Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I welcome our guest Chaplain today and the many people who have accompanied him from his home community. It gives great meaning, as we all know, to listen to and to rely upon the words as expressed so meaningfully and so aptly by our guest Chaplain today. I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from New York to also welcome our guest Chaplain.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Senate will spend the day in executive session trying to reach an agreement for a time to vote on the Estrada nomination. Yesterday, every issue raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was answered by Chairman Hatch and my Republican colleagues in a 2-hour, rapid paced, very responsive question-and-answer colloquy, designed to further clarify the Record. We continued the discussion well into the evening. I think we closed the Senate at about 2 o'clock in the morning. That partly explains starting a bit later today. Mr. President, the Miguel Estrada nomination was submitted by President Bush in May 2001--almost 2 years ago. We know that he has not only the support of the majority party, but he has support from a majority of the Members--more than 51 Senators--in this body. And that was demonstrated in a letter that was sent by Senator McConnell and 51 other colleagues to the President, dated February 25, 2003. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to practice justice delayed, which, incidentally, is increasingly being called, by the American people, justice denied, because that delay is denying the majority will of this body. My objective, since February 5--since this nomination came to the floor of the Senate--has been to provide all of our Senators with a forum for informed deliberation, for tempered deliberation, for thorough consideration. I have been very clear from the beginning that my intention was to have a vote--an up-or-down vote--and to move this nomination to the constitutionally mandated question: Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination--yes or no, yea or nay, up or down? That is all that we ask. It is the majority leader's job, after consultation with the minority leader, to schedule this yea or nay vote. I have asked, on numerous occasions, for a time certain for this vote. Again and again, each of my requests has been rejected. The nomination has been pending now for 3 weeks--or more than 3 weeks--and I do believe there has been ample time for Members to deliberate on this nominee. There is no doubt about the outcome if we are allowed to vote on it. The sheer number of signatures on that February 25 letter reflects that the confirmation would occur. Yet Democrats continue to refuse to set a time for this dispositive vote. So, once again, I say: Let's vote. I hope that Members do come to the floor during today's proceedings to discuss this important nomination. With respect to rollcall votes--because I know a number of our colleagues are very interested in what the plans will be for both today, tomorrow, and on Monday--I will be discussing the schedule with the Democratic assistant leader or the Democratic leader today in relation to the schedule so that very shortly we can determine when these votes will be scheduled. The Judiciary Committee is still meeting as we speak. But I hope to have some information here within the next hour or hour and a half so we can set up votes over the next couple days.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will continue to work aggressively. I think everybody in this body understands our goal. I appreciate the good nature. We will continue to push forward for a vote. I did have the opportunity to talk to the leader on the other side of the aisle. The Democratic leader and I discussed plans over the next several weeks. That discussion is very important. I believe we are making progress there. Again, in terms of votes, either later today or tomorrow morning, hopefully within an hour or hour and a half, we can make decisions. In all likelihood, we will be voting Monday afternoon and throughout Tuesday.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, given the circumstances surrounding and leading to the discussion today at 2:30, that would be satisfactory on our part. We will likely be in session late this afternoon, into the evening, because there are a number of issues we do want to address. It is appropriate to be in recess from 2:30 to 3:30 today.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I will be very brief, but I will quote four paragraphs from this letter which does demonstrate the majority support of Senators for this nominee. The letter itself is dated February 25, 2003. The letter is to the President of the United States. First paragraph: Dear Mr. President, we write to express the strong, majority support in the United States Senate for Miguel Estrada, your nominee to the United States Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia Circuit. The second paragraph reads: Mr. Estrada's professional accomplishments and personal achievement are truly impressive. He graduated magna cum laude from both Columbia College, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and Harvard Law School, where he served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He clerked on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. Miguel Estrada served with distinction as an assistant U.S. attorney in the prestigious Southern District of New York, rising to Deputy Chief of the Appellate section, and in the Solicitor General's Office during both Republican and Democrat Administrations, where he argued fifteen cases before the Supreme Court. It is no wonder Mr. Estrada received a rare, unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association, what many of our colleagues called the coveted ``Gold Standard.'' Mr. Estrada's professional successes are even more remarkable in light of his compelling personal story. After emigrating from Honduras at the age of seventeen, he reached the pinnacle of his profession by overcoming a speech impediment and mastering a second language. These are daunting challenges for anyone; they are particularly impressive when one's profession is the practice of oral advocacy before the nation's highest Court. Mr. President, the last paragraph before the pages of the signators of a majority of people in this body, 52 Senators, reads: Despite his obvious qualifications and remarkable personal story, we have been unable to obtain fair consideration on the Senate floor for Mr. Estrada's nomination. Nevertheless, we, the undersigned majority in the United States Senate, commend you for your outstanding choice, and will continue to work diligently to ensure Mr. Estrada receives a simple up or down vote on the Senate floor. Again, there are 4 pages of signatures. The first page is signed by Senators Mitch McConnell and Zell Miller, followed by 50 signatures, which is now in the Record. We will have a full day today. I look forward to continuing the discussions as we go forward.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Senate will spend the day in executive session deliberating, once again and for the 10th day, the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a circuit judge for the DC Circuit. Indeed, today will be a very full day. I envision a protracted session extending late into the evening. Rollcall votes are expected in an effort to make progress toward confirming this nominee in order to fill this judicial vacancy. There is an empty courtroom and a backed up docket awaiting this judge. I hope my colleagues will cooperate so that this ready, willing, and able nominee can report for work at the DC Circuit courthouse. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President dated February 25, 2003, signed by 52 Senators, stating that they ``express the strong, majority support in the United States Senate for Miguel Estrada,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to Legislative Session and proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Is the Senator from Utah aware of any argument against the confirmation of Mr. Estrada that he does not have the academic credentials to suggest that he will be a fine judge?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as majority leader, I have not taken the opportunity today to discuss the nomination of Miguel Estrada, although I did have the opportunity to participate in the debate and the discussion that we had earlier this evening. Of course it always on my mind, because the filibuster that is being maintained is very troubling. Well, I wanted to find some time and it is now 1:45 in the morning here in Washington, and this time works for me. As we have heard tonight, the leading obstacle to Miguel Estrada's confirmation are unprecedented requests by the minority of documents written by Mr. Estrada when he worked for the Clinton Reno Justice Department. Well, since we have time, I would like to read at length from a letter just released, this will be the first time anyone has heard this letter to my colleague the Senator from New York from Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's White House Counsel, and like Miguel Estrada, a fine legal mind. The letter is dated February 24, 2003, and it begins: Dear Senator Schumer: Based on your public comments yesterday, I am concerned that you may have inaccurate and incomplete information about Miguel Estrada's qualifications and about the historical practice with respect to judicial confirmations. Therefore, I write to respectfully reiterate and explain our conclusion that you and certain other Senators are applying an unfair double standard--indeed, a series of unfair double standards--to Miguel Estrada. First, your request for confidential attorney-client memoranda Mr. Estrada wrote in the Office of Solicitor General seeks information that, based on our review, has not been demanded from past nominees to the federal courts of appeals. We are informed that the Senate has not requested memoranda such as these for any of the 67 appeals court nominees since 1977 who had previously worked in the Justice Department--including the seven nominees who had previously worked in the Solicitor General's office. Nor have such memoranda been demanded from nominees in similar attorney-client situations: The Senate has not demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had served as Senate lawyers, such as memoranda written by Stephen Breyer as a Senate counsel before Justice Breyer was confirmed to the First Circuit in 1980. Nor has the Senate demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had served as law clerks to Supreme Court Justices or other federal or state judges. Nor has the Senate demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had worked for private clients. The very few isolated examples you have cited were not nominees for federal appeals courts. Moreover, those situations involved Executive Branch accommodations of targeted requests for particular documents about specific issues that were primarily related to allegations of malfeasance or misconduct in a federal office. We respectfully do not believe these examples support your request. Our conclusion about the general lack of support and precedent for your position is buttressed by the fact that every living former Solicitor General (four Democrats and three Republicans) has strongly opposed your request and stated that it would sacrifice and compromise the ability of the Justice Department to effectively represent the United States in court. In short, the traditional practice of the Senate and the Executive Branch with respect to federal appeals court nominations stands in contrast to your request here and supports our conclusion that an unfair double standard is being applied to Miguel Estrada. (Also, contrary to your suggestion yesterday, please note that no one in the Executive Branch has reviewed these memoranda since President Bush took office in January 2001.) Second, you suggested that ``no judicial nominee that I'm aware of, for such a high court, has ever had so little of a record.'' I respectfully disagree. Miguel Estrada has been a very accomplished lawyer, trying cases before federal juries, briefing and arguing numerous appeals before federal and state appeals courts, and arguing 15 cases before the Supreme Court, among his other significant work. His record and breadth of experience exceeds that of many judicial nominees, which is no doubt why the American Bar Association--which you have labeled the ``gold standard''--unanimously rated him ``well-qualified.'' In noting yesterday that Mr. Estrada's career had been devoted to ``arguing for a client,'' you appeared to imply that only those with prior judicial service (or perhaps ``a lot of [law review] articles'') may serve on the federal appeals courts. But five of the eight judges currently serving on the D.C. Circuit had no prior judicial service at the time of their appointments. Indeed, Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, White, and Powell--to name three of the most recent--had not served as judges before being confirmed to the Supreme Court. And like Mr. Estrada, two appointees of President Clinton to the D.C. Circuit (Judge David Tatel and Judge Merrick Garland) had similarly spent their careers ``arguing for a client,'' but were nonetheless confirmed. Now the letter goes on to quote from the Chief Justice: As the Chief Justice noted in his 2001 Year-End Report, moreover, ``[t]he federal Judiciary has traditionally drawn from a wide diversity of professional backgrounds.'' The Chief Justice cited Justice Louis Brandeis, Justice John Harlan, Justice Byron White, Judge Thurgood Marshall (as nominee to the Second Circuit), Judge Learned Hand, and Judge John Minor Wisdom as just a few examples of great judges who had spent virtually their entire careers ``arguing for a client'' before becoming Supreme Court Justices or federal appeals court judges. As these examples show, had the ``arguing for a client'' standard been applied in the past, it would have deprived the American people of many of our most notable appellate judges. Based on our understanding, this standard has not been applied in the past. This further explains why we have concluded that an unfair double standard is being applied to Miguel Estrada. Third, you stated that ``when you went to those hearings, Mr. Estrada answered no questions.'' The record demonstrates otherwise. Mr. Estrada answered more than 100 questions at his hearing, and another 25 in follow-up written answers. He explained in some detail his approach to judging on many issues, and did so appropriately without providing his personal views on specific legal or policy questions that could come before him--which is how previous judicial nominees of Presidents of both parties have appropriately answered questions. Indeed, at his hearing, Mr. Estrada was asked and answered more questions, and did so more fully, than did President Clinton's appointees to this same court. Judge David Tatel was asked a total of three questions at his hearing. Judges Judith Rogers and Merrick Garland were each asked fewer than 20 questions. The three appointees of President Clinton combined thus answered fewer than half the number of questions at their hearings that Mr. Estrada answered at his hearing. What is more, like Mr. Estrada, both Judge Rogers and Judge Garland declined to give their personal views on disputed legal and policy questions at the hearing. Judge Rogers refused to give her views when asked about the notion of an evolving Constitution. And Mr. Garland did not answer questions about his personal views on the death penalty, stating that he would follow precedent. In short, we believe that your criticism of Mr. Estrada's answers at his hearing reveals that another unfair double standard is being applied to Mr. Estrada. Fourth, you stated that the Founding Fathers ``came to the conclusion that the Senate ought to ask a whole lot of questions'' of judicial nominees. We respect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process, and we agree that the Senate should make an informed judgment consistent with its traditional role and practices. But your characterization of the Senate's role with respect to judicial nominations is not consistent with our reading of historical or traditional practice. Alexander Hamilton explained that the purpose of Senate confirmation is to prevent appointment of ``unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.'' The Federalist 76. The Framers anticipated that the Senate's approval would not often be refused unless there were ``special and strong reasons for the refusal.'' Id. Moreover, the Senate did not hold hearings on judicial nominees for much of American history, and the hearings for lower-court nominees in modern times traditionally have not included the examination of personal views that you have advocated. (My letter of February 12, 2003, to Senators Daschle and Leahy contains more detail on this point.) Indeed, just a few years ago, Senator Biden made clear, consistent with the traditional practice, that he would vote to confirm an appeals court judge if he were convinced that the nominee would follow precedent and otherwise was of high ability and integrity. In short, it appears that you are seeking to change the Senate's traditional standard for assessing judicial nominees. We respect your right to advocate a change, but we do not believe that the standard you seek to apply is consistent with the Framers' vision, the traditional Senate practice, or the Senate's treatment of President Clinton's nominees. Rather, we believe a new standard is being devised and applied to Miguel Estrada. Fifth, you stated yesterday that a ``filibuster'' is not an appropriate term to describe what has been occurring in the Senate. We respectfully disagree. Democrat Senators have objected to unanimous consent motions to schedule a vote, and they have indicated that they will continue to do so. That tactic is historically and commonly known as a filibuster, and is a dramatic escalation of the tactics used to oppose judicial nominees. Indeed, in 1998, Senator Leahy stated: I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators.'' 144 Cong. Rec. S6522 (June 18, 1998). In our judgment, the tactics now being employed again show that Miguel Estrada is receiving differential treatment. Now Judge Gonzales Concludes this way, addressing himself to Senator Schumer: As I have said before, I appreciate and respect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process. You have expressed concern that you do not know enough about Mr. Estrada's views, but you have not submitted any follow-up questions to him. We respectfully submit that the Senate has ample information and has had more than enough time to consider questions about the qualifications and suitability of a nominee submitted more than 21 months ago. Most important, we believe that a majority of Senators have now concluded that they possess sufficient information on Mr. Estrada and would vote to confirm him. We believe it is past time for the Senate to vote on this nominee, and we urge your support. Sincerely, Alberto R. Gonzales Counsel to the President Now as we heard earlier an enormous number of editorials, over 60 editorials all over the country have opposed the Democrat filibuster and support Miguel Estrada. Only eight have taken the Democrat view of things--only eight. It is clear to anyone that what the minority is doing in filibustering Miguel Estrada's nomination is far from the mainstream of what thoughtful people are thinking across this country. Mr. President, I will read from just a few of these: First, on the question of the Solicitor General memos: Boston Herald, 2/14/03: The latest [bad argument] has to do with the White House's refusal to release memos and documents written by Estrada during his tenure in the solicitor general's office. Now all of the living former solicitors general--four Democrats and three Republicans--happen to agree with the White House position. There is such a thing as attorney-client privilege, even for the solicitor general. South Carolina's Spartenburg Herald Journal, 2/14/03: The administration refused to turn over his Justice Department memos--though no reasonable Congress ought to be seeking such material, as a letter from all living former solicitors general attests. They have asked the White House to release internal legal memos he wrote while working for the Solicitor General's Office. These are documents that are usually kept within the White House. In fact, every living former solicitor general, four Democrats and three Republicans, are against releasing the memos. Presidents rely on the Solicitor General's Office to give them legal advice. They don't want those lawyers to be worrying about how their memos will impact future attempts to win judicial seats. The White House has refused to release the documents. California's Redding Record Searchlight, 2/15/03: Well, but the administration won't hand over memos he wrote when he was in the solicitor general's office, say the Senate Democrats. It apparently does not matter to them that publicizing them could rob future memos of their candor and that every former solicitor general of either party has said the Democrats seek too much. Rhode Island's Providence Journal-Bulletin, 2/14/03: [Democrats] have demanded not only supplementary detailed responses to political inquiries, but also Mr. Estrada's confidential memoranda written while he was an assistant solicitor general. Every living solicitor general, Democratic and Republican, has gone on record to oppose this unwarranted intrusion into the deliberative process in the Justice Department. And the Bush administration has been correct to resist Democratic demands. Chicago Tribune, 2/10/03: The Justice Department has refused to release Estrada's memos, noting that such documents have always been regarded as confidential. Every living former solicitor general, Democratic and Republican, has publicly endorsed that position. They say making the documents public would discourage government lawyers from offering candid advice. Anyone who wants a glimpse into Estrada's thinking can scrutinize the briefs he wrote and oral arguments he made. Detroit News, 2/11/03: Democrats also demanded that he produce his memos and recommendations while he was in the solicitor general's office--which had never been done for any other candidate who had been an assistant in that office. The demand was rejected not only by Estrada, but by every former solicitor general still living, including those who served Democratic presidents. Tampa Tribune, 2/10/03: Yet the Democrats claim they don't know enough about Estrada. They have demanded to see copies of his work in the Justice Department, intentionally seeking papers they knew to be confidential. Because Estrada did not turn them over, they have attempted to crucify him, this despite letters from former solicitors general complaining that their demand amounted to legislative overreach and that acceding to it would set a dangerous precedent. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/7/03: Mr. Estrada is an immigrant from Honduras who went to Harvard Law School, clerked on the Supreme Court and worked in the Solicitor General's office. Democrats, frustrated by the absence of a paper trail, and Mr. Estrada's sometimes- evasive answers on issues such as abortion, tried to get legal memos that Mr. Estrada wrote while in the Solicitor General's office. But both Democratic and Republican solicitors general have urged that the memos be kept private so that future solicitors general receive candid views from their staff. In short, the Democratic position doesn't justify a filibuster. Washington Post, 2/5/03: Mr. Estrada's nomination in no way justifies a filibuster. The case against him is that he is a conservative who was publicly criticized by a former supervisor in the Office of the Solicitor General, where he once worked. He was not forthcoming with the committee in its efforts to discern his personal views on controversial issues--as many nominees are not--and the administration has (rightly) declined to provide copies of his confidential memos from his service in government. Also from the Washington Post, September 29 of last year: Democrats are still pushing to see confidential memos Mr. Estrada wrote in the solicitor general's office and trumpeting criticism of him by a single supervisor in that office--criticism that has been discredited by that same colleague's written evaluations. Seeking Mr. Estrada's work product as a government lawyer is beyond any reasonable inquiry into what sort of judge he would be. Nor is it fair to reject someone as a judge because that person's decision to practice law, rather than write articles or engage in politics, makes his views more opaque. And it is terribly wrong to demand that Mr. Estrada answer charges to which nobody is willing to attach his or her name. The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA, entitled ``Advice and Filibuster,'' 2/18/03: Democratic senators are frustrated by the White House's refusal to release to them memoranda he wrote as solicitor general. But in the best of times, such a request would be out of line, and these are closer to the worst than to the best for the nomination process. If the memoranda were to be used as an honest beginning to a discussion of Mr. Estrada's legal views, there might be some justification for releasing the documents that would normally be considered privileged. One suspects that's not the role the Democrats have in mind for the memoranda. They probably hope to expose Mr. Estrada's conservative views, which no one doubts he holds, in hopes of defeating the nomination or at least scoring some political points. Winston-Salem Journal, 2/20/03: [Democrats] have demanded that [Mr. Estrada] turn over confidential papers from his years as solicitor general. Congress should not be asking for such material, as all living solicitors general have said in a letter. Mr. President, as I said, over 60 editorials share this view. Only 8 have expressed an opposite view. Mr. President, the hour is late, or early, depending on how you see it. I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will see differently tomorrow in the light of day.

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, once again we were unable to reach an agreement on the vote for the confirmation of the nomination of Miguel Estrada. I want to thank all of the Members who have participated tonight in what is an important debate. We have had constructive debate through the evening and Members have made themselves available to vote on the Estrada nomination. Unfortunately, given the objections from the other side of the aisle, we will not be allowed to vote on this nomination at this time. Therefore, there will be no further rollcall votes tonight. I know a number of my colleagues have statements they wish to make, and I encourage them to remain in the Chamber and continue to debate this evening, even though the hour is late. I do want to notify our colleagues that we will convene at noon tomorrow and will continue to debate the Estrada nomination at that time.

Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be instructed to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I object to the requested modification.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, once again, I state that we are ready to vote on this nomination tonight. As you can see, the nomination has been pending in the Senate since February 5. We have had speech after speech after speech on this qualified nomination. There has been ample time for both sides to make their case. As has been said on the floor by the minority whip, everything has been said. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the confirmation of the nomination of Miguel Estrada at 6 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hager), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FRIST. I move that the Sergeant at Arms be instructed to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I object to the request for the modification. Mr. President, I have tried, as you can see, on numerous occasions to reach an agreement for something very simple, and that is an up-or-down vote on this qualified nominee. Once again, there has been an objection from the other side of the aisle. It is time to allow the Senate to work its will on this nomination, the will of the Senate. We are here, as you can see, ready to vote.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in response to the motion, let me cite another sample editorial. Again, it has been fascinating to watch the editorials over the last 2 weeks.

Mr. FRIST. As I said, tonight my colleagues have addressed all the many obstacles that have been put forward by the minority one by one by one by one through a series of questions handled so ably by our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a nomination that the President of the United States sent to this Senate 2 years ago. Thus, I modify my request so that each Member on the other side of the aisle would be permitted to speak for up to 1 hour on the nomination prior to a vote.

Mr. FRIST. Reserving the right to object to that request for modification, let me cite a sample of editorials and what they say about my distinguished friend's request with regard to these memoranda. Just a couple. From the Redding Record Searchlight in California from February 15: The administration won't hand over memos he wrote when he was in the Solicitor General's Office, say the Senate Democrats. It apparently does not matter to them that publicizing them could rob future memos of their candor and that every former Solicitor General of either party has said the Democrats seek too much. Just one other from the Detroit News, February 11, 2003: Democrats also demanded that he produce his memos and recommendations while he was in the Solicitor General's Office, which had never been done for any other candidate who had been an assistant in that office. The demand was rejected not only by Estrada but by every former Solicitor General still living, including those who served Democratic Presidents. I reject the request for modification.