I look forward to working with them on this important issue that truly has the potential to alleviate hunger for many American children and to help ensure their success in school. In closing, I implore our friends on both sides of the aisle--as well as the good people throughout our great country--to join us in this heartfelt mission--this grassroots network of compassion that transcends political ideology and provides hope and security not only for those in need today--but for future generations as well.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my great privilege to support Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., an outstanding choice for Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Alito is indeed one of the most qualified nominees to ever come before the Senate. He has excelled at every level--high school valedictorian--Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton--Yale Law School--Editor of the Yale Law Journal--Federal prosecutor--distinguished and esteemed judge. His judicial experience and record are vast. During his 15 years on the bench, Judge Alito has participated in more than 1,500 decisions. He has written more than 350 opinions on issues across the legal spectrum. Of the 109 men and women who have been chosen to serve this country on the Supreme Court, Judge Alito has spent more time on the Federal bench than all but four. And no nominee to the high court has come before this body in the last 70 years with as much Federal judicial experience. Judge Alito is precisely the type of person America needs on the Supreme Court. Yet, despite Judge Alito's obvious qualifications for this important post, some members of the other party have resorted to personal attacks in an effort to deny this good and honorable public servant confirmation by the Senate. They have questioned his integrity, questioned his commitment to equal rights, and mischaracterized his rulings from the bench. But in reality, the hostility towards Judge Alito has nothing to do with his integrity, his commitment to fairness, or even his view of executive power. Rather, these attacks are simply a pretext upon which to oppose Judge Alito's nomination. His critics' real fear is that he will refuse to rubber-stamp the agenda advanced by liberal interest groups. Make no mistake, they want Judge Alito--and the Supreme Court-- to undermine marriage, religious expression, and protection of the unborn. I do not know how Judge Alito will ultimately rule when confronted with difficult questions of law--and neither do my colleagues--because Judge Alito has rightly refused to prejudge cases that may come before him. But we can all take comfort in the principles that will guide his approach--respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, a commitment to hear all sides of an argument with an open-mind, impartiality and fairness to all parties, big or small, powerful or powerless. Judge Alito's judicial record and Senate testimony demonstrate an unwavering dedication to these principles. His colleagues on the bench and in the Justice Department, his clerks, and so many others who know him well, have testified that Samuel Alito is a man who will approach his job without bias. Like John Roberts, Samuel Alito understands that a Supreme Court justice should apply the law without regard to his personal views. I am confident that Judge Alito will bring this approach to the Court. Mr. President, there is no question that confirmation hearings can be long, stressful, and exhausting--not only for the nominees but for their families and friends as well. But in earlier days, a nominee with Samuel Alito's intellect, qualifications, and integrity would have been confirmed with overwhelming support. Indeed, the other side has not publicly ruled out the possibility of an attempted filibuster. I fear that this precedent will have a chilling effect--keeping our best and brightest from entering public service. The responsibility of the United States Senate to give advice and consent to a Supreme Court nominee is among the most significant given to us. It is vital to our Government's constitutional structure that the Senate discharge its duty by giving a Supreme Court nominee an up or down vote. And each Senator has ample resources upon which to make such a decision here. Judge Alito has a judicial record far surpassing that which has customarily been available to us when considering a nominee for the highest court in the land. He also has answered more questions during the course of his hearing than any Supreme Court nominee in recent memory. If any question existed about Samuel Alito's integrity, judicial temperament, or qualifications for the Supreme Court, it was put to rest before the Judiciary Committee. I ask that my fellow Senators therefore vote to confirm Samuel Alito as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, we are today at war--in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so many other places in the world, with an enemy who knows no borders. The recent bombings in Amman, Jordan during a wedding celebration are a strong reminder that terrorists know no limits to their ambitions and the means by which they would achieve those ambitions, however violent and horrific. Our dedicated American service men and women have answered a noble calling to defeat terrorism, taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so that we do not have to fight them here at home. The central battleground in the war on terror is Iraq. It has been just 3 years since Iraq was liberated from the brutal regime of an evil dictator, and in that time, we have made tremendous progress. A constitutional democracy is taking hold, and the Middle East is moving towards greater stability. It is integral to the continued progress in this region and to the overall war on terror that we not allow the cowardly acts of insurgents to derail our efforts. America must stand firm with the Iraqis and see that this danger is defeated and freedom prevails. Last January, the world watched as Iraqis voted for a new government. Rejecting intimidation and embracing the foundations of freedom, 8.5 million Iraqis went to the polls to vote in a free national election. Just last month, Iraqis returned to the polls once again for a referendum on a new constitution. This time, we saw significantly fewer insurgent attacks, with nearly 9.8 million Iraqis voting, and 79 percent supporting the approval of the new constitution. Iraqis have shown great courage by participating in the democratic process. They have walked for miles to the polls, stood in line for hours, and literally put their lives on the line to cast a vote for peace. Eighty- three-year-old Qadir Abdullah, seen here, made his way to the polls--on crutches. He said, ``I wish I were young. This is the first time in my life that I've voted freely in Iraq. When I was young, there were always wars and misery.'' After decades of tragedy, there is a new optimism, as shown by the willingness of Iraqis to step forward and vote for a brighter future. And the success of the referendum indeed is a powerful milestone on Iraq's road to democracy. In another sign of progress toward democracy, the Sunnis, who in large measure refused to even participate in the January elections, turned out in great numbers to vote in the constitutional referendum, exercising their right to engage in the democratic process. And in recent weeks, three major Sunni political groups have united to participate in the December 15 elections, in which Iraqis will elect a new national assembly to pass legislation and implement the constitution. And Iraq has seen tremendous progress toward freedom in the new public services, infrastructure, free press, economic activity, and legal institutions that are critical to the longterm success of this democracy. Over 3,400 public schools have been built; Hundreds of water and sewage projects, 149 new health facilities, and over 250 fire and police stations have been completed. Before the war, Iraq's media was tightly controlled by Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine. The country had no commercial TV or radio stations, and no independent newspapers or magazines. Today, Iraq has a thriving, competitive, free press, with 44 commercial TV stations, 72 commercial radio stations, and more than 100 independent newspapers and magazines. Iraqis can now make up their own minds, based on varying viewpoints in a marketplace of ideas, about the future of their new democracy. And another foundation of freedom is taking hold--Iraq is experiencing the beginnings of a competitive financial market, with a modernized Iraqi stock exchange. And Iraqis are for the first time experiencing the rule of law at work in their legal system, with an independent judiciary free to judge cases on their merits, not under the orders of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Ever more, Iraqis are seeing the insurgents for the thugs, thieves, and indiscriminate killers that they are. In just the past nine months, there has been an astonishing 500 percent increase in the number of tips regarding insurgents that Iraqi civilians are providing to security forces. Iraq is the central battleground in the war on terror. And yet despite the evident progress, some want to cut and run. They claim that our troops have simply done all that they can do, and that the United States should set arbitrary timelines for withdrawing our forces. Mr. President, I strongly disagree and believe that setting such a timeline would only embolden the terrorists and send the message that the United States has lost its resolve in the war on terror. This is the wrong message. Any timeline for withdrawal must be driven by success--not artificially tied to a calendar. This is not the first time in our history when cynics and skeptics have balked in the face of landmark challenges. A few years may have passed since I had the pleasure of serving President Ronald Reagan in his Cabinet, but I can still remember the naysayers attacking him for his fixed resolve in fighting the cold war. They questioned President Reagan's reasoning, they questioned his strategy, and they questioned America's chances of coming away victorious in a battle to free Russia and other countries from the grasp of communism. President Reagan rejected communism, he rejected the iron curtain, and he refused to concede that freedom would not prevail. While the Soviet Union was extending its influence and doctrine throughout the world, President Reagan, in the face of severe criticism, pursued a different vision. He knew that the enemy must be defeated, not tolerated. We now know he was right in his actions to bring an end to communism--millions were freed and that global threat no longer exists. Today, naysayers are at it again. Their droning doubt is all too familiar. Much of this defeatist criticism is being leveled by the very same people who, having access to the same intelligence as the president, agreed that Iraq posed a real and immediate threat. And these very same people supported going into Iraq to fight the war on terror. Now they want to throw up their hands and walk away before the job is done. No one ever said this would be easy, and mistakes have certainly been made. This is a war--and it is painful and horrific. Every life lost is one tragic loss too many. But we must ensure that their sacrifice was not in vain. We must honor our fallen heroes, heroes like Major Jeffrey Toczylowski, by completing the job they set out to do. Major Toczylowski, seen here, was a Special Forces detachment commander assigned to the 10th Special Forces Group. Two weeks ago in Anbar province, he made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. In his last email home to his family and friends, he wrote how they should respond if he were to lose his life in battle: And I quote: Don't ever think that you are defending me by slamming the global war on terrorism or the U.S. goals in that war. As far as I am concerned, we can send guys like me to go after them, or we can wait for them, to come back to us again. I died, doing something I believed in and have no regrets, except that I couldn't do more. What a powerful testament to the commitment of our service members fighting the war on terror. Just yesterday, we debated an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would have forced the administration to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. I am pleased the Senate rejected this proposal. The Frist-Warner amendment we accepted--79-19--sent a message--a forward-looking message--that we expect the Iraqis to continue their progress--and the Congress, in its oversight, will continue to receive reports on the progress being made. The timeline we should focus on is December l5 the election of a parliamentary government. The establishment of a constitutional democracy, coupled with the continued training of Iraqi security forces--now exceeding 210,000 personnel--will in time allow the Iraqis to defend themselves, and the United States to bring our troop levels down. Around the country, Iraqi forces are now overseeing 72 percent of security checkpoints and leading 43 percent of all combat patrols. Two Iraqi brigades have been assigned their own battle space in Baghdad in an area once a haven for insurgents. Freedom and democracy in Iraq are the terrorists' worst nightmare. They know what is at stake and try desperately to derail our success. In a letter intercepted last month from Bin Laden's deputy Zawahiri to al-Qaida's leader in Iraq--the terror network's plan was exposed: to expel the Americans from Iraq, establish radical Islamist authority in the country, and extend the terrorists' jihad into neighboring countries and around the world. They seek to destroy our very way of life. We cannot cut and run--we know all too well what is at stake in this global war against terror. To our men and women in uniform who are protecting our freedom and our security, I say thank you and God bless you. You make us so very proud. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Earl, Betsy, Meg, and Buddy Deal of Smokey Holler Tree Farm in Laurel Springs, NC, for winning the National Christmas Tree Association's 2005 National Christmas Tree Contest. As Grand Champions, the Deal family has the distinguished honor of providing this year's official White House Christmas tree. This is a storied tradition that began in 1966, and I applaud the Deal family for producing North Carolina's ninth official White House Christmas tree. After winning at the State level, the Deal family's prized 18\1/2\-foot Fraser fir was selected out of 22 other entries at the national competition. The tree was then approved by White House Chief Usher Gary Walters and Grounds Foreman Mike Lawn to be the Blue Room Christmas tree. The Deal family will have the honor of presenting the prized Blue Room tree to First Lady Laura Bush in a special ceremony at the White House on November 28, 2005. As an added bonus, the Deal family will provide a tree for the Oval Office and another tree for the private residence at the White House. This year's official White House Christmas tree is a fine example of the exceptional quality of Christmas trees that we have in North Carolina. North Carolina is one of the top producers of Christmas trees, providing roughly one out of every five Christmas trees in the United States, thereby contributing over $100 million annually to North Carolina's economy. But this success does not come easily; it takes several years of meticulous care and attention to raise a Christmas tree. An average 7-foot tree is about 10 years old, and throughout that time the grower diligently shapes, grooms, and fertilizes the tree several times per year. Not many people realize the years of hard work and sacrifice that go into raising a Christmas tree, and our growers are to be commended for their continuous success. North Carolina has a rich history in Christmas trees, and year after year, many American families enjoy the warmth and beauty of these North Carolina trees that are a symbol of the holiday season. I am proud of the hard work exhibited by our Christmas tree growers in North Carolina, and I am proud that there will be another North Carolina Christmas tree in the White House this year.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner and ranking Member Levin for their leadership in bringing the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill, S. 1042, to the floor and shepherding it through to final passage after months of unfortunate delays. Due to procedural limitations associated with the managers' amendment which included my amendments, it was impossible to have original cosponsors added. The following Senators are cosponsoring certain of my amendments: Senators Chafee and DeWine would like to cosponsor my amendment to provide for mental health counselors under TRICARE, S.A. 2456; Senators Nelson of Florida, Talent, Roberts and Harkin would like to cosponsor my amendment to require a report on predatory lending directed at members of the Armed Forces and their dependents, S.A. 2468.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, these are certainly challenging times for our Nation--particularly as we confront an ever-emboldened terrorist network that seeks to threaten civilized societies and destroy our way of life. The threats are very real and the stakes are very high. Thank God we have men and women who are answering the call of duty by proudly wearing the uniform of the United States and defending our homeland here and abroad. It is imperative that we continually show them and their families just how much we appreciate and honor their service and their sacrifice. This Defense authorization bill certainly provides for much needed programs that will increase readiness and quality of life for our military personnel, and I applaud our distinguished Armed Services chairman, John Warner, and Majority Leader Frist for moving this bill forward. I represent a strong military constituency in North Carolina, and I am delighted that this bill includes several of my proposals addressing critical areas of need. I will briefly highlight a few of them. One of my amendments makes mental health counseling more accessible for service members and their families. It allows certified and licensed mental health counselors to directly bill TRICARE without a physician's referral, in Under Served Areas--those areas where there is an insufficient availability of mental health care providers. It is estimated that over half of U.S. counties have no practicing psychiatrists, psychologists, or social workers. Mental health counselors can certainly help fill the void. The Department of Health and Human Services already has in place a loan repayment program to encourage mental health counselors to work in underserved areas. My amendment removes barriers for those counselors to serve our military members--especially the reservists and guardsmen who often live in rural areas. There is no question that when our military men and women are deployed and separated from their families, the emotional stress and trauma can be unimaginable. It is absolutely imperative that they have access to mental health services not only to mitigate potential long term affects like depression, violence or divorce--but also to ease the reintegration into their family, and society, following long deployments. Caring for our servicemembers' mental as well as physical health is critical in retaining quality forces for our nation's defense. In last year's Defense authorization bill, my effort to have marriage and family therapists added to the list of mental health care providers available under TRICARE was successful. But with the ongoing war on terror, the reality is that more needs to be done. Another area we must all be concerned about is the blatant targeting of servicemembers by predatory lenders. It is an egregious practice that must be stopped. Not only can these practices lead to a cycle of financial and professional suffering for individual servicemembers and their families, but they can also have serious ramifications for our military's operational readiness. Military conduct codes stress financial solvency, and a member with bad credit and mounting debt can face potentially career-ending disciplinary measures. Many young troops--like many young people across the country--do not have a cushion of savings to use in an emergency, and most are not educated in financial management. In this time of more frequent and extended deployments, servicemembers are faced with extra expenses due to preparing for deployments and family emergencies that can force them or their spouses to look to predatory lenders for short-term relief. My amendment on predatory lending practices has two components. First, it places the Senate on record acknowledging predatory lending practices. Second, it requires the Defense Department, in consultation with Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and representatives of military charity and consumer organizations, to report to Congress within 90 days on several matters: their current and planned programs to assess the prevalence of predatory lending and to educate servicemembers and their families; and second, their recommendations for specific legislative and administrative actions to prevent or eliminate predatory lending. The Army has identified personal financial issues as one of the most difficult problems facing military families. I couldn't agree more. This Defense authorization bill will get the ball rolling on some much- needed action, and I am very pleased to have the support of groups such as the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Responsible Lending, the Military Coalition, and the Fleet Reserve Association. Finally, another of my amendments directs that acquisition personnel receive training on the requirements and application of the Berry amendment. Implemented in 1941, the Berry amendment requires the Defense Department to give preference in procurement to domestically produced, manufactured, or home grown products. In my view, this is essential to supporting the businesses that supply our troops with the equipment they need to carry out their duties. I am pleased that each of these amendments has been included in this authorization bill. I believe they reaffirm the commitment of this Congress to our military personnel, to their families, and to our entire Nation.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. I thank the chairman for his work on this critical issue. office of men's health

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I first want to thank Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin for their diligent work on the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. Budgets are very tight these days and I appreciate how well the chairman and the ranking member were able to address so many of the important issues in this bill. With all of this in mind, I want to enter into a colloquy to clarify a key issue concerning this measure. Our Nation's community colleges are critical to our economy. So many men and women across our country have lost their jobs, and our traditional manufacturing industries have been hit especially hard. In the midst of this economic transition, community colleges have been a real beacon of hope. In North Carolina, for example, workforce development programs at Piedmont Tech and Forsyth Community College, are training former tobacco and textile workers for new, well-paying jobs in health care and biotechnology. Community colleges are leading the way training workers for the high growth, high demand jobs of the 21st century. I am so grateful, as I know the community colleges across the Nation are as well, for Chairman Specter's efforts to fully fund the President's request for Community-Based Job Training Grants in last year's appropriations process. Unfortunately, having reviewed the provisions contained in the House-passed Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, the Department of Labor and I are very concerned about the future of this program. The House bill designates $125 million in funding for fiscal year 2006 while at the same time rescinding $125 million of fiscal year 2005 funding for the program. This cuts the program in half for both fiscal years and dramatically reduces the number of dislocated workers our community colleges can train. Achieving the greatest possible funding amount for this program must be a top priority. I know that Senator Cornyn is strongly supporting increased funding for this program and I thank him for his efforts to help community colleges. The Community-Based Job Training Grant Program is providing much- needed funding for community colleges across our country and in my home State of North Carolina. Just last week, the Labor Department announced grants for 70 community colleges in 40 States, exhausting the $125 million pot of available money allocated for this program. Nationwide, 388 colleges applied for this funding, and in North Carolina, just one of the 16 applicants, Haywood Community College, was selected to receive this funding. We all know that grant programs are very competitive; still, this funding is clearly not coming close to meeting the needs of our community colleges. They are on the front lines, training workers and helping grow our economy, and we can and should do better to assist them in this endeavor. Can the chairman assure me of his commitment to the funding of this program for fiscal year 2006?

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I as deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He will most certainly be remembered as one of this Nation's greatest Chief Justices. During his 33 years of distinguished service on the High Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist served with tremendous wisdom, skill, and intellect. His legacy will be defined by his calm and steady leadership, his staunch defense of the constitution, and his support of an independent judiciary. Born into a modest home in the Midwest, Rehnquist enlisted in the Army at age 19 during World War II. He went on to have a very impressive academic career, earning bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from Stanford University. In 1950, Rehnquist received a master's degree in government from Harvard University. He later returned to Stanford Law School, where he graduated first in his class and served as the editor of the law review. After law school, Rehnquist served as a law clerk to Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. He then settled in Phoenix, AZ, with his wife Nancy, where he spent 20 years in successful private practice. In 1968, Rehnquist returned to Washington, DC, to serve as President Nixon's Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In 1972, William Rehnquist became the 100th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I expect we will hear much discussion in the coming years about the legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist. But I am confident that a significant part of his legacy, his strong leadership of the Court, will be unquestionable. President Bush said at Rehnquist's memorial service, ``He built consensus through openness and collegiality.'' Likewise, praise from so many of his colleagues and friends serve as a true testament to William Rehnquist's ability to treat people graciously and fairly, both from the bench and in his personal life. The praise for his professional life is certainly plentiful, but we know that most important to William Rehnquist was his family. He was greatly loved as a husband, father, grandfather, and uncle. His daughters Nancy and Janet joked that dating your father was completely underrated, after they had the pleasure of accompanying their father around Washington and on foreign trips after the death of their mother. He was a family man, first and foremost. Chief Justice Rehnquist deserves our praise and our tremendous gratitude for his dedicated service to this country. Our Nation mourns the passing of this great man. The significant contributions he made, personally and professionally, will certainly be remembered always.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, Judge John Roberts is indeed an outstanding choice to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. He is one of our Nation's top legal minds, and as the American public has learned, he is a man of great intelligence and skill who will serve our country with the same integrity that has been the hallmark of his professional career. In fact, it is hard to think of anyone who is more qualified to lead this Nation's High Court. Soon after graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review, Roberts clerked for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist--a man he learned much from and deeply admired for 25 years. He went on to work in various legal capacities in the Reagan administration and later went into private practice. Just 2 ago, the Senate confirmed Roberts for a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In his distinguished career, including his tenure as a government lawyer, Roberts has argued a remarkable 39 cases before the Supreme Court. The issues at the heart of these cases have spanned the legal spectrum--from healthcare law to Indian law, environmental law to labor law, and many, many other areas of the law as well. In his Senate confirmation hearings last week, John Roberts reinforced that he will be the kind of Chief Justice America needs and deserves. Undergoing hours upon hours of questioning, Judge Roberts maintained a steady, even temperament. He politely and respectfully answered more than 500 questions--and amazingly without much of a glance at notes. Most importantly, Judge Roberts revealed a great deal about how he views the judicial role. He emphasized that he is committed to the rule of law, not to his personal preferences or views. He emphasized his belief that judges are not politicians or legislators and that the role of a judge is limited. I wholeheartedly agree with Judge Roberts' assessment of the appropriate role of judges, and I am confident that he will strictly uphold the law and not attempt to legislate his own personal views from the bench. I can think of no vote more important, save a declaration of war, than giving advice and consent to a nominee for Chief Justice of the United States. This has been a fair process, and the Judiciary Committee held extensive and meaningful hearings. Over the course of the last week, the Senate has conducted a spirited debate on the qualifications of John Roberts to be the next Chief Justice. And today, we will give him an up or down vote. I am very pleased that my colleagues have proceeded expeditiously on the nomination of Judge Roberts, as it is of utmost importance that this nation's High Court have a new Chief Justice before the start of the Court's fall term. For many in this Chamber, today's vote will be the only time in their entire Senate careers that they provide advice and consent on a nominee to be Chief Justice. I commend my colleagues who have risen above the normal day-to-day politics of this institution. But still, there are some of you who question how Judge Roberts will vote on specific cases in the future. Others of you may also be swayed by the passions of partisans. But none have questioned Judge Robert's integrity. None have questioned his temperament. None have questioned his intellectual ability. And none have questioned his qualifications. These are the traditional measures the Senate has looked to when evaluating a judicial nomination of this importance. I would ask that my fellow Senators look to these time-tested standards and vote to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, Henry Mitnaul of the U.S. Air Force has served as the Military Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs for the past 2 years. As the principal military contact for the Directors of Legislative Liaison of the Services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, he played a critical role in ensuring that all defense-related legislative issues were addressed. During this period, Colonel Mitnaul dealt with congressional requests for information and the chief coordinator for military travel requests. Colonel Mitnaul's expertise and experience with the Department's Travel Program certainly made him into an invaluable asset to Congress, White House staff, and national security personnel. During his time in office, Colonel Mitnaul planned and coordinated over 650 congressional and White House travel requests. I understand that Colonel Mitnaul's proficiency in the congressional process helped him become an admired and respected member of the Military Assistant's office. His nature and professionalism served him well, as he capably worked alongside Members of Congress and congressional staffers, executive branch officials, and those in private sector organization. Colonel Mitnaul's accomplishments reflect highly upon himself, the U.S. Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I am proud that Colonel Henry Mitnaul is a fellow North Carolinian. I am grateful for his lengthy and distinguished career in public service, as I am for all who serve.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Lautenberg for bringing this project to the attention of the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. Approximately 900,000 Afghans suffer from diabetes and the subsequent complications that forever change an individual's life. Through the good work of the AMRF, the Ministry of Public Health has improved the quality of life for thousands of Afghanis by making diabetes education, prevention, and treatment a national priority.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the long-standing moratorium in place on oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf has protected our vital coastal areas from drilling. This moratorium has worked. Over the last quarter century, North Carolina's coast has become an increasingly popular destination. North Carolina's Outer Banks are world-famous for their beauty. The influx of tourists have brought much needed dollars and jobs and lifted up what previously were some of the poorest counties in the state. Today, however, our coastal communities and economies face a great threat--the provision that would allow individual states to ``opt out'' of the moratorium, and not just for exploration but for actual drilling off the coast. A State's decision to opt out of the moratorium and drill for oil would obviously affect its neighboring States. Water borders are not like land borders. Water actually knows no borders. It is fluid, continuously flowing and moving. An environmental hazard caused by drilling off the coast of one State would not be problematic for just that State. An oil spill would just keep spilling across these supposed ``borders,'' polluting the waters and beaches of neighbor States. This is just common sense. It would negatively impact water quality, fisheries, wildlife, tourism and local economies. As I stated Tuesday during another offshore drilling debate, drilling off our coast would endanger North Carolina's booming tourism industry, a true economic engine of my state. And exploration or drilling off neighboring coasts most certainly would disrupt the waters off North Carolina. We do not need to recite again the dangers of environmental damage that offshore drilling can cause--especially in an area known as the Graveyard of the Atlantic. Proponents of lifting the moratorium inadvertently make the point for me of how dangerous this is for our coastal environment. In the amendment we are considering right now, there is revenue sharing with the coastal communities in the states where drilling is allowed. And what is this revenue to be used for? I quote: ``(A) Projects and activities for the conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal areas, including wetland. (B) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife or natural resources.'' Restoring wetlands? Mitigation of damage to fish? Mr. President, North Carolinians want to spend time enjoying their beaches, not restoring them.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, as an editorial in the Charlotte Observer on March 31 of this year explains, a drilling accident threatens everything North Carolinians hold dear about the coast--the beaches, the ocean water, the thin fish and shell fish, the pelicans and pipers, the marsh grass and live oaks. Allowing drilling off the coast of the Carolinas, in an area of the Atlantic that has some of the roughest weather in the world, is foolish. I agree, indeed, it would be foolish. It is detrimental to those who live, work, and visit our coastal communities. It is detrimental to my entire State. In conclusion, let me wrap up quickly and say, once again, the majority of folks in North Carolina are opposed to this drilling. That is why I am again proud to be a strong voice for my State in fighting any effort to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE. I understand Senator Nelson is willing to yield 4 minutes of his time.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, since 1993 a moratorium has been in place on oil and gas exploration off the coast of North Carolina, thus protecting vital coastal areas from drilling. This moratorium has provided a much needed boost to our coastal economy and my entire State. Each year, thousands of families flock to North Carolina beaches to enjoy the sun, dip in the cool waters, and spend time with family and friends. Visitors provide much needed tourism dollars that create and sustain jobs. This moratorium has worked. Only 2 years ago, I helped lead the successful effort to stop an attempt to lift the moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the coast of North Carolina and many other States. Yet here we are, once again, confronting the same proposal to undermine the moratorium and open new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas development. I am proud to join a bipartisan group of my colleagues in offering an amendment to strike a provision in the Energy bill that exposes currently restricted environmentally sensitive coastal areas to oil and gas exploration. I especially thank my friend and colleague, Senator Mel Martinez, for his true leadership on this issue in his first year in the Senate. There is no question that now more than ever we must work to end our dependence on foreign oil. But we cannot do so by ignoring the wishes and economic needs of the majority of the people of North Carolina and many other coastal States that oppose this exploration. Exploring off our coast would endanger North Carolina's booming tourism industry, a true economic engine of my State. According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, tourism is one of North Carolina's largest industries, supporting nearly 183,000 jobs. Tourism remains strong despite declines in other important North Carolina industries, such as textiles, furniture manufacturing, and fiber optics. While nationwide the tourism volume increased by less than 1 percent after the tragedy of September 11, North Carolina saw a 3-percent increase in its visitors, a real testament to the draw of our coastal areas. Last year, some 49 million visitors traveled to North Carolina making it the eighth most popular State tourist destination in the country. Tourists spent $13.2 billion across the State, generating more than $1.1 billion in Federal revenue and over $1.1 billion in State and local tax revenue. We have been told not to worry, all their talking about is an inventory. But there are two problems with this argument. The experts say inventorying itself will damage these environmentally sensitive areas. And why would we inventory an area we do not plan to later drill? The proposed inventory would be harmful to marine habitat and the fishing industry because it requires seismic surveys involving repetitive explosions in the water that send loud acoustic pulses through the water and into the sea floor. Scientists are concerned that these sounds kill fish and disturb whales, causing whales to swim onto the beach and die. Advocates for an inventory label it solely as information gathering. But we already know where resources are located along our coast from data gathered by the Department of the Interior. Why, then, should our State be asked to risk environmental damage to our coastal areas for resources that are under moratoria and not even accessible for development? The potential physical price of exploration and subsequent drilling, polluted beaches, disrupted marine ecosystems, lost tourism, speaks to the heart of the issue. Any exploration off our coast is bad for tourism and is bad for North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes from Senator Nelson's time.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I am delighted to come to the floor today to congratulate Nathan Przestrzelski of Swannanoa, NC and Stephen Gordon of Fletcher, NC on being selected to present their award-winning history projects at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History and the Smithsonian American Art Museum in celebration of National History Day. For 25 years the National History Day Program has brought history to life for students across our country. By combining creativity with scholarship, students are finding a new appreciation for the past while developing valuable skills in writing and analytical reasoning. Most importantly, this program focuses on inspiring each child to reach his or her full potential, and in doing so provides a great service by increasing their confidence and ability to succeed. This year the National History Day Program asked students to present projects on the theme ``Communication in History: the Key to Understanding.'' Students were asked to explore the role communication plays in history and its significance in helping shape how historical changes have been understood. Let me share with you the two wonderful projects Nathan and Stephen presented. Nathan presented his exhibit entitled, ``The History of Spring Training: Communication is the Key to Understanding the Merger of Athletic Preparation with Market Magic.'' His project explores how baseball's spring training has grown from traditionally being a means for athletic preparation to today becoming a multi-million dollar industry expressed through business marketing. Nathan was able to incorporate his love of sports, his interest in business, and his appreciation of history to better understand how this tradition evolved over time. Stephen also presented his project, a documentary entitled, ``Telling Tales: The Appalachian Oral Tradition.'' His work depicts how the people of Appalachia have communicated ideas, history, heritage, and values through the use of nothing more than oral tradition. Stephen was able to trace stories from the mountains of North Carolina back over hundreds of years and show how fundamental concepts were passed from generation to generation. Through their hard work and dedication, these young historians show that discovering, understanding, and interpreting history is not only important, but exciting. Today is a proud day for Nathan, Stephen, and their families. We are proud of these student's hard work, dedication, and tremendous achievements. I believe passionately that education is the foundation for success, and I am encouraged to see students so active in the learning process. I hope Nathan and Stephen have enjoyed this experience and I wish them continued success in the years ahead.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, for the past two years I have come to the Senate floor on National Hunger Awareness Day to talk about the battle against hunger, both here in America and around the world. In fact, I reserved my maiden speech for this topic--one of my top priorities as a U.S. Senator. I have stated over and over again that the battle against hunger is one that can't be won in a matter of months or even a few years but it is a victory that we can claim if we continue to make the issue a priority. As Washington Post columnist David Broder said about hunger, ``America has some problems that seem to defy solution. This one does not. It just needs caring people and a caring government, working together.'' I could not agree more. Last year on Hunger Awareness Day, Senators Smith, Durbin, Lincoln, and I launched the Senate Hunger Caucus, with the express purpose of providing a bi-partisan forum for Senators and staff to engage each other on national and international hunger and food insecurity issues. By hosting briefings and disseminating information, the caucus has been striving to bring awareness to these issues, while at the same time finding ways to collaborate on legislation. I want to thank 34 of my colleagues for joining the Senate Hunger Caucus and their staffs for their diligent work. In addition, I am excited to see our friends in the House of Representatives start their own Hunger Caucus and I look forward to working with them as both houses of Congress continue to find solutions to eliminating hunger. It is truly astounding how so many of our fellow citizens go hungry or are living on the edge of hunger each and every day. Thirteen million of these hungry Americans are deemed to be children. As we know, when children are hungry they do not learn. This is a travesty that can and should be prevented. Currently over 90,000 schools and 28 million children participate each school day in the School Lunch Program. The children of families whose income levels are below 130 percent of poverty are eligible for free school meals and those families whose income levels are between 130 percent of poverty and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced price meals. Unfortunately, many State and local school boards have informed me that parents are finding it difficult to pay the reduced fee, and for some families the fee is an insurmountable barrier to participation. That is why I am a strong supporter of legislation to eliminate the reduced price fee and harmonize the free income guideline with the WIC income guideline. I am proud to say that a pilot program to eliminate the reduced price fee in up to five states was included in last year's reauthorization of Child Nutrition and WIC. I have encouraged the Appropriations Committee to include funding for this pilot program, and I look forward to working with them on this very important issue which touches so many families going through difficult times. In my home State of North Carolina, more than 900,000 of our 8.2 million residents are dealing with hunger, according to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our State has faced significant economic hardship over the last few years as once thriving towns have been hit hard by the closing of textile mills and furniture factories. And this story is not unlike so many others across the country. Many Americans who have lost their manufacturing jobs have been fortunate enough to find new employment in the changing climate of today's workforce. Simply being able to hold down job doesn't necessarily guarantee your family three square meals a day. But there are organizations who are addressing this need as a mission field. Groups like the Society of St. Andrew, the only comprehensive program in North Carolina that gleans available produce from farms, and then sorts, packages, processes, transports and delivers excess food to feed the hungry. In 2004, the Society gleaned more than 4.2 million pounds of food--or 12.8 million servings. Incredibly--it only costs one penny a serving to glean and deliver this food to those in need. And all of this work is done by the hands of the 9,200 volunteers and a tiny staff. Gleaning is a practice we should utilize much more extensively today. It's astounding that the most recent figures available indicate that approximately 96 billion pounds of good, nutritious food--including that at the farm and retail level--is left over or thrown away. A tomato farmer in western North Carolina sends 20,000 pounds of tomatoes to landfills each day during harvest season. This can't be good for the environment. In fact, food is the single largest component of our solid waste stream--more than yard trimmings or even newspaper. Some of it does decompose, but it often takes several years. Other food just sits in landfills, literally mummified. Putting this food to good use through gleaning will reduce the amount of waste going to our already overburdened landfills. And I am so appreciative of my friends at Environmental Defense for working closely with us on this issue. Like any humanitarian endeavor, the gleaning system works because of cooperative efforts. Clearly private organizations and individuals are doing a great job, but they are doing so with limited resources. It is up to us to make some changes on the public side and help leverage scarce dollars to feed the hungry. I continue to hear that transportation is the single biggest concern for gleaners. I am proud to say that with the help of organizations such as the American Trucking Association, the Society of Saint Andrew and America's Second Harvest, we are taking steps to ease that transportation concern. In February of this year, I reintroduced a bill that will change the tax code to give transportation companies tax incentives for volunteering trucks to transfer gleaned food. I am proud to have the support of my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Burr, Lugar, Alexander, Santorum, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Lincoln, original cosponsors, and I look forward to working with them on passage of this important bill. I am also privileged to work with Senators Lincoln and Lautenberg on a soon-to-be-introduced bill to provide up to $200,000 per fiscal year to eligible entities willing to carry out food rescue and job training. Entities like the Community Culinary School of Charlotte, a private, non-profit organization in my home State that provides training and job placement in the food service industry for people who are employed or underemployed. Here is how it works. The Community Culinary School recruits students from social service agencies, homeless shelters, halfway houses and work release programs. They then work in collaboration with food rescue agencies in the area to provide meals to homebound individuals and to local homeless shelters. The food they rescue is donated and picked up from restaurants, grocers and wholesalers. The students then prepare nutritious meals using the donated food while at the same time developing both culinary and life skills. Take a young lady from this program named Sibyl. After years of drugs, prisons and unplanned pregnancies, Sibyl entered the Community Culinary School of Charlotte. Her willingness and determination made her the top student of her class and she is today working full time as a chef. Or take Bobby, who also graduated from the program. Bobby went from unemployment and homelessness to becoming a top graduate, now working two jobs and living independently. Our bill is intended to complement these kinds of private efforts that support food rescue and job skills that can make the greatest impact on individual lives. In Deuteronomy 15:7, the Bible tells us, ``If there is among you a poor man, one of your brethren, in any of your towns within your land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother.'' So, as our fellow citizens in the private sector continue to be a giving people, let us find ways as public servants to once again harness the great public-private effort, and fight as one to end hunger in America. I again thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to build these partnerships. And I implore our friends on both sides of the aisle--as well as the good people throughout this great country--to join in this heartfelt mission--this grassroots network of compassion that transcends political ideology and will provide hope and security not only for those in need today--but for future generations as well. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

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

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, before I speak to the important principles at stake in this debate, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Majority Leader for doing everything in his power to avoid the impasse we face today. We have arrived at this moment in the Senate's history not because of a failure of effort, but because of a failure of cooperation. Over the past two years, Senator Frist and other members of the Republican leadership have made compromise an important objective. We have repeatedly offered to extend the period of debate on the President's judicial nominees. Fifty hours, 100 hours, have been offered--even 200 hours of debate on some of these nominees--all in an effort to ensure that our Democrat colleagues have sufficient time to raise and explain their concerns. Without exception, these offers to provide more time have been rejected out-of-hand. In May of 2003, Senator Frist and then-Senator Miller of Georgia introduced compromise legislation that would allow the filing of successive cloture motions on judicial nominees, with each motion requiring fewer votes for passage, and ultimately a simple majority. When it came time to consider this sensible legislation in the Rules Committee, my Democrat colleagues boycotted the mark-up. In April of 2004, the current Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, introduced legislation to help remove politics from the judicial confirmation process and ensure that nominees would be given a hearing, that they would be reported out of committee, and would receive a vote on the Senate floor. The Democrats reacted to this proposal with silence. Senator Frist has been in regular communication with Senator Reid, and on March 17 of this year, he formally wrote to Senator Reid expressing his hope that a compromise could be fashioned, and indicating that the constitutional option would only be exercised if there were no reasonable alternatives. And, on April 28, Majority Leader formally reached out again to Senator Reid, proposing to grant 100 hours of floor debate on each of the filibustered nominees--that's more than twice the time spent by the Senate debating any of the nominations of the current Supreme Court Justices. Senator Frist also proposed to develop a process to ensure that nominees are not bottled up in the Judiciary Committee, a complaint often made by my Democrat colleagues. Once again, this sincere effort at compromise was immediately rebuffed. So let the record be clear: The Majority Leader has pursued compromise with vigor, and he should be commended for doing so. But, of course, when compromise fails, action must take its place. We are here today because there are important principles at stake . . . principles that are worth defending. Does the President have the right to expect that his nominees to the Federal bench will be fully considered by the United States Senate? Does the Senate have a constitutional obligation to offer ``advice and consent'' on these nominations? And are judicial nominees entitled to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor? The answer, of course, to each of these questions is a resounding ``yes.'' For more than 214 years, judicial nominees with clear majority support have received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, with a majority vote leading to confirmation. Until just two years ago, a 60- vote supermajority was never the standard for confirmation to the Federal bench. Those are the facts. By blocking not one, but ten, of President Bush's judicial nominees through the inappropriate use of the filibuster, my Democrat colleagues are doing nothing less than setting Senate tradition on its head. They are rewriting the rules of the game while abandoning the custom of self-restraint that has enabled the Senate to function so effectively in the past. And three of these nominees have now withdrawn their names from consideration. To justify their actions, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us believe that filibustering judicial nominees is just business as usual. They specifically cite the nominations of Abe Fortas, Marsha Berzon, and Richard Paez as examples of Republican-led obstruction efforts. Justice Fortas, of course, lacked majority support when, in 1968, President Johnson withdrew his nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Today's filibuster victims, on the other hand, all have bipartisan, majority support . . . and are being permanently blocked despite this fact. Fortas' nomination was opposed not just by members of one party, as is the case today, but by Democrats and Republicans alike. And let's not forget: Justice Fortas' nomination was debated for just several days before President Johnson took action. Many of President Bush's nominees have been pending before the Senate not for days, but for years. I am not sure what citing the Berzon and Paez nominations proves, since both individuals were given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and both were ultimately confirmed. They are now sitting judges. In fact, the Majority Leader at the time--Trent Lott--worked to end debate on both nominations, believing then, as we do now, that judicial nominees deserve a vote on the Senate floor. So, what we are witnessing today is something wholly different: it is a highly organized obstruction campaign that is partisan in origin, unfair in its application, harmful to this institution, and unprecedented in our Nation's history. Now, let's take a moment to examine the record of the individual whose nomination is before the Senate today. Justice Priscilla Owen has been called everything from an ``extremist'' to a ``far-right partisan'' to someone who is ``out of the mainstream.'' But the simple fact is that Justice Owen's record is that of a distinguished jurist who enjoys broad support and who understands that her role is to apply the law fairly and impartially. Twice elected to the Texas Supreme Court after a long career as a litigator in a prominent Texas law firm, Justice Owen earned the highest score on the December 1977 Texas bar exam and ranked near the top of her class at the Baylor University School of Law. She has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the Texas State bar. An advocate for providing pro bono legal services to the poor, Owen also received a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, the highest rating given by that organization--I add, the ``gold standard'' for our Democrat friends. And in her last election to the Texas supreme court, Justice Owen earned a stunning 84% of the vote and was endorsed by every major newspaper in the Lone Star State. Justice Owen received her vote in Texas and she deserves her vote on the floor of the United States Senate. Mr. President, there is another important issue that must be raised beyond that of the rules and procedures of the Senate: It is the impact this episode in the Senate's history will have on the willingness of men and women of talent to serve their country by serving on the Federal bench. Millions of Americans have watched as the good reputation of Justice Owen has been unfairly tarnished. As have the reputations of Justice Janice Rogers Brown, and Judge Terrence Boyle, Miguel Estrada, and the other nominees. Their lives and careers have been reduced to partisan-- and wholly inaccurate--television sound bites with words like right- wing, radical, extremist. For those of either party contemplating future service on the Federal bench, this spectacle of unfairness must be chilling--chilling--a glowing ``proceed with caution'' signal, suggesting that other career options should be pursued instead. For the sake of the Federal courts in our country, we must do better. We can start by restoring the traditional standard for the confirmation of judicial nominees. Guaranteeing every nominee the opportunity of an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor will dramatically reduce the role of outside interest groups who see the filibuster as a way to exert pressure and score political points. It will force us to debate these nominees on the merits, with real arguments, not with politically convenient slogans and labels. And hopefully, it will help make an appointment to the Federal bench an attractive option for those young people out there who may be thinking about a career in service to the public. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, America has come a long way since the first State safety belt laws were passed two decades ago. I am speaking today not just as a proponent of reauthorizing the highway bill, but also to express my strong support for provisions in this bill designed to promote primary safety belt laws in the States. These laws help prevent fatalities and crippling, disabling injuries when auto accidents occur. As many of you know, primary safety belt laws allow police officers to stop and issue citations to motorists they observe who are not buckled up. Secondary safety belt laws, on the other hand, require a motorist be pulled over for another offense before he or she can be issued a ticket for failing to wear a safety belt. Today, 21 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have primary belt laws and we know these laws are working. I am proud that in my home State of North Carolina--our home State, Mr. President-- which enacted a seatbelt law in 1985, belt use rose to 86 percent in 2004. Let me review a little history. It was in July 1984, during my first full year as Secretary of Transportation under President Reagan, that we issued rule 208, resulting in the installation of airbags in passenger vehicles and the enactment of safety belt laws across the country. Rule 208 was designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. It successfully resolved a 17-year dispute that spanned four administrations. The rule recognized the role of the States in automotive safety. Not a single State at the time had passed a safety belt law. Usage was at only 13 percent, and airbags were virtually nonexistent. In fact, I remember having to search high and low to find an airbag-equipped car so I could put it on the White House lawn for President Reagan and the Cabinet to go out and examine. There was very little consumer acceptance at the time. Many folks feared when they crossed the railroad tracks that the airbag would go off. Today, motorists regard automotive safety quite differently. Most of us get in a car and we barely notice that the vehicle has an airbag. And most of us innately fasten our safety belts. Statistics prove we have made great progress increasing safety belt usage and saving lives on our Nation's roads since those first State safety belt laws were enacted. Now, over 20 years later, we need to urge more States to take their laws to the next level by enacting primary safety belt laws. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates if all States enacted primary safety belt laws, more than 1,200 deaths and 17,000 injuries would be prevented annually. I take this opportunity to thank the folks at NHTSA, and especially Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge, for their continued hard work and leadership to increase safety belt usage throughout our country. According to NHTSA estimates, in this year alone, 15,000 lives will be saved--15,000--by wearing safety belts. The economic costs associated with belt usage are significant as well. NHTSA estimates safety belt usage saves America $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury-related costs. By contrast, fatalities and injuries resulting from not wearing a safety belt generate $26 billion in economic costs annually. These costs include higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs. The fact is safety belts reduce the risk of death in a severe crash by 50 percent. We must urge folks to use their safety belts. Increased usage rates and primary belt laws have a proven track record of doing just that. With this legislation, States that chose to adopt primary safety belt laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary safety belt laws would receive 250 percent of the 2003 level in highway safety money. At the end of the bill's reauthorization in 2009, any leftover safety funds will be distributed to States that have enacted primary belt laws. With this increased funding, States can spend more on highway safety improvements and make our roads even safer. NHTSA Administrator Runge best described the importance of safety belt usage in April of this year, when he told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee: Unlike a number of complex issues facing the Nation today, we have at least one highly effective and simple remedy to combat highway deaths and fatalities. Wearing safety belts is the single most effective step individuals can take to save their lives. Buckling up is not a complex vaccine, doesn't have unwanted side effects, and doesn't cost any money. It is simple, it works, and it is lifesaving. I could not agree more. After two successful decades of State- implemented belt laws, it is now time for this Nation to further improve safety on our Nation's roads. We have accomplished many things to advance automobile and road safety over the last 20 years, and now we must act on this opportunity to do even more. I ask unanimous consent that NHTSA Administrator Runge's letter to me on this matter be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my privilege to support Jim Dever for a seat on the U.S. district court in Eastern North Carolina. This seat has been vacant for 6 years and is considered a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference. In fact, a vote for Jim Dever will end the longest district court vacancy in the United States. Jim Dever, who is an outstanding editor in chief of the Duke University law Journal, lives in Raleigh and currently serves as U.S. magistrate judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Raleigh, the State's capital and the district's largest city, is without a resident district court judge. Elevating Jim to the district court will end this problem. Not one objection has been raised about Jim Dever's qualifications. He has broad bipartisan support. Robinson Everett, a Duke law professor and former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, describes Jim Dever as having ``all the requisite qualities.'' ``He will be a `superb jurist.''' I am also delighted to support Bob Conrad, nominated in April 2003, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of North Carolina. Bob is sorely needed. As our courts confront the ramifications of the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Federal minimum sentence guidelines, it is reasonable to expect we will have even higher caseloads and need more judges to deal with them. Bob Conrad is known for his prosecution of the cigarette smuggling ring funding the terrorist group Hezbollah, and in 1999, Bob Conrad was appointed by then-Attorney General Janet Reno to head the U.S. Justice Department's investigation into campaign fundraising abuses. Bob is a graduate of Clemson and the University of Virginia Law School. He served as a Federal prosecutor in Charlotte, starting in 1989. From 2001 until 2004, he was the U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. Currently he is in private practice at one of the largest law firms in the world as a partner in its Charlotte office. Both of these North Carolina nominees come with tremendous credentials, and it is my privilege to give them my strong support. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, today I want to express my strong concern over the judicial nominations process. It is clear this process has completely broken down. Unfortunately, the rhetoric surrounding this important issue has become increasingly bitter over the past several weeks. Sharp words have been exchanged. The intentions of my fellow Republicans have been unfairly characterized and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have even gone so far as to threaten to shut down the Government if the Senate were to exercise its constitutional right to set its own procedural rules. That is nuclear. It is time to put aside the rhetoric for a moment and look at the facts. It is a fact that my Democratic colleagues have taken the unprecedented step of blocking not 1, not 2, but 10 nominees of President Bush to the Federal circuit courts of appeal. As a result, President Bush has the lowest appeals court confirmation rate for any first-term President since Franklin Roosevelt. It is a fact that each of these filibustered nominees has the support of a majority of Senators and each has received a rating of qualified or well qualified by the American Bar Association. It is a fact that today for the first time in our Nation's history, a President's nominees to the Federal bench are being required to receive a 60-vote supermajority rather than the traditional majority, the up-or-down vote, that has been the standard for 214 years. That is nuclear. It is a fact that the ongoing filibuster of the President's nominees has prevented the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to the appointment of men and women chosen to sit on our Nation's highest courts. The former minority leader from South Dakota once lamented he found it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. I completely agree and note that every single one of President Clinton's judicial nominees who reached the Senate floor received an up-or-down vote. And contrary to what my friends across the aisle are so fond of saying, this includes the Paez and Berzon nominations to the Ninth Circuit. By imposing a supermajority requirement for judicial nominees, the Democrats are disrupting the careful balance struck in the Constitution itself between Congress and the executive branch and allowing political considerations to play an even larger role in the confirmation process. They should heed the words of prominent Democratic legal advisor Professor Michael Gerhardt who, in another context, has written that a supermajority requirement for confirming judges would be ``problematic because it creates a presumption against confirmation, shifts the balance of power to the Senate, and enhances the power of special interests.'' For the last several weeks, instead of engaging in the hard work of compromise, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to travel down the political road. We have seen pro-filibuster press conferences, other political events, and even an obstruction rally with the extreme liberal group MoveOn.Org. Liberal special interest groups are now spending millions of dollars across the country on television ads in support of judicial filibusters. One cannot help but reach the conclusion that these organizations, having failed to defeat President Bush at the ballot box in November, are now trying to advance their own liberal agenda through the only avenue left open to them--the Federal courts. The judicial filibuster is their way of establishing a liberal litmus test. If you are not a liberal activist, you cannot serve on a Federal circuit court of appeals, or at least that is what the new standard appears to be. Until now every judicial nominee with support from a majority of Senators was confirmed. The majority vote standard was used consistently throughout the 18th, 19th, and the 20th century for every President's nominees, Democrat or Republican, even Whig, until George W. Bush's judicial nominations were subjected to a 60-vote standard. Let me emphasize one additional point. My friends across the aisle are well aware that no Republican--not one--is seeking to eliminate the ability of Senators to filibuster on legislative matters. We all recognize that the legislative filibuster has served an important function in our system of checks and balances. It is ironic, though, that nine of my Senate colleagues who are now working so hard to block President Bush's judicial nominees once advocated the elimination of the legislative filibuster. So who is playing politics? I commend Majority Leader Frist for his patience in trying to bring both sides together to develop a reasonable compromise on this difficult issue. Certainly no other majority leader has been faced with such unprecedented tactics in blocking the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. I know Senator Frist will continue to do what he feels is right for this body and for our country. If he decides he is confronted with no other choice but to proceed with the constitutional option, I will fully support him. This approach is consistent with Senate precedent and has been employed in the past by some of the best parliamentary minds in this Chamber. Our goal is to restore the practice, the tradition of 214 years, a simple majority vote for a President's nominees to the Federal bench. I yield the floor.