Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That is right. And let me just say this: Filibusters are not the only means the Democrats are using to obstruct. During the 3 years of the Bush administration, the Senate has taken 108 rollcall votes on judicial nominees at Democrats' insistence. Eighty-seven percent of these votes have been unanimous, 87 percent, calling into question why we needed these rollcall votes at all. Contrast that to 8 years of the Clinton administration during which the Senate took only 46 rollcall votes out of 377 judges, only 39 percent of which were unanimous. Couldn't we have been passing appropriations bills or creating jobs instead of wasting the time on unanimous votes? Look at this chart. Clinton, 18 votes, 2.25 average votes per year, 486 minutes were consumed, 8.1 hours, 61 average minutes per year; Bush, 104 votes, 34.7 average votes, these are unanimous rollcall votes, 34.7 average votes per year, 2,808 minutes were consumed, 46.8 hours, 939 average minutes per year. In this body that is delay, obstruction, complete shutdown of the body while we have these votes everybody knows will be unanimous. It is just another illustration of how far they have gone to obstruct on these judges. Finally, who is wasting time? Unanimous rollcall votes on judges, compare Clinton; we didn't require rollcall votes on unanimously to-be- approved judges. Look what they have done to the Bush administration. This President is being treated very unfairly. When you hear them talking about jobs, look, I am as interested in jobs, and so is every other Republican, as they are. The only reason jobs is coming up is because they know they can't handle the criticisms that are coming their way for the way they are treating these judicial nominees. They just can't. They can distort the facts. They can distort the statistics. They can distort the record. But they really can't justify what they are doing. Again, go back to your chart, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. Every one of those unjust filibusters that took away rights from people and kept people enslaved to a large degree, every one was led by Democrats.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me personally express gratitude and thanks to Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, Senator Norman Coleman of Minnesota, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, all of whom stayed here all night last night to make the points they have made. I personally appreciate it. Senator Graham asked me to take time to read the full quote of Senator Leahy that he was not given the benefit of. Senator Leahy said he was misquoted, so I will read the full quote: This is Senator Leahy in the Congressional Record of June 18, 1998, regarding delays in Senate action on judicial nominations: 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. Now, that is the correct full statement by the distinguished ranking member of the committee. Senator Graham wanted me to make sure that the full statement was put in. What is involved here is whether or not we are going to abide by the Constitution because the Constitution is pretty clear on this subject of advice and consent. This little book right here contains the Constitution of the United States. In article II, section 2, clause 2, speaking of the President, it says this: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate-- It goes on to say appoint judges. Now, that is what the Constitution says. The Founding Fathers knew what a supermajority vote was. They put that requirement in here, where it was necessary for treaties. It is very clear to anybody who reads it, and I think any constitutional scholar, that advice and consent means a vote up or down, a majority vote up or down. During the Clinton years, when Democrats were afraid the Republicans were going to filibuster their nominees, Democrat after Democrat got up and said we should not filibuster, vote up or down one way or another. If my colleagues do not like a judge, vote against him or her. A lot of those quotes have been put in the record during this 40-hour debate. The fact is, when push comes to shove, when it becomes to their political advantage to stop people on the floor of the Senate, they start filibustering. This business of one-man filibusters, that is pure bunk. The fact is, everybody who came to the floor got a vote up or down. Now, there were a few on our side who wanted to filibuster some of those judges because they were so liberal, but I personally stood up in our conference and in our caucuses, as did Senator Lott, who was then the majority leader, and said that is not going to happen because that is constitutionally unsound. Plus, it is not right. But it has happened, as our colleagues on the other side have not been able to stop themselves from taking political advantage. Why are they doing this against these six people? I get a kick out of the use of 168 to 4. Today it is 6. What will it be tomorrow? I can tell my colleagues the number is going to go up continuously because they do not want anybody on these circuit courts of appeals who may be pro-life. That is what this is all about. It is about abortion. Otherwise, how could anyone find one fault with Priscilla Owen? I do not even know what her position is on abortion. I know that question is not asked by the White House or by us. I do not know what her position is. What fault can my colleagues find with a woman who was No. 1 on the bar exam in that State and who broke through the glass ceiling for women? Now, women are partners in law firms, where before they could not get secretarial jobs half the time. It was terrible what women went through. She was one of the people who broke through that problem. She won 84 percent of the vote in Texas, which is not particularly a Republican State, although it is fast becoming one looking at what is going on up here, just like Alabama is becoming a Republican State when they see the injustice and unfairness going on here. Priscilla Owen won 84 percent of the vote; every newspaper in that State ran editorials supporting her, and yet she is being treated like dirt here. Why? Because in a dissent she would have upheld the rights of a parent to have notification that those parents' child was about to have an abortion. Eighty-two percent of the American people believe that is the right thing to do. She was merely evaluating whether the lower court finder of fact in that parental notification case had made an error, and he hadn't, so she thought that the factfinding judge ought to be upheld. What is wrong with that? Going to Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown won 76 percent of the vote in her reelection, more than the leading liberal then on the California Supreme Court, Stanley Mosk. Mosk was a liberal voice on the court. He got 68 percent. Janice Brown got 76 percent. Now, I know if this was reversed and Mosk was the one who was nominated by a Democrat President, the Democrats would be arguing that he got 68 percent of the vote and that we should just confirm him. And we, as Republicans, probably would if we concluded that he was competent, had a good temperament, was intelligent enough to do the job, was honest and a person of integrity, even though we disagree with him on many issues. My contention is that the fact that a person may be pro-life is irrelevant, or the fact that a person is pro-choice is irrelevant if that person is otherwise qualified for these Federal judgeships. If we get to the point where we stop people because of one litmus test issue, Katie bar the door, it is going to politicize the Federal judiciary in a way that never should happen. Janice Rogers Brown is the justice who wrote a majority of the majority opinions last year in the California Supreme Court. She also joined in unanimous opinions, I think around 73 times. There is no question she is in the mainstream. That just has become a bad redefining of terms by our friends on the other side. Since they do not have any real arguments against these people, they will say, well, they are outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Well, that is just pure bunk and everybody knows it. What about Carolyn Kuhl? Carolyn Kuhl has 100 of her fellow judges on the California Superior Court, Democrats and Republicans, vociferously supporting her as somebody who would make an excellent judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a tremendous imbalance. Senator Schumer is constantly talking about imbalance, that we should balance up the courts, liberals and conservatives being equal. Well, there are 17 Clinton and Carter nominees and judges on the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe there may be eight judges on that court nominated by Republican Presidents. If that is the case, if they really want balance, why oppose even voting on Carolyn Kuhl, one of the leading scholars in America? What do they hold against her? When she was a 28-year-old, a junior lawyer in the Department of Justice, doing the bidding of the then-President, Ronald Reagan, she actually helped write some of the briefs which she would do in the normal course of events--anyone would do, even if you do not agree, because that is your job--on some issues that our friends on the other side do not appreciate. Again, it comes down to abortion. I was talking to one of the leading civil rights ministers who during the 1960s was threatened every day. He was head of the ACLU in Mississippi, a liberal Democrat who has been in some of the Democrats' meetings, during which they've plotted their mistreatment of the President's nominees. He said to me: Senator Hatch, you are absolutely right--he is pro-choice, by the way, but he sees the injustice of this as he came out in support of the judge. He said: Senator Hatch, you are absolutely right, this is all about abortion. We do not know where these nominees stand on abortion, at least I don't. I have had discussions with all three of them and never asked the question. Whether pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant if they are otherwise qualified to serve on the courts. What is being done to these three women we are going to vote on today? We are not voting on their right to be a judge, we are voting on cloture, on the right to go forward and have a vote up and down on these judges. For the first time in history, the absolute first time in history, we now have filibusters against six incredibly qualified, well qualified candidates. During the 8 years of the Clinton administration, time after time, the Democrats would say: We have a person who is qualified by the American Bar Association. That is the gold standard, the American gold standard. The imprimatur of the American Bar Association, that is all it takes. 377 Clinton nominees got through; one was rejected by a majority vote on the Senate floor. 377. Amazing how the statistics are distorting. This talk about 168--that was a hard fought battle on most of them. It was not at all simple to get them through. Democrats have politicized everything around here with regard to the judiciary. I would like to end that by having votes up and down on all judicial nominees. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am highly offended, and I think anybody who is fairminded would be highly offended by this one-sided, partisan attack on Judge Kuhl, and bringing up that particular case because everybody knows that case was settled by the woman's doctor, the one who was at fault. And, frankly, that was hitting below the belt. Carolyn Kuhl, she is a pioneer for women: cum laude graduate of Princeton University; Duke University Law School: Order of the Coif; law clerk to then-Judge Anthony Kennedy of the Ninth Circuit. She worked at the Department of Justice: Special assistant to the Attorney General; Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Deputy Solicitor General. She was 28 years old when she was asked to work on the Bob Jones case. I think it is slanderous to say that Republicans support Bob Jones University's attitudes about race. Give me a break. Nobody on this side does, and neither did she. The case she worked on was a tax issue, and she had an obligation to work with her senior people in the Department. She was very junior at the time. And, frankly, they had a reasonable argument about a certain IRS tax exemption relevant to private universities. She was a partner in the Los Angeles firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of the best law firms in the country. She is the first female supervising judge of the Civil Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. This is a woman of tremendous abilities. They pick one case out of the hundreds or thousands she has heard and tried, and then distort that case. It drives you nuts around here. ``Both Democrats and Republicans . . . step up to the plate to support [Judge] Kuhl.'' This is Vilma Martinez--not known for conservative politics, by the way--who is one of the top leaders in the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Foundation, if I recall it correctly. In the Daily Journal this is what Vilma Martinez had to say: [Judge Kuhl] stepped up to the plate. She wrote letters, made phone calls and exhorted her fellow Republicans to confirm [Judge] Paez and other Clinton nominees. Judge Paez was a very controversial nominee. I know. I had to work it through to even give him a chance. But he got a vote up and down. And, unfortunately, some of my colleagues who were against him were right. He has become a very activist judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, just stepping right in and becoming a member of the leftist majority on that court. Vilma Martinez, this Hispanic-American leader, says: [Judge Kuhl's efforts are] characteristic of her sense of fairness and respect for an independent judiciary. She goes on to say: [M]any of the groups that support Judge Paez, ironically, have turned their fire on Judge Kuhl, apparently to exact payback against Senate Republicans. If you listen to those arguments, it is easy to conclude that. Then, in the bottom paragraph, Vilma Martinez says this--and Vilma Martinez is a Democrat, not a Republican--she says: This turnabout is not fair play. It is the continuation of a vicious cycle that punishes worthy judicial candidates in a misguided effort to use the judiciary to further narrow political ends. That is the type of stuff we are dealing with around here: distortions, distortions of the facts, maligning absolutely qualified people. Look at this. Carolyn Kuhl has the support of pro-choice women. Anne Egerton, judge on the LA Superior Court: I understand that some have raised concerns about Judge Kuhl's commitment to gender equality and reproductive rights. I do not share those concerns. . . . I have been a registered Democrat for thirty years, and I have supported--financially and otherwise--[Senator Feinstein], Senator Boxer, and other Democratic legislators and candidates. I have no reservations in recommending Judge Carolyn Kuhl . . . for appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Take Gretchen Nelson, pro-choice Democrat, plaintiff's attorney. On February 14 she had this to say: I am opposed to the appointment of any judicial nominee who is incapable of ruling based upon a considered and impartial analysis of all of the facts and legal issues presented in any manner. Judge Kuhl is not such a nominee and she is well- deserving of appointment to the Ninth Circuit. Let's quit slandering these people. Let's quit distorting the facts. All because you think they might be pro-life. My gosh, look at the women judges who support Judge Kuhl's confirmation. A bipartisan group of 23 women judges at the Los Angeles Superior Court, on February 22, said this: Judge Kuhl approaches her job with respect for the law and not a political agenda. Judge Kuhl has been a mentor to new women judges. . . . She has helped promote the careers of women, both Republican and Democrat. . . . As sitting Judges, we more than anyone appreciate the importance of an independent, fair-minded and principled judiciary. We believe that Carolyn Kuhl represents the best values of such a judiciary. Let's get this out of this totally slanderous political debate and start talking about the real facts. Democrats on this Floor have tried to confuse the issue, to pretend that what they are doing is no different than what happened to some of President Clinton's nominees. But they are dead wrong. They are comparing apples to oranges. They are different. We did not filibuster a single Clinton nominee who had majority support. Once on the floor, all of them received up or down votes. 377 confirmed for Clinton. Despite the Democrats, not because of them, we have confirmed 168 Bush nominees. One Senator went so far as to call the four filibustered nominees, as of yesterday, lemons, if you can believe it, when all of them have well qualified ratings from the American Bar Association. Look at the facts. President Bush has had 29 circuit court of appeals nominees confirmed, but another 12 of them, at least, are facing filibusters. I believe that number is really higher, about 17. It is an amazing, unprecedented series of filibusters of appellate nominees, what we are going through, and there are more to come. Let me get the last chart up there. The real facts are that since we have had the filibuster rule, since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we have had 2,372 judges confirmed and zero filibustered--until now. Now, it is one thing to filibuster, it is another thing to slander these people. I have seen so much of that over the last 2 or 3 years that I am just sick of it. I am just sick of it. Let's give these people votes up and down. The reason they will not is they know there are enough good-thinking people in this Senate on both sides who would--for all of these six people who are being filibustered--confirm them on a bipartisan majority. So a tyrannical minority--which is in so many ways slandering these people, these honest, decent, good people--is preventing votes up and down on judicial nominees for the first time in the history of this country. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. HATCH. I yield it to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Biden and Grassley, ``The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.'' This bill is a forward-looking measure which will strengthen the Office of National Drug Control Policy as we face the new challenges posed by illegal drugs. I want to thank my colleagues Senators Biden and Grassley for working with me to draft this important legislation. Senator Biden has a long and impressive record in addressing the problem of illegal drugs. He is considered the father of ONDCP. He had the vision, the commitment, and the dedication to make it a reality. I thank him again for his work on this proposal that we are introducing today. I also want to thank Senator Grassley for his work on this important legislation. Senator Grassley has been a tireless advocate in fighting illegal drugs. As the chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley has demonstrated leadership and commitment in addressing issues relating to domestic and international drug trafficking. The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today reauthorizes ONDCP for 5 years and provides ONDCP with the necessary tools and resources to: Develop national drug control policy; coordinate and oversee the implementation of the national drug control policy; assess and certify the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget for those programs; evaluate the effectiveness of National Drug Control Program agencies' programs; and develop specific goals and performance measurements needed to assess the effectiveness of the national drug control policy and the programs of the national drug control program agencies. The legislation includes a number of reforms which will enhance ONDCP's ability to serve as the coordinator of Federal, State, and local policies aimed at reducing the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs. The bill: 1. expands ONDCP's role and authority in overseeing the performance of federal agencies' drug control programs, and requires ONDCP to develop specific goals and measurements to assess the performance of Federal agencies; 2. requires ONDCP to develop a new performance measurement system which includes annual and 5-year objectives for assessing the National Drug Control Strategy; 3. expands and increases authorized funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program designed to reduce illegal Drug trafficking and drug production activities in designated areas; 4. creates a new emerging threat fund for ONDCP to allocated to individual HIDTAs to respond to emerging drug trafficking threats in specific HIDTAs; 5. improves the Counter-Drug Technology Transfer program to provide increased technologies for State and local law enforcement agencies, and reforms the program to ensure timely delivery of such technologies; and 6. reauthorizes and enacts reforms to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to ensure responsible use of Federal funds used to support the campaign. I want to take a moment to address several specific issues. First, I am a strong supporter of the HIDTA program. The HIDTA program brings together Federal, State, and local law enforcement, promotes intelligence sharing among these law enforcement agencies, and ensures coordinated and effective law enforcement strategies. The HIDTA program has proven successful, and is even more important today because of the FBI's need to reallocate resources from drug enforcement to terrorism. Given this reality, it is critical that we support the HIDTA program as an important resource in the fight against illegal drug traffickers. Second, I want to express my continued support for the National Youth Anti-Drug Medical Campaign. While I know the campaign has suffered from some management problems in the last few years, I am confident that the campaign is on the right track. I want to commend ONDCP Director John Walters and The Partnership for a Drug-Free America President Roy Bostock for their commitment to working together, and for the steps they have taken to ensure that the campaign operates effectively. The legislation includes specific reforms which will support the campaign and make sure that it operates in a cost-effective manner. Specifically, the bill: 1. Delineates the specific roles and responsibilities of ONDCP, the Partnership and a media buying contractor; 2. restricts the use of funds for creative development of advertisements, except for advertisements intended to reach a minority, ethnic or other special audience that cannot be otherwise obtained from the Partnership; 3. requires the Director to obtain no-cost matches of advertising broadcast times, print space or in-kind contributions which directly relate to substance abuse prevention and specially promote the purposes of the campaign; 4. disqualifies any corporation, partnership or individual from bidding on a media buying contract if such entity, within the last 10 years, in connection with the national media campaign has been convicted of any Federal criminal offense, subject to any Federal civil judgment or penalty in a civil proceeding involving the United States; or settled any Federal civil proceeding or potential proceeding; and 5. provides financial and performance accountability requirements for the campaign. I also wanted to highlight title VII of the bill--Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment. These provisions, which Senators Biden, Grassley, Leahy and I authored in the 107th Congress as part of S. 304, provide much-needed education, prevention and treatment resources which are so critical to reducing the demand for illegal drugs. As I have said before, our national drug strategy must embrace a comprehensive policy that reduces the demand for, as well as the supply of, drugs. To reduce the demand for drugs, we must redouble our efforts at prevention and treatment. This Nation's battle with substance abuse can be successful only through a balanced approach--one that supports law enforcement but at the same time promotes education, prevention and treatment. Title VII of the bill includes a proposal to establish residential drug treatment facilities for drug-addicted women who have young children. Such facilities are in short supply in this the country, and the problem has grown worse with an ever increasing number of women with children who are abusing drugs. Treatment is even more imperative for our troubled juveniles, the vast majority of whom will go on to lead productive lives if we can just break the addiction cycle. This bill provides substantial resources to States for juvenile residential treatment facilities and to Federal, State, and local agencies and private service providers to coordinate the delivery of mental health and substance abuse services to children at risk. Finally, the bill eliminates a restriction in the Controlled Substances Act and will permit medical practitioners to provide drug addiction treatment in group practices. This provision will expand treatment options for thousands of patients who have been denied access to critical addiction treatments. The proposed legislation we are introducing today will ensure that Congress provides the required oversight--and support of--ONDCP as it continues its critical role of coordinating our National Drug Control Strategy to ensure that we reduce the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Biden and Grassley, ``The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.'' This bill is a forward-looking measure which will strengthen the Office of National Drug Control Policy as we face the new challenges posed by illegal drugs. I want to thank my colleagues Senators Biden and Grassley for working with me to draft this important legislation. Senator Biden has a long and impressive record in addressing the problem of illegal drugs. He is considered the father of ONDCP. He had the vision, the commitment, and the dedication to make it a reality. I thank him again for his work on this proposal that we are introducing today. I also want to thank Senator Grassley for his work on this important legislation. Senator Grassley has been a tireless advocate in fighting illegal drugs. As the chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley has demonstrated leadership and commitment in addressing issues relating to domestic and international drug trafficking. The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today reauthorizes ONDCP for 5 years and provides ONDCP with the necessary tools and resources to: Develop national drug control policy; coordinate and oversee the implementation of the national drug control policy; assess and certify the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget for those programs; evaluate the effectiveness of National Drug Control Program agencies' programs; and develop specific goals and performance measurements needed to assess the effectiveness of the national drug control policy and the programs of the national drug control program agencies. The legislation includes a number of reforms which will enhance ONDCP's ability to serve as the coordinator of Federal, State, and local policies aimed at reducing the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs. The bill: 1. expands ONDCP's role and authority in overseeing the performance of federal agencies' drug control programs, and requires ONDCP to develop specific goals and measurements to assess the performance of Federal agencies; 2. requires ONDCP to develop a new performance measurement system which includes annual and 5-year objectives for assessing the National Drug Control Strategy; 3. expands and increases authorized funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program designed to reduce illegal Drug trafficking and drug production activities in designated areas; 4. creates a new emerging threat fund for ONDCP to allocated to individual HIDTAs to respond to emerging drug trafficking threats in specific HIDTAs; 5. improves the Counter-Drug Technology Transfer program to provide increased technologies for State and local law enforcement agencies, and reforms the program to ensure timely delivery of such technologies; and 6. reauthorizes and enacts reforms to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to ensure responsible use of Federal funds used to support the campaign. I want to take a moment to address several specific issues. First, I am a strong supporter of the HIDTA program. The HIDTA program brings together Federal, State, and local law enforcement, promotes intelligence sharing among these law enforcement agencies, and ensures coordinated and effective law enforcement strategies. The HIDTA program has proven successful, and is even more important today because of the FBI's need to reallocate resources from drug enforcement to terrorism. Given this reality, it is critical that we support the HIDTA program as an important resource in the fight against illegal drug traffickers. Second, I want to express my continued support for the National Youth Anti-Drug Medical Campaign. While I know the campaign has suffered from some management problems in the last few years, I am confident that the campaign is on the right track. I want to commend ONDCP Director John Walters and The Partnership for a Drug-Free America President Roy Bostock for their commitment to working together, and for the steps they have taken to ensure that the campaign operates effectively. The legislation includes specific reforms which will support the campaign and make sure that it operates in a cost-effective manner. Specifically, the bill: 1. Delineates the specific roles and responsibilities of ONDCP, the Partnership and a media buying contractor; 2. restricts the use of funds for creative development of advertisements, except for advertisements intended to reach a minority, ethnic or other special audience that cannot be otherwise obtained from the Partnership; 3. requires the Director to obtain no-cost matches of advertising broadcast times, print space or in-kind contributions which directly relate to substance abuse prevention and specially promote the purposes of the campaign; 4. disqualifies any corporation, partnership or individual from bidding on a media buying contract if such entity, within the last 10 years, in connection with the national media campaign has been convicted of any Federal criminal offense, subject to any Federal civil judgment or penalty in a civil proceeding involving the United States; or settled any Federal civil proceeding or potential proceeding; and 5. provides financial and performance accountability requirements for the campaign. I also wanted to highlight title VII of the bill--Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment. These provisions, which Senators Biden, Grassley, Leahy and I authored in the 107th Congress as part of S. 304, provide much-needed education, prevention and treatment resources which are so critical to reducing the demand for illegal drugs. As I have said before, our national drug strategy must embrace a comprehensive policy that reduces the demand for, as well as the supply of, drugs. To reduce the demand for drugs, we must redouble our efforts at prevention and treatment. This Nation's battle with substance abuse can be successful only through a balanced approach--one that supports law enforcement but at the same time promotes education, prevention and treatment. Title VII of the bill includes a proposal to establish residential drug treatment facilities for drug-addicted women who have young children. Such facilities are in short supply in this the country, and the problem has grown worse with an ever increasing number of women with children who are abusing drugs. Treatment is even more imperative for our troubled juveniles, the vast majority of whom will go on to lead productive lives if we can just break the addiction cycle. This bill provides substantial resources to States for juvenile residential treatment facilities and to Federal, State, and local agencies and private service providers to coordinate the delivery of mental health and substance abuse services to children at risk. Finally, the bill eliminates a restriction in the Controlled Substances Act and will permit medical practitioners to provide drug addiction treatment in group practices. This provision will expand treatment options for thousands of patients who have been denied access to critical addiction treatments. The proposed legislation we are introducing today will ensure that Congress provides the required oversight--and support of--ONDCP as it continues its critical role of coordinating our National Drug Control Strategy to ensure that we reduce the availability of, and demand for, illegal drugs in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Ursula Williams, an intern with Senator Santorum's office, during consideration of this debate on judicial nominations.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Syria Accountability Act, H.R. 1828, which the House of Representatives passed, 398-4, last month. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate bill, S. 982, introduced by my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Boxer, which has over 80 cosponsors as of today. Today, I support the amendment to H.R. 1828 submitted by my able colleague and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in coordination with Senators Santorum and Boxer. I commend my colleagues for their good work. It is well within Congress's prerogative to write and implement sanctions, but the practice of doing so, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee knows so well, can raise important points about the overall constitutional prerogative of the executive in its right to conduct foreign policy. The amendment prepared by Senator Lugar, in cooperation with the original sponsors of the bill, preserves the prerogatives of both branches of government, and, at the same time, I believe, unifies and solidifies our nation's policy on the question of terrorism, and, in particular, Syria's contribution to peace, stability and progress in the Middle East. Quite frankly, Syria has largely failed to contribute significantly to peace and stability in the Middle East, a stability that U.S. blood and treasure is now invested to achieve. We have watched the administration give Syria ample opportunities, since September 11, 2001, to make its contribution. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the administration flattered the Damascus dictatorship by giving it this time to join with the civilized world in unequivocally renouncing terrorism completely, as well as dismantling all manifestations of material and political support for terrorist organizations. Some suggest that Syria has played a game of sitting on the fence, when it came to the war on terrorism. However, Mr. President, Syria was never on the fence. Syria is on the other side of the fence, with the other state sponsors of terrorism we have labeled as such since 1979. And today I will agree with what Secretary Powell told President Assad earlier this year: By refusing to cooperate, he was ``on the wrong side of history.'' Since 1979, Syria has appeared every year on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It has been so identified for its role in terrorist acts, as well as the support it gave--and continues to give, to this very day--to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that, to this very day, organize and commit acts of aggression or terrorism. Throughout the 1990s, Syria played coy with U.S. administrations attempting to engage it in the Middle East peace process. Who can forget the scene of the long-suffering Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, waiting hours outside of Hafez Assad's office on his umpteenth visit, at the very same time Iranian weapons were being transferred to Hezbollah at the Damascus airport? Who can forget President Clinton's futile attempt in Geneva, near the end of his term and near the end of Assad's brutal life, to re-engage the dictator in peace talks? On the question of peace or normal relations with Israel, in every aspect but the desire to reclaim territory for itself, Syria has most definitely been a rejectionist state. There are persistent reports that Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons, including sarin and possibly also VX, which it could combine with one of the largest missile stockpiles in the Middle East. Coalition forces are not in Iraq to rid that former dictatorship of its weapons of destruction while we look the other way on similar weapons held by another Ba'athist regime. The era of that ideology of Arab oppression, along with the threat of weapons of mass destruction to maintain that oppression, is over. Syria has not assisted us in our historic mission in Iraq. Joining the Security Council in unanimous approval of Resolution 1441, the Syrians were quick to denounce the threat and use of force to achieve the goals of the resolution. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our officials--from the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Defense--have publicly criticized Syria for its lack of cooperation. Syria's border has remained open to fleeing Ba'athist officials, and to international terrorists anxious to die fighting against Coalition forces. Our officials believe that Syria holds up to $3 billion of Saddam's ill-gotten loot, funds that the Governing Council could use for reconstruction, funds that would lessen the obligations we have undertaken in this body this week. Syria invaded Lebanon more than a quarter-century ago, and maintains approximately 15,000 troops there to this day. Throughout this period, Syria has backed the Shi'ite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, an organization that has been tied to terrorism around the world. Twenty years ago, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed almost 300 U.S. Marines as they slept in their barracks in Beirut. Hezbollah continues to attack across borders, shelling Israel as late as last week. Nothing Hezbollah does is without Syrian sanction. The Middle East will not see peace, and the United States should not consider itself secure as long as Hezbollah, with its Syrian backers, exists. So it is time to go to the source and sanction Syria. This bill outlines a series of goals and commensurate diplomatic and economic sanctions to apply to the Syrian regime. It maintains flexibility of policy choice for the administration, but it is clear in stating the Congress's intent, in resolve and policy, to further isolate the decrepit dictatorship in Damascus. I do not know if this bill will motivate Damascus to cross the fence and join the anti-terror coalition of civilized nations. I suspect that to believe so would be pollyannaish. But I do believe that the way we act today will declare to the Damascus dictatorship that there are costs to being on the wrong side of the fence in the war on terror. September 11, 2001 began a new era in U.S. foreign policy, and the President's policies since that watershed event have been based on clarity of vision. Against the threat of terrorism, which lurks and breeds in the shadows, we have responded with clarity of purpose. Against the traditional approaches of diplomacy, which balance nuance against process, we have demanded progress. Against previous approaches that part-time antagonism toward a mutual enemy should be rewarded with full-time tolerance of non-compliance with our stated goals, we say today: No longer. President Assad will receive this message clearly. Perhaps Syria will modify its behavior. If it does not, Syria can join the list of rogue states who failed because they challenged the order of the civilized world. The American public has read reports in the press about Syria's cooperation with us in identifying, in the months after September 11, members of Al-Qaida. I have read no where, nor have I heard any analyst argue, that such cooperation was because Syria was dedicated to our defense, or to our global war on terrorism. Since then, the American public has heard many members of the current administration express disappointment with Syria's behavior, and they have seen many reports of Syria's lack of cooperation. And one thing is clear in a democracy, Mr. President: Our foreign policy must have the support of the public. I will always respect the President's foreign policy prerogative, and I have defended the executive's prerogative under Republican and Democratic administrations. I have supported ``quiet diplomacy'' for small results. But a diplomacy that produces invisible results is not quiet, it is silent. Today, I believe the members of the President's administration agree with me. For the reasons I have stated here, this bill will pass overwhelmingly, as it did in the House of Representatives. We may consider this the Senate's contribution today to the war on global terrorism.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I couldn't agree more with the distinguished Senator from Alabama. What is happening here is a very fine man, an excellent lawyer, an excellent attorney general in this country, one who has always stood for upholding the law even when he disagreed with it, which is the ultimate in judicial nominees, is being deprived of the dignity of an up-or-down vote, which has never been done before, other than in these four filibusters that the Democrats have waged in this body. This is dangerous stuff. I admit during the Clinton years there were a few of our Republicans who wanted to filibuster some of their liberal judges, and we stopped it. Senator Lott and I made it very clear that was not going to happen because not only is that a dangerous situation, politically it is a terrible situation, and it is something that should not happen in this body. One of the Democrats' favorite tactics, which they used again before last week's failed cloture vote on Judge Pickering's nomination, is to try to excuse their indefensible treatment of the President's nominee by citing the raw number of President Bush's nominees confirmed by the Senate. That number now stands at 168. They trumpet this number, and then note they have blocked only 4. We know it will be a lot more than that. We already know the future nominations they are going to block, but the Democrats believe this sounds reasonable to the American people who hear it. The more the real story gets out, the less acceptable it is to the American people. First, there are more Federal appellate vacancies today, 18, during President Bush's third year in office than there were at the end of President Clinton's second year in office, 15. Over half of President Bush's appeals court nominees have not been confirmed. There are 41 total vacancies on the Federal district and appellate benches, 22 of which are classified as judicial emergencies by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A staggering 67 percent of the vacant appeals court slots are judicial emergencies. Here is the point. No raw number of confirmations means anything in and of itself, while there are not one but three filibusters--exemplary nominees going on now. We just voted out Janice Rogers Brown from the committee on a straight party-line vote, and it is clear they are going to filibuster this fine African-American justice who wrote the most majority decisions issued by the California Supreme Court last year. Their argument is: She is outside the mainstream. That is always the argument they bring up because she does not conform to the liberal ideology they demand. Just think, one nominee, Miguel Estrada, has withdrawn after more than 2 years of a filibuster against him. The Democrats are virtually certain to filibuster Justice Janice Rogers Brown, another DC Circuit nominee; and emergency vacancies continue to exist on our Federal courts. Are we supposed to be grateful that only a small handful of President Bush's nominees are being filibustered? Is there an acceptable filibuster percentage the Democratic leadership has in mind? The mere fact that we have to ask these questions makes it crystal clear we have a broken process. Even one filibuster of a judicial nominee is one too many, and we are now up to four, and I might add there are others they have made very clear they are going to filibuster. These are appellate nominees. For the first time in history, these filibusters are occurring. I think it is shameful. I yield the floor. cloture motion

Mr. HATCH. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their excellent remarks for and on behalf of Attorney General Pryor who is one of the best nominees I have seen in a long time, a person of great character. Today we will again vote for cloture on the nomination of William Pryor for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Denying undisputedly well-qualified nominees the up or down vote they deserve does not fulfill our Senatorial duties--it abdicates them. This filibuster not only damages our accountability to the people who elect us, but it erodes the credibility of the Senate itself. Today, let me take a few moments to explain why every single Member of this body should vote to invoke cloture, and end debate, on the Pryor nomination so that he is afforded the dignity of an up-or-down vote that is all we are asking for. Not even those most vigorously opposed to Bill Pryor's nomination contend that his record is insufficient. He has been a bold, vocal, and successful advocate for his state as Attorney General, an elected office in Alabama. Prior to and during his campaigns seeking re- election to the attorney general position in 1998 and 2002, he made his positions on the contentious issues of the day crystal clear--and he won his most recent election with almost 60 percent of the vote. Rarely has the Judiciary Committee reviewed such a full and unmistakably clear record for an appellate nominee; rarely has a nominee at his hearing been so honest, intelligent and forthright in his answers to every Senator's questions, even though he surely knew that his legal and policy positions on many, if not most, issues, clashed head-on with the positions of the liberal Democrats who questioned him. The problem that those opposed to giving Bill Pryor an up-or-down vote in the Senate have is that they cannot credibly make any substantive arguments against him. So they oppose him based on what he has stated he personally believes. They cannot cast aspersions on his legal ability--the undisputed quality of his legal work as Attorney General of Alabama is reflected in several major cases in which Supreme Court majorities have agreed with his arguments. They cannot say he is only a one-party horse because so many Democrats, and many prominent African-American Democrats, in Alabama support him even though they disagree with him politically. They cannot really find anything substantive that might reflect poorly on his qualifications to sit on the federal bench. Therefore, their accusations against General Pryor have relied on an all-too familiar script: he is a so-called states' rights fanatic; he is anti-environment; anti-disability rights; anti-women; opposes minority voting rights; and wants to turn America into a Christian theocracy. These sound bites are easy to make, but General Pryor's record speaks with far more authority than the fulminations against him. So his opponents attack his personal beliefs, even though in every instance in which a conflict between those beliefs and the law has arisen in Bill Pryor's career, he has unfailingly put the law first. The most recent example is his response to Chief Justice Roy Moore's refusal to comply with the Federal injunction ordering removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. General Pryor said, ``Although I believe the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and that they can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the U.S. Supreme Court building, I will not violate nor assist any person in the violation of this injunction. . . . We have a government of laws, not of men. I will exercise any authority provided to me, under Alabama law, to bring the State into compliance with the injunction of the federal court. . . .'' In fact, the committee received a letter from Justice Douglas Johnstone, the only Democrat on the Alabama Supreme Court, praising General Pryor's actions during this high-profile dispute in Alabama. He writes, ``General Pryor immediately offered us all appropriate support of his office and fostered public support by announcing publicly that the injunction was due to be obeyed in the absence of a stay. . . . Before the Monument crises, General Pryor's political prospects, irrespective of any federal appointment, were brighter than most I have observed in my decades in politics. Now he is as full of political bullet holes as Fearless Fosdick. My personal acquaintance with him and observation of him over his years in office satisfy me that he fully expected the damage but did his duty, and is doing his duty and a splendid job of it regardless of the consequences. I am endorsing General Pryor because over the years he has proven his honesty and intelligence. I do not pretend to agree with him on all issues. I would rather have the honesty and intelligence than the agreement.'' On the issue of abortion, General Pryor's record provides another example of his commitment to following the law even when it conflicts with his deeply held personal beliefs. After the Alabama legislature passed a partial-birth abortion ban in 1997, General Pryor issued guidance to State law enforcement officials to ensure that the law was enforced consistent with the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Although there was considerable outcry against his decision from the pro-life community, the ACLU praised General Pryor's decision, emphasizing that his order had ``[s]everely [l]imited'' Alabama's ban. He issued similar guidance after the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down another State's ban on partial-birth abortion. Again, the dictates of the law trumped his personal beliefs. He stuck with the law even though he totally disagreed with it. The President has nominated a good and honest man with a sterling legal career, a bipartisan reputation for enforcing the law impartially as attorney general, and an enviable record of success before the nation's highest Court. At General Pryor's inauguration as Attorney General, he opened with the statement: ``Equal under law today, equal under law tomorrow, equal under law forever.'' Despite the distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods we have heard about him, General Pryor is a diligent, honorable man whose loyalty as a public servant has been to the law and its impartial administration. He has told us under oath that he will continue to follow the law, just as he has demonstrated during his distinguished career in Alabama. Quoting again from Justice Johnstone's letter--Justice Johnstone is a Democrat--to our Committee: ``The crucial question in judging a judicial candidate or nominees is not what sides of legal issues he or she has advocated but whether he or she has enough reverence for the rule of law, enough humility, and enough self-control to follow the law whether he or she likes it or not. My observation tells me General Pryor does.'' A minority of the Senate is again attempting to prevent us from voting on Attorney General Pryor despite his outstanding record. Such an attempt is profoundly at odds with what the Constitution demands of us as Senators. The President and the American people have a right to an up or down vote on judicial nominees. Playing politics or political games with judicial nominees must stop and we must do our duty and vote on this excellent nominee, Bill Pryor. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues not to deny Bill Pryor the courtesy of an up or down vote on the Senate floor. He deserves better, the President deserves better, and the majority of the Senate that stands ready to confirm him deserves better. Most importantly, the American people deserve the opportunity to hold their Senators accountable for the votes they cast on the President's judicial nominees. We must invoke cloture on Bill Pryor's nomination. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. I yield time to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Democrat Member of the Judiciary Committee, legislation to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act. I want to thank Senator Leahy for joining with me in introducing this bill and for his cooperation in working together on this important issue. This reauthorization will extend the existing ban on the manufacture, sale, importation, shipping, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that could not be detected by a metal detector or x-ray machine. Everyone in this Chamber knows how deeply I care for the Second Amendment and the individual's right to own and bear arms. I want everyone to understand that this ban does not ban a single firearm in production today. It prevents any individual or company from creating an undetectable firearm. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Democrat Member of the Judiciary Committee, legislation to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act. I want to thank Senator Leahy for joining with me in introducing this bill and for his cooperation in working together on this important issue. This reauthorization will extend the existing ban on the manufacture, sale, importation, shipping, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that could not be detected by a metal detector or x-ray machine. Everyone in this Chamber knows how deeply I care for the Second Amendment and the individual's right to own and bear arms. I want everyone to understand that this ban does not ban a single firearm in production today. It prevents any individual or company from creating an undetectable firearm. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am especially pleased today to speak in support of our nominee to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Roger Titus. When the White House nominated Mr. Titus last June, Judge Peter Messitte of the district of Maryland, who happens to be an old high school classmate of Mr. Titus, called him a ``first-class appointment and just a great guy. He is really one of the finest lawyers around.'' I agree wholeheartedly. Not only is Mr. Titus a ``great guy'' and ``one of the finest lawyers around,'' he is extremely well qualified--and well-deserving of the ABA's unanimous Well Qualified rating. His credentials are impeccable. Mr. Titus earned a B.A. from Johns Hopkins and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. Following his graduation from law school in 1966, Mr. Titus entered public service. He was first appointed as an assistant city attorney for Rockville, Maryland. He served in that capacity until 1970, at which time he was appointed city attorney. While serving as a committed public servant, Mr. Titus established a private and prestigious law practice specializing in complex civil and appellate litigation. And in between serving in public office and operating a successful law practice, he found the time to teach at his alma mater, Georgetown University Law Center. In 1988, Mr. Titus and his law partner merged their practice into Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP, where he is currently a partner. His clients include the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the Montgomery County government, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Igen International, Inc., and Circuit City Stores, Inc. Fellow members of the Maryland bar have recognized Mr. Titus's outstanding legal skills. He has received numerous accolades, among them fellowships in notable organizations such as the American Bar Foundation, the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and the Maryland Bar Foundation. In 1989, he was appointed to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Court of Appeals of Maryland. In 1999, he was one of seventeen living attorneys to be awarded the Century of Service Award by the Bar Association of Montgomery County. And in 2001, he was awarded the Leadership in Law Award of The Daily Record. Mr. Titus brings sterling credentials, legal acumen, and nearly 40 years of experience to the Federal bench. He will undoubtedly be an excellent addition to the bench and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his confirmation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the managers, Chairman Bennett and Senator Kohl, for agreeing to the amendment that Senators Harkin, Durbin and I offer today. The purpose of our amendment is simple. The Food and Drug Administration has advised us that, in fiscal year 2004, it will spend $10.4 million to regulate dietary supplements. The Hatch-Harkin-Durbin amendment would increase those activities by 10 percent, or $1 million. Let me explain why this amendment is necessary. First, I will explain the pertinent law that the FDA administers. There is no question that tens of millions of Americans rely daily on safe dietary supplements to maintain and improve their healthy lifestyles. The popularity of these products and the concern over their regulation are what led to enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, in 1994, a bill that Senator Harkin and I were proud to author with now-Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson. DSHEA is a strong law that properly implemented will protect the interests of consumers. But, as with any law, it has to be implemented for it to work. Enactment of DSHEA followed literally decades of Food and Drug Administration animosity toward dietary supplement products. This animosity and the lack of a clear regulatory structure for supplements were clearly demonstrated prior to passage of DSHEA. That is why two- thirds of the Senate cosponsored our bill. That is why a majority of the House cosponsored the bill. And that is why it passed so overwhelmingly. The basic structure of DSHEA allowed all products marketed as dietary supplements when the bill was enacted to stay on the market unless the FDA could show safety problems with a particular product or line of products--this is the so-called ``grandfather'' provision; manufacturers must notify the FDA before any new ingredients are marketed. At the same time, we provided the FDA with the full range of enforcement mechanisms to act against unsafe or misbranded supplements, including seizure, injunction, civil monetary penalties and even criminal penalties. When Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman expressed lingering concerns that an unsafe product might be marketed and FDA would not have adequate authority to act against it, we added a new tool-- imminent hazard--so that the Secretary could take immediate action against a product that he believed poses an imminent hazard to public health. I might add, the definition as to what constitutes an ``imminent hazard'' is entirely up to the Department of Health and Human Services, so this is a very broad authority. Even so, there are some who believe that dietary supplements should not be marketed in the United States without a preclearance similar to that for pharmaceuticals. We who drafted and passed DSHEA along with millions of Americans were persuaded that was not necessary. First, most supplements cannot be patented, so there is little incentive for manufacturers to undergo the expensive and time-consuming FDA approval process. Second, many supplements have been used safely for literally centuries, if not millennia, so it is not necessary to subject them to the approval process. That was why even the most liberal members felt comfortable with the grandfather structure. Finally, we added a provision so that FDA would have the time to examine any ingredient not previously marketed and the evidence of its safety before that product actually reached the stores. When we drafted DSHEA, ensuring the safety of products was at the forefront of our efforts. The law gives the FDA abundant tools to remove products that are unsafe from the market. It includes a safety standard that was carefully crafted with Senator Kennedy and Representatives Dingell and Waxman, the chairs of FDA-related panels in 1994. There is no excuse for a supplement manufacturer to market products that are unsafe or inaccurately labeled or that make outlandish claims. Unfortunately, a small number of irresponsible supplement companies are taking advantage of consumers. I contend that the law is adequate to deal with them if FDA implements and enforces it. So, we come to the purpose of our amendment. In the nine-plus years since DSHEA was enacted, there has been too much talk that the law handcuffs FDA and too little effort to apply the law. It is impossible for this law to protect consumers if it is not enforced. I am not here to criticize the FDA or throw barbs. Frankly, the FDA under Commissioner Mark McClellan has done more to enforce DSHEA than the previous administration had. I credit Commissioner McClellan for his commitment to implement the law fully. I truly believe he wants to make this law work. Congress must support him. That is why I have joined with Senator Harkin to introduce the DSHEA Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2003, S. 1538. And that is why we are offering this amendment today, which we consider to be a down payment on S. 1538. Yes, there is a small number of products that do raise serious concerns. Ephedra is one. As I have done for many years, I urge the FDA to act definitively on this issue based on the best available science, not politics. If the agency deems that ephedra poses a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury when used as labeled, than the agency can and must move to take the product off the market. This has gone on for too long. That is the reason I am happy to cosponsor the companion amendment offered by Senator Durbin. Earlier this year, the FDA advised me it had received 3,000 comments and 12,000 letters in response to the agency's proposed rule-making on ephedra. This has obviously placed a burden on this tiny agency, which needs funding to complete the job it has undertaken. Indeed, as this example shows, the fight for resources is a huge challenge for FDA. The FDA simply does not have the staff or money it needs to do the job. In short, the agency is woefully underfunded, especially when it comes to dietary supplement regulation. That is the only reason I can see that the safety standard we enacted has never been invoked. That has to be the reason that it has taken almost a decade to promulgate the good manufacturing practice standards that can help guarantee the safety, the purity, and the accurate labeling of products. And that must be the reason that a product like androstenedione, which I believe is not even a dietary supplement, continues to be marketed in this country. I have been very concerned about the safety of steroid precursor products like andro--and especially when they fall into the hands of our youth. That is why I have joined with Senator Biden, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley to cosponsor the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, S. 1780, that will add andro and other steroid precursors, as well as THG, to the list of controlled substances. I intend for the Judiciary Committee to make adoption of S. 1780 a priority, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both S. 1780 and S. 1538. We have a very solid dietary supplement law that can deal with problems that arise. But, the FDA must use that law for it to be effective, and Congress must support the agency in that effort.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Collins, chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, entering into a colloquy on a matter that concerns the Judiciary Committee. In particular, our colloquy involves the nomination of Michael Garcia to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. Following our statements, I will seek an unanimous consent agreement to refer Mr. Garcia's nomination to the Judiciary Committee. All committees derive their ``respective jurisdictions'' from Senate Rule XXV, among other sources. As such, the Governmental Affairs Committee, in its responsibility for the ``organization and reorganization of the executive branch of the Government,'' played a crucial role in establishing the new Department of Homeland Security. I would like to compliment Senator Collins on her leadership and the significant improvements that have resulted in our Nation's security since September 11. Also, under Senate Rule XXV, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over ``immigration and naturalization.'' It is important for the immigration and naturalization functions which have been transferred from the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies to the Department of Homeland Security to remain under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. With the formation of three new bureaus for immigration policy in the Department of Homeland Security, countless situations--from day-to-day immigration services and enforcement to long-term border security planning--will arise in which legislation affecting these bureaus and oversight of these bureaus is an essential role of the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate my colleague taking the time to clarify the confirmation process for Mr. Garcia and the commitment to Senate Rules XXI and XXVI, Section 8 as it affects the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee for her comments and efforts on this matter.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination Charles W. Pickering, Sr. to be a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am pleased that the Majority Leader has brought this nomination to the floor, as it has been nearly 2\1/2\ years since Judge Pickering was first nominated to this position. Since then, his record has been carefully considered. He appeared before the Judiciary Committee in not one, but two lengthy hearings. So there has been plenty of opportunity to consider the qualifications of Judge Pickering. We have received hundreds of letters of support for Judge Pickering from the public, members of the bar, as well as political, academic, and religious leaders. The overwhelming support for Judge Pickering's nomination from his home state of Mississippi speaks volumes, especially since that support comes from across the political spectrum and from various racial and ethnic groups. Last month, the Governor of Mississippi and the other Democratic elected statewide officials of Mississippi sent a letter endorsing Judge Pickering stating they believe he should be confirmed. In that letter they noted that Judge Pickering has worked for racial reconciliation and ``helped unify our communities.'' They go on to state, ``Judge Pickering's record demonstrates his commitment to equal protection, equal rights and fairness for all. His values demand he respect the law and constitutional precedents and rule accordingly. He does. . . . As a judge, he is consistent in his fairness to everyone, and deemed well qualified by those who independently review his rulings, temperament, and work.'' Unfortunately, there has also been an unjustified campaign against Judge Pickering, driven largely by Washington special interest groups who do not know Judge Pickering and who have an ideological axe to grind. Make no mistake about it--these groups' political agenda is to paint President Bush's fair and qualified nominees as extremists in order to keep them off the federal bench. It has been reported that a member of this body has accused the President of ``loading up the judiciary with right-wingers who want to turn the clock back to the 1890s,'' stating that America is under attack from ``the hard right, the mean people.'' That news report also quoted that same Senator as having said, ``They have this sort of little patina of philosophy but underneath it all is meanness, selfishness and narrow-mindedness.'' Now, I am disappointed that this is the level of discourse that Members of this body lower themselves to in their attempt to score political points or pander to their supporters. That is their right, if they choose to do so, but it is unfortunate that the opponents of Judge Pickering have attempted to vilify and destroy his good character and exemplary record with distortions and disparaging remarks. For example, at a recent press event in Arkansas opponents continued their smear campaign, with one group describing Judge Pickering as a ``racist,'' a ``bigot'' and a ``woman-hater.'' Such remarks reveal which side is based on meanness. So today I must stand and defend the character and record of Judge Pickering and put these falsehoods, distortions and mean-spirited remarks in the trash bin where they belong. I was pleased that, despite this intimidation campaign, President Bush in January of this year renominated Judge Pickering for the Fifth Circuit. The propaganda easily gets in the way, so let me remind my colleagues that after fully evaluating Judge Pickering's integrity, competence, and temperament, the American Bar Association gave him its highest rating of ``Well Qualified'' not once, but twice--both when he was first nominated in May 2001 and again at the outset of the current Congress. Now I expect we will hear complaints from the other side that this nomination should not be before the Senate. There are those who say the President should not have renominated Judge Pickering, since the Judiciary Committee had already acted on the nomination. That position, of course, ignores the President's constitutional authority to nominate judges. And the extraordinary action taken by the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress denied the full Senate its constitutional right to advise and consent. Going forward with this nomination today is fair to Judge Pickering, fair to the Senate, and fair to President Bush. In addition to these procedural complaints, we have heard and will likely continue to hear a recycling of the tired arguments and well- worn parade of horribles--which are horrible in large part because of their gross distortion of Judge Pickering's upstanding reputation and record. It is my fervent hope that opponents of this nomination do not resort to attacks on Judge Pickering based on his personal convictions in an effort to justify their opposition to his nomination. However, I am not optimistic that my hopes will be realized, if the unfortunate attack by the extremist abortion group, NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, is any indication. That group, which represents what this debate is truly about, states ``Charles Pickering of Mississippi was a founding father of the anti-choice movement, and a clear risk to substitute far-right ideology for common-sense interpretation of the law.'' I reject that characterization, but in any event Judge Pickering's private views on abortion, like any judicial nominee's personal views on political issues, are irrelevant to the confirmation decision. Judge Pickering has publicly affirmed in his confirmation hearings that he will follow established law and Supreme Court precedents--even those with which he disagrees. His record as a jurist demonstrates his commitment to the rule of law and that he understands that all lower courts, including the 5th Circuit, are bound by Roe and by the more recent Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. For the record, in 1976, then-political advocate Charles Pickering joined a long line of famous Democrats and liberals who believed that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Some who shared his view include Byron White, President Kennedy's appointee to the Supreme Court, Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who investigated President Nixon, and Professor William Van Allstyne, a former board member of the ACLU. But I repeat--Judge Pickering's political views are less important than his expressed commitment to follow Supreme Court precedent, even precedents with which he may not agree. It is outrageous that Judge Pickering, who has three daughters and nine granddaughters, has been smeared as a ``woman-hater'' or ``anti- woman.'' Indeed, numerous women who know and have worked with Judge Pickering have endorsed his nomination, including civil rights attorney Deborah Gambrell, and Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube. Unlike some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have steadfastly resisted efforts to inject personal ideology into the confirmation process. We have all seen the destructive effects of such tactics on this institution, on the judicial nominations process, and on the nominees themselves. So as we debate the qualifications of Judge Pickering, and as his record is fairly evaluated on the merits, there can be little doubt that he deserves the support of every Member of the Senate. Let me step back from the politics of this nomination for a minute and talk about the person. Too often, I fear, we Senators get engaged in the issues to such an extent that the personal side of individual nominees might be forgotten. By many opponents, Charles Pickering is portrayed as the stereotype of the Southern white male, locked in the thought, culture and traditions of his upbringing in the deep South of yesteryear. This is the caricature they attack, but it is not the reality of who Judge Pickering is. Though born and raised in the rural South, and although he has remained geographically near his childhood home, Judge Pickering has traveled far in his personal and professional life. And while the society of his youth has changed dramatically, in Charles Pickering we have a nominee with a lifetime record of civic and community service in improving racial relations and enforcing laws protecting civil and constitutional rights. Judge Pickering's life story includes an outstanding academic record, an exceptional legal career and a life committed to serving others. He graduated first in his law school class at the University of Mississippi in 1961. While in law school, he was on the Law Journal and served as Chairman of the Moot Court Board. Upon graduating, he became a partner in a law firm in Mississippi. In the 1960s, when racial tensions were prevalent throughout Mississippi, Judge Pickering served as City Prosecuting Attorney of Laurel and was elected and served four years as County Prosecuting Attorney of Jones County. He condemned racially motivated violence and encouraged citizens to help the government prosecute those guilty of such violence. As County Attorney from 1964 to 1968, he assisted the FBI in investigating and prosecuting the Klan's attacks on African Americans and civil rights workers. During his time as County Attorney, the KKK infiltrated the Woodworkers Union at the Masonite pulpwood plant in Jones County. Klan members beat people, shot into houses, fire bombed homes, and even committed a murder at the Masonite plant. Judge Pickering signed the affidavit supporting the murder indictment of reputed Klansman Dubie Lee for the murder at the Masonite plant. He also testified against the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, Sam Bowers, at a trial for the firebombing death of a civil rights activist, indisputably putting himself and his family at risk. Now some may downplay Judge Pickering's actions during this era, but I want to emphasize the moral courage that he consistently displayed. Let me remind my colleagues of a statement by the chairman of the Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus, state Rep. Philip West, who is a supporter of Judge Pickering and has defended the judge's civil right's record. Representative West observed, ``For him to say one word against the Klan was risking his life.'' Mr. President, to hear Judge Pickering now described as a racist or bigot is simply despicable, and I will challenge anybody who does that on this floor. Throughout his career Judge Pickering has shown a commitment to his community in both a professional and personal capacity. His numerous civic contributions include serving as the head of the March of Dimes campaign in Jones County; as the chairman of the Jones County Chapter of the American National Red Cross; and as the chairman of the Jones County Heart Fund. In 1963 he was recognized as one of the three Outstanding Young Men in Mississippi. Judge Pickering is active in his church and has served many years as a Sunday school teacher, as chairman of the deacons, Sunday school superintendent, and church treasurer. He has worked with organizations to advance issues that promote equal opportunity for all individuals in his community, church, political party and State. His work with the race relations committee for Jones County and the Institute of Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi are just two examples of his leadership for equal rights in this area. That is why we find such a broad outpouring of support for Judge Pickering across all groups and political parties. Allow me to share some of these editorials, articles, and letters with my colleagues. I have already mentioned the letter of support from the current Governor of Mississippi and other Democratic statewide officials. Another letter came from William Winter, the former Democratic Governor of Mississippi, who writes, ``I have known Judge Pickering personally and professionally for all his adult life. I am convinced that he possesses the intellect, the integrity and the temperament to serve with distinction on that [Fifth Circuit] court. He is wise, compassionate and fair, and he is precisely the kind of judge that I would want to decide matters that would personally affect me or my family. While Judge Pickering and I are members of different political parties and do not hold to the same view on many public issues, I have always respected his fairness, objectivity, and decency.'' Many Senators are familiar with the name Jorge Rangel, who was nominated to the Fifth Circuit by President Clinton. In his letter supporting Judge Pickering's nomination, Mr. Rangel explains, ``I first met Judge Pickering in 1990 in my capacity as a member of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. As the Fifth Circuit's representative on the Committee, I conducted the primary investigation into his professional qualifications when he was nominated to a federal district judgeship in Mississippi. The Charles W. Pickering that I have read about in press reports during the pendency of his current nomination does not comport with the Charles W. Pickering that I have come to know in the last thirteen years. Competent, compassionate, sensitive and free from bias are terms that aptly describe him. Attempts to demonize him are both unfair and out of place in a judicial confirmation proceeding.'' Mr. Rangel notes that Judge Pickering called him during the pendency of his own nomination with words of encouragement, and concludes, ``The current impasse in the confirmation proceedings is an unfortunate one, because it continues to ensnare many nominees of goodwill who have answered the call to serve. For their sake and for the ongoing vitality of our federal judiciary, I would hope that you and your colleagues can find common ground. A good starting point would be the confirmation of Judge Pickering.'' Yet another letter of support came from renowned Las Vegas criminal defense lawyer David Chesnoff, a registered Democrat who serves on the Board of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Mr. Chesnoff, who tried a case before Judge Pickering, writes, ``At no time during my experience before Judge Pickering . . . did I ever note even a scintilla of evidence that Judge Pickering did not treat every citizen of our great country with equal fairness and consideration. Based on my experience with Judge Pickering, I am offended that people are attacking his sterling character. I felt it important to register my position on his behalf and believe he would make an outstanding addition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. . . .'' I.A. Rosenbaum also wrote to voice his support for Judge Pickering. I will read his letter in its entirety: ``I was the Democratic Mayor of Meridian [Mississippi] from 1977 to 1985 and a past President of Congregation Beth Israel. Injustice and character assassination galls me. Charles Pickering is no racist. He stood tall when our Temple was bombed and made very effort to prosecute Sam Bowers who planned the bombing. Sincerely, I.A. Rosenbaum.'' All of these letters, of course, were generated in response to the gross smear campaign waged against Judge Pickering that centered largely on his actions in the Swan case. I expect that we will hear a great deal about that case during the course of this debate. But let me make something perfectly clear to everyone here. Judge Pickering's actions in the Swan case had absolutely nothing to do with racial insensitivity. His lifetime of striving to promote racial reconciliation and fighting prejudice provides irrefutable evidence of that. Rather, Judge Pickering's actions in the Swan case had everything to do with his penchant for going easy on first-time criminal defendants. Judge Pickering's record is replete with examples where he has seen the rehabilitative potential of first-time offenders and accordingly sentenced them to lighter sentences. Take, for example, the case of a 20-year-old African-American drug defendant who faced a 5-year mandatory minimum. Judge Pickering reduced that to 30 months and recommended the defendant be allowed to participate in an intensive confinement program, further reducing his sentence. Another young African-American drug defendant with no previous felony convictions faced a 40-month sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Judge Pickering continued his case for a year, placed him under strict supervised home release for 1 year, and then used his good conduct during home release to establish the basis for a downward departure. Judge Pickering ultimately sentenced him to 6 months of home confinement, 5 years probation and no prison time. A third 20-year-old African-American male faced between 70 and 87 months under the guidelines for a drug crime. Judge Pickering downward departed to 48 months and recommended that he participate in intensive confinement, which further reduced his sentence. The defendant's lawyer called Judge Pickering's compassionate sentence a ``life changing experience'' for this defendant. In another case, an African-American woman faced a minimum sentence of 188 months. The government made a motion for a downward departure, and Judge Pickering continued the case six times over a period of 2\1/ 2\ years to allow the prosecution to develop a basis for a further downward departure. In the end, Judge Pickering reduced her sentence by more than half, sentencing her to 63 months. The last case I want to discuss is the Barnett case. The Barnetts, an interracial couple, were both before Judge Pickering, charged with drug crimes. Both were facing sentences between 120 to 150 months but plea bargained with the government for a maximum 5-year sentence. Judge Pickering sentenced Mr. Barnett to the 5 years but with Mrs. Barnett, who had Crohn's disease and was taking care of one of her sick children, he departed downward 22 levels and sentenced her to 12 months of home confinement. At a later time, the government made a motion for a downward departure for Mr. Barnett and Judge Pickering reduced his sentence as well. Mrs. Barnett later wrote a letter, as she said, out of gratitude for all Judge Pickering did for her and her family. She stated she had learned a valuable lesson, that her family had been brought closer together, and that her husband had changed in many positive ways. She concluded, ``I want to thank you for your part in all of this, and I can assure you that your thoughtfulness and just consideration is greatly appreciated and will never be forgotten.'' Thirteen years ago Judge Pickering began his service as a U.S. District Judge. He was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, which included a good number of members who are still serving in the Senate today, including 25 members of the Democratic caucus. That affirmative vote was well deserved given Judge Pickering's excellent academic record, his distinguished legal career, his outstanding character, and his superb record of public and community service. That record has only been enhanced by his service on the bench. Judge Pickering deserves an up or down vote on the Senate floor. So I urge my colleagues to use proper standards, consider the entire record, and use a fair process for considering Judge Pickering's nomination. Those who know him best, Democrats and Republicans, representing a broad cross section of citizens, endorse his nomination. An unbiased consideration of Judge Pickering's character and experience will lead every fair-minded person that Judge Pickering's record fully justifies his confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. As the President said recently, ``The United States Senate must step up to serious constitutional responsibilities. I've nominated many distinguished and highly-qualified Americans to fill vacancies on the federal, district and circuit courts. Because a small group of Senators is willfully obstructing the process, some of these nominees have been denied up or down votes for months, even years. More than one-third of my nominees for the circuit courts are still awaiting a vote. The needless delays in the system are harming the administration of justice and they are deeply unfair to the nominees, themselves. The Senate Judiciary Committee should give a prompt and fair hearing to every single nominee, and send every nomination to the Senate floor for an up or down vote.'' I agree with President Bush that this obstruction is unfair and harmful. I have taken to the Senate floor on numerous occasions to condemn the tactic of forcing judicial nominees through cloture votes. My position has been the same regardless of whether the nominee was appointed by a Democratic president or a Republican president. I am proud to say that during my nearly 30 years in the Senate, I have never voted against cloture for a judicial nominee, even on the rare occasion that I opposed a judicial nomination and ultimately voted against it. Yet, once again, some Senate Democrats are filibustering another ``Well Qualified'' nominee--preventing an up-or-down vote on this judge who is supported by a majority of the Senate. This is tyranny of the minority and it is unfair. Senator Kennedy has asked ``What's the point of pushing yet again for a nominee who probably cannot get enough support to be confirmed because he doesn't deserve to be confirmed?'' With all due respect, I must disagree with the premise of his question. Judge Pickering does deserve to be confirmed, and, if an up-or-down vote were allowed, does have enough support to be confirmed. As I have stated before, requiring a supermajority vote on this or any judicial nominee thwarts the Senate from exercising its constitutional duty of advise and consent. The Constitution is clear on this matter; it contemplates that a vote by a simple majority of the Senate will determine the fate of a judicial nominee. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives that power to a minority of 41 Senators. Furthermore, a supermajority requirement for judicial nominees needlessly injects even more politics into the already over-politicized confirmation process. I believe that there are certain areas that should be designated as off-limits from political activity. The Senate's role in confirming lifetime-appointed Article III judges--and the underlying principle that the Senate perform that role through the majority vote of its members--is one such issue. Nothing less depends on the recognition of these principles than the continued, untarnished respect in which we hold our third branch of Government--the one branch of Government intended to be above political influence. Over the past 2 years I have been accused of changing or breaking committee rules and of pushing ideological nominees. The record will show that these charges are without foundation. In fact, it is Senate Democrats that have pushed the notion of injecting ideology into the confirmation process and have taken unprecedented steps to oppose judicial nominees. Opponents are using a variety of tactics to obstruct President Bush's judicial nominees. Supported by the extremist liberal interest groups, who themselves use even more shameful tactics to defeat these nominees, we have seen opponents distort the record, make unreasonable demands for privileged information, and force multiple cloture votes. This is all part of the strategy of changing the ground rules on judicial nominations that Senate Democrats have implemented. I am not the only one who is concerned about the dangerous precedents that some Democrats have established. Before Miguel Estrada, the filibuster was never used to defeat a circuit court nominee. The Washington Post--hardly a bastion of conservatism--warned in a February 5, 2003, editorial that staging a filibuster against a judicial nominee would be ``a dramatic escalation of the judicial nomination wars.'' The Post urged Democrats to ``stand down'' on any attempt to deny a vote on the particular judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada. The editorial went on to warn that ``a world in which filibusters serve as an active instrument of nomination politics is not one either party should want.'' Unfortunately, this advice was rejected and the Senate was forced to endure an unprecedented seven cloture votes before Mr. Estrada requested his nomination be withdrawn. That was a sad day for the Senate--one I hope is never repeated. Similarly, the Wall Street Journal, on February 6, 2003 stated ``Filibusters against judges are almost unheard of. . . . If Republicans let Democrats get away with this abuse of the system now, it will happen again and again.'' Unfortunately, that prediction came true, as the Senate is now blocked from acting on numerous judicial nominees because of filibusters. But it is not just editorial pages which have denounced the use of the filibuster. In fact, some of my Democratic colleagues have expressed similar views. For example, Senator Daschle, the Democratic Leader stated: ``As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' An up or down vote, that is all we ask. . . .'' Similarly, Senator Leahy, my friend, colleague, and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee said ``. . . I, too, do not want to see the Senate go down a path where a minority of the Senate is determining a judge's fate on votes of 41.'' And Senator Kennedy, the senior member on the Judiciary Committee stated, ``Nominees deserve a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But don't just sit on them--that's obstruction of justice.'' I hope that Judge Pickering's nomination is not another example of a double standard or a strategy of some of my Democratic colleagues to change the ground rules on judicial nominees. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will exercise the same independence that I did when I joined them to invoke cloture on the nominations of Clinton judicial nominees. Judge Pickering deserves an up-or-down vote, and he deserves to be confirmed. Mr. President, there are so many other things I could say, but I want to leave enough time for our Mississippi Senators. Let me just say this. I know Judge Pickering. I have gotten to know him better through this ordeal he has gone through over the last 2\1/2\ years than I ever thought I would. He is a fine man. His family is a fine family. He sent his kids to integrated schools--the first integrated schools in Mississippi they could go to. One of them now sits in the Congress, Chip Pickering, who is one of the fine Congress people here, and everybody who knows him knows it. What they have done to him is awful. It is awful. I think it is time for the Democrats to break free from these rotten outside groups that just play politics on everything and bring everything down to the issue of abortion. I ask unanimous consent relevant material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Right.

Mr. HATCH. With the understanding that Senator Cochran will be given the leader's 5 minutes at the very end of the debate.

Mr. HATCH. Does the distinguished Senator care to go ahead?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.