Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. He has waited 12 years, through three nominations, by two different Presidents.

Mr. HATCH. I heard an objection from the other side. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Keep in mind, as of tomorrow, those two will be waiting for 2 solid years. We need to get them done, too. I call on my colleagues on the other side to get rid of their wicked and evil ways and allow these people to have votes up and down.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the nomination of John Roberts, who has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Mr. Roberts was first nominated to this post by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. He has been nominated for this post by two different Presidents on three separate occasions, and has waited more than 11 years for his confirmation, so I am glad to see that this day has finally come when we can expect a vote by the full Senate on his nomination. Mr. Roberts has exceptional experience as a Supreme Court and appellate advocate. He has argued an astounding 39 cases before the Supreme Court and has argued in every Federal circuit court of appeals. His Supreme Court practice consists of seeking and opposing Supreme Court review, preparing amicus curiae briefs, and helping to prepare other counsel to argue before the Court. His clients have included large and small corporations, trade organizations, nonprofit organizations, States, and individuals. Mr. Roberts is one of the most accomplished and brilliant legal minds that I have seen in my 27 years as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not surprisingly, the ABA awarded him its highest possible rating of unanimously well-qualified. He is widely regarded as one of the best appellate attorneys of his generation. After reviewing his legal accomplishments it is easy to see why his colleagues have such respect and admiration for him. I would like to read excerpts from a few of the many letters his colleagues have sent the committee discussing his professionalism, character, and open-mindedness. The first letter is from 156 members of the Bar of the District of Columbia, including such legal powerhouses as Boyden Gray, who was counsel to the first President Bush, and Lloyd Cutler, who was counsel to President Carter and Clinton. The letter states: Although, as individuals, we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding federal court of appeals judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate. He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness. In short, John Roberts represents the best of the bar and, we have no doubt, would be a superb federal court of appeals judge. The committee also received a letter signed by 13 of his former colleagues at the Office of the Solicitor General. The letter states: Although we are of diverse political parties and persuasions, each of us is firmly convinced that Mr. Roberts would be a truly superb addition to the federal court of appeals. As the Committee will doubtless hear from many quarters, John is an incomparable appellate lawyer. Indeed, it is fair to say that he is one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the country. . . . The Office then, as now, comprised lawyers of every political affiliation--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Mr. Roberts was attentive to and respectful of all views, and he represented the United States zealously but fairly. He had the deepest respect for legal principles and legal precedent--instincts that will serve him well as a court of appeals judge. Now I would like to make a few comments about Mr. Roberts's impressive background. He entered Harvard College with sophomore standing, where he earned a bachelor's degree in history, summa cum laude, then a law degree, magna cum laude. While in law school, he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Following graduation, Mr. Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and for then-Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. His public service career included terms as Associate Counsel to President Reagan and Principal Deputy Solicitor General. He currently heads the appellate practice group for the prestigious DC law firm Hogan and Hartson, where his practice has focused on Federal appellate litigation. Mr. Roberts has been involved with a variety of high-profile and significant legal cases. He has argued on different sides of a variety of different issues, firmly establishing his reputation as a lawyer's lawyer. Beyond being considered by many to be one of the premier Supreme Court litigators of his generation, the record of John Roberts establishes that he is undeniably mainstream and fair. In fact, while in private practice Mr. Roberts has repeatedly been hired by Democratic public officials and has repeatedly argued what many consider to be the so-called liberal side of cases. In protecting the environment during the 2002 case of Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Mr. Roberts successfully argued in the U.S. Supreme Court, on behalf of a State regulatory agency, in favor of limits on property development and in support of protection of the pristine Lake Tahoe Basin area. Environmental groups hailed the majority decision, saying it would help protect America's countryside from suburban sprawl. In supporting consumer rights during the 2001 landmark Microsoft antitrust case, Mr. Roberts argued on behalf of the Clinton Department of Justice and a group of primarily Democratic State attorneys general that Microsoft's business practices violated the Sherman Act. In addition, Mr. Roberts has devoted much of his time to pro bono work. For instance, he represented a class of District of Columbia residents receiving welfare benefits, arguing that a particular change in eligibility standards that resulted in a termination of welfare benefits without an individual hearing denied class members procedural due process. In another pro bono case, United States v. Halper, Mr. Roberts was invited by the Supreme Court to represent Mr. Halper, who had been previously convicted under Federal criminal law for filing false Medicaid claims. He successfully argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the imposition of civil penalties under Federal law against an individual who had been convicted and punished under criminal law for the same conduct. Mr. Roberts also participates extensively in the pro bono program of his firm, assisting his colleagues prepare pro bono appeals on matters such as termination of parental rights, minority voting rights, noise pollution at the Grand Canyon, and environmental protection of Glacier Bay. I have every confidence that Mr. Roberts will make a great addition to the DC Circuit. He is an exceptionally well-qualified jurist who has distinguished himself as one of the best in the legal profession. I am confident that Mr. Roberts will serve with distinction on the DC Circuit, and I ask for my colleagues' full support of his nomination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of John Roberts, to be a circuit judge for the DC Circuit.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the serious matter of the erosion of pay for the Federal judiciary. There is consensus among all who have seriously looked at this issue that the independence and quality of the judiciary is at risk because of the inadequacy of the current salaries of Federal judges. The American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association issued a report on this issue in February 2001. That report documented the factors impacting erosion of judicial pay and the detrimental effects on the judiciary. Because of the withholding of cost-of-living adjustments, the impact of inflation, and the insufficient attempts to stabilize judicial pay, Federal judges are increasingly choosing to resign or retire. Furthermore, the report noted, the prospect of a declining salary in real terms also discourages potential candidates from seeking appointments to the bench. In his 2002 Year-End Report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist identified the need to increase judicial pay as the most pressing issue facing the judiciary. He highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the private sector.'' In the Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, issued January 2003, the Chairman of the Commission, Paul Volker, made this observation: ``Judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of Federal compensation policies. Federal judicial salaries have lost 24 percent of their purchasing power since 1969, which is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional provision that judicial salaries may not be reduced by Congress. . . . The lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' Accordingly, the Commission made the recommendation that Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to other professional opportunities. Responding to this report and recommendation, the Judicial Conference, at its recent meeting, unanimously adopted a Resolution which contains in part the following: ``Whereas, the President at the request of the Chief Justice has agreed to support legislation that would increase judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices; Now therefore, the Committee on the Judicial Branch recommends that the Judicial Conference endorse and vigorously seek legislation that would increase judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices.'' Today, Senator Leahy and I, joined by Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chambliss are introducing a bill that will restore the lost cost-of-living adjustments which were denied to the judiciary and will help reduce the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries which still remains. This legislation enacts a 16.5 percent increase in the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court and other Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, an average salary increase of about $25,000. It does so without altering the respective provisions of title 28, United States Code, which defines their salary rates. The pay adjustment would be effective with the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2004, and would be applied before any annual salary adjustment authorized under the Employment Cost Index approval mechanism provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461. The judicial officers enumerated in this bill to receive the 16.5 percent pay increase are the Chief Justice of the United States, associate justices of the Supreme Court, United States circuit judges, United States district judges, and judges of the United States Court of International Trade. In addition, this legislation would have the effect of increasing salaries of the judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges and full-time United States magistrate judges whose salaries are related to the rate of pay of United States district judges. This legislation will do much to improve retention on the bench and will aid in the recruitment of outstanding judicial candidates. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Chambliss and me in this bipartisan measure. I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference Resolution, as well as the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the introduction of S. 119, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003. I applaud Senators DeWine and Lindsey Graham for their longstanding and essential leadership on this issue in the Senate and the House. The importance of this issue is made tragically clear by the recent murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. In my home State of Utah, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to the unborn child, the criminal faces the possibility of being prosecuted for having taken or injured that unborn life. Twenty-five additional States have similar laws on the books. Eleven of those States recognize the unborn child as a victim throughout the entire period of prenatal development. This is only proper and, it seems to me, only just. But under existing Federal criminal statutes, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to that unborn child, the criminal faces no consequences in our Federal criminal justice system for taking or injuring that innocent, unborn life. This is wrong and it is not justified. This bill fixes the gap in Federal law by making it a separate Federal offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain already-defined Federal crimes committed against the unborn child's mother. This bill does not usurp jurisdiction over States that do not currently have laws that protect unborn victims of violence. It only applies to Federal crimes. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this bill. The only reason for opposition that I can suppose is that some in the pro-choice movement believe that our bill draws attention to the effort to dehumanize, desensitize, and depersonalize the unborn child. Given the political and legal arguments of abortion supporters, it may be difficult for them to concede an unborn child is human and therefore a victim of a crime. Nevertheless, it is not our intention in this bill to turn the debate into a battle on abortion. In no way does this bill interfere with the ability of a woman to have an abortion under current law. The bill specifically does not apply to a woman who engages in any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Therefore, it would not apply to any abortion to which a woman consents. In my view, we should all be able to support this modest effort to protect mothers and their unborn children. Some will try to claim that this bill weakens domestic violence laws by diverting attention to the unborn. That is simply not true. I am a strong supporter of domestic violence laws in this Nation. I believe domestic violence is an evil plague that needs to be stopped. For nearly 15 years, I have worked hard on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women. And when I stand here today before the entire United States Senate and offer my support for a bill, I certainly make sure that bill does not diminish in any way our capacity and will to curb domestic violence and protect women. This bill, in fact, strengthens domestic violence laws by making it a separate criminal offense under our Federal legal system to cause death or injury to an unborn child as a result of violence. For several months now, the Nation has watched in the media the unfortunate and tragic story of Laci Peterson. She was an expectant mother from California who mysteriously vanished shortly before Christmas. In mid-April, her decomposing body and the body of her unborn child washed ashore at a San Francisco-area beach. The Nation has witnessed a community in mourning over the disappearance and death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Laci Peterson was the truly tragic victim of violence that not only took her life but also the innocent life of her unborn son. This is a truly devastating story, especially for those who knew and loved Laci Peterson and eagerly awaited the birth of her son Conner. I want to do what I can to see that justice is served if there is ever a case similar to this that comes before our Federal judicial system, and that is why I support this measure. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted on April 22 and 23 indicated that of the 900 registered voters polled, 49 percent considered themselves pro-choice while only 41 percent said they are pro-life. But what is even more interesting is this same poll showed 84 percent believed Scott Peterson should be charged with two counts of homicide for murdering his wife and unborn son. California law permits criminals to be charged with murder for killing an unborn child when it has developed past the embryonic stage. Now remember, the majority of those polled in this survey said they were pro-choice. But the tragic murder of an innocent, unborn child is shocking and twisted enough that, regardless of any stance on abortion, the vast majority of Americans strongly believe an unborn life taken in murder should result in murder charges brought against the perpetrator. It is only fair and just to ask for our Federal judicial system to incorporate such a strong desire of the American people. Some will try to confuse the issue here. Let me be clear, the debate on this bill is not about abortion--far from it. It does not affect current law regarding abortion. This bill does not in any way interfere with or weaken domestic violence laws or laws intended to prevent violence against women. This is a simple remedy to a terrible crime. I hope that Congress will seriously consider this bill and promptly pass it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the introduction of S. 119, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003. I applaud Senators DeWine and Lindsey Graham for their longstanding and essential leadership on this issue in the Senate and the House. The importance of this issue is made tragically clear by the recent murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. In my home State of Utah, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to the unborn child, the criminal faces the possibility of being prosecuted for having taken or injured that unborn life. Twenty-five additional States have similar laws on the books. Eleven of those States recognize the unborn child as a victim throughout the entire period of prenatal development. This is only proper and, it seems to me, only just. But under existing Federal criminal statutes, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to that unborn child, the criminal faces no consequences in our Federal criminal justice system for taking or injuring that innocent, unborn life. This is wrong and it is not justified. This bill fixes the gap in Federal law by making it a separate Federal offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain already-defined Federal crimes committed against the unborn child's mother. This bill does not usurp jurisdiction over States that do not currently have laws that protect unborn victims of violence. It only applies to Federal crimes. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this bill. The only reason for opposition that I can suppose is that some in the pro-choice movement believe that our bill draws attention to the effort to dehumanize, desensitize, and depersonalize the unborn child. Given the political and legal arguments of abortion supporters, it may be difficult for them to concede an unborn child is human and therefore a victim of a crime. Nevertheless, it is not our intention in this bill to turn the debate into a battle on abortion. In no way does this bill interfere with the ability of a woman to have an abortion under current law. The bill specifically does not apply to a woman who engages in any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Therefore, it would not apply to any abortion to which a woman consents. In my view, we should all be able to support this modest effort to protect mothers and their unborn children. Some will try to claim that this bill weakens domestic violence laws by diverting attention to the unborn. That is simply not true. I am a strong supporter of domestic violence laws in this Nation. I believe domestic violence is an evil plague that needs to be stopped. For nearly 15 years, I have worked hard on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women. And when I stand here today before the entire United States Senate and offer my support for a bill, I certainly make sure that bill does not diminish in any way our capacity and will to curb domestic violence and protect women. This bill, in fact, strengthens domestic violence laws by making it a separate criminal offense under our Federal legal system to cause death or injury to an unborn child as a result of violence. For several months now, the Nation has watched in the media the unfortunate and tragic story of Laci Peterson. She was an expectant mother from California who mysteriously vanished shortly before Christmas. In mid-April, her decomposing body and the body of her unborn child washed ashore at a San Francisco-area beach. The Nation has witnessed a community in mourning over the disappearance and death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Laci Peterson was the truly tragic victim of violence that not only took her life but also the innocent life of her unborn son. This is a truly devastating story, especially for those who knew and loved Laci Peterson and eagerly awaited the birth of her son Conner. I want to do what I can to see that justice is served if there is ever a case similar to this that comes before our Federal judicial system, and that is why I support this measure. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted on April 22 and 23 indicated that of the 900 registered voters polled, 49 percent considered themselves pro-choice while only 41 percent said they are pro-life. But what is even more interesting is this same poll showed 84 percent believed Scott Peterson should be charged with two counts of homicide for murdering his wife and unborn son. California law permits criminals to be charged with murder for killing an unborn child when it has developed past the embryonic stage. Now remember, the majority of those polled in this survey said they were pro-choice. But the tragic murder of an innocent, unborn child is shocking and twisted enough that, regardless of any stance on abortion, the vast majority of Americans strongly believe an unborn life taken in murder should result in murder charges brought against the perpetrator. It is only fair and just to ask for our Federal judicial system to incorporate such a strong desire of the American people. Some will try to confuse the issue here. Let me be clear, the debate on this bill is not about abortion--far from it. It does not affect current law regarding abortion. This bill does not in any way interfere with or weaken domestic violence laws or laws intended to prevent violence against women. This is a simple remedy to a terrible crime. I hope that Congress will seriously consider this bill and promptly pass it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the serious matter of the erosion of pay for the Federal judiciary. There is consensus among all who have seriously looked at this issue that the independence and quality of the judiciary is at risk because of the inadequacy of the current salaries of Federal judges. The American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association issued a report on this issue in February 2001. That report documented the factors impacting erosion of judicial pay and the detrimental effects on the judiciary. Because of the withholding of cost-of-living adjustments, the impact of inflation, and the insufficient attempts to stabilize judicial pay, Federal judges are increasingly choosing to resign or retire. Furthermore, the report noted, the prospect of a declining salary in real terms also discourages potential candidates from seeking appointments to the bench. In his 2002 Year-End Report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist identified the need to increase judicial pay as the most pressing issue facing the judiciary. He highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the private sector.'' In the Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, issued January 2003, the Chairman of the Commission, Paul Volker, made this observation: ``Judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of Federal compensation policies. Federal judicial salaries have lost 24 percent of their purchasing power since 1969, which is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional provision that judicial salaries may not be reduced by Congress. . . . The lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' Accordingly, the Commission made the recommendation that Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to other professional opportunities. Responding to this report and recommendation, the Judicial Conference, at its recent meeting, unanimously adopted a Resolution which contains in part the following: ``Whereas, the President at the request of the Chief Justice has agreed to support legislation that would increase judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices; Now therefore, the Committee on the Judicial Branch recommends that the Judicial Conference endorse and vigorously seek legislation that would increase judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices.'' Today, Senator Leahy and I, joined by Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chambliss are introducing a bill that will restore the lost cost-of-living adjustments which were denied to the judiciary and will help reduce the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries which still remains. This legislation enacts a 16.5 percent increase in the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court and other Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, an average salary increase of about $25,000. It does so without altering the respective provisions of title 28, United States Code, which defines their salary rates. The pay adjustment would be effective with the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2004, and would be applied before any annual salary adjustment authorized under the Employment Cost Index approval mechanism provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461. The judicial officers enumerated in this bill to receive the 16.5 percent pay increase are the Chief Justice of the United States, associate justices of the Supreme Court, United States circuit judges, United States district judges, and judges of the United States Court of International Trade. In addition, this legislation would have the effect of increasing salaries of the judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges and full-time United States magistrate judges whose salaries are related to the rate of pay of United States district judges. This legislation will do much to improve retention on the bench and will aid in the recruitment of outstanding judicial candidates. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Chambliss and me in this bipartisan measure. I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference Resolution, as well as the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to urge the ratification of Treaty Document 108-14, allowing for the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. I wish to commend the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, as well as the ranking minority member, Senator Biden, for the work their committee has done to prepare for this historic vote. Since the first accession to the original membership of NATO, when Greece and Turkey were admitted, the Senate has preserved its role of advice and consent on amending this treaty. Senators Lugar and Biden, who have made the advancement of the Atlantic alliance a central concern in their respected careers as two of the Senate's most thoughtful members on foreign policy, have maintained the Senate's critical function, and have, through hearings and statements through the years, provided many opportunities to study the policies and the evolution of the U.S. national interest within the Atlantic alliance. This is the second time we have voted to ratify the North Atlantic treaty since the end of the cold war. President Clinton supported the first group of new entrants in 1998, and at that time I joined 79 of my colleagues in support of membership for Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. When I took to this floor to urge ratification, I said: ``I hope this is not the last enlargement, although I am confident that future enlargements, if they occur, will occur with the same detailed, painstaking consideration as we have conducted over the past 4 years.'' Senators Lugar and Biden have given this accession treaty that consideration, and their committee has unanimously recommended passage. In so doing, the committee has concluded its work to achieve a major platform in President Bush's foreign policy: the admittance to this alliance of the latest group of nations willing and capable to advance the mission of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We will all note that the debate today will be shorter than it was in 1998. And I predict that the vote for passage will be at least as strong, although it is worthwhile noting that every vote this Senate has had since 1955 on all of the new entrants to NATO has been with strong majorities. The reason the debate will be shorter today reflects the consensus that has formed on the subject we address today: The enlargement of NATO, Mr. President, is good foreign policy for the United States. Of course it is also good for the candidate countries. Working through our detailed membership action plans, these nations have transformed their militaries, improving interoperability and--this is equally important--developing complementarities of missions. They have had to accept goals for defense expenditures, exceeding, in some cases, the percentage of GNPs dedicated to defense by some of NATO's older members. And the desire to join NATO has forced the applicant nations to promote and meet other conditions of open and democratic societies. These nations have had to resolve all border issues, establish political norms for the protection of minorities, open their historical archives and accept the responsibilities of their captive or totalitarian pasts, including the Holocaust era and the communist era, combat corruption and set standards of transparency, and educate their publics on the nature of the commitment to NATO. Throughout these years of preparation, we have seen, in varying strong and distinct measures, a host of nations enthusiastically embracing our values and earnestly accepting the responsibilities explicit in membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The core of that responsibility lies in article V of the North Atlantic treaty. That article states: ``The Parties (that is, the member states) agree that an armed attack against one or more of them shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'' This is the commitment at the core of the NATO alliance. It is that commitment that served to deter a Soviet attack against Europe and North America for nearly 50 years. That was a deterrence that was backed up by an explicit understanding that, if deterrence failed, NATO's goal would be to predominate in victory. The deterrence worked, the peace was kept, and that is why NATO is rightly considered the most effective military alliance in modern history. The end of the cold war brought on a reevaluation of the role of NATO, with a few suggesting that NATO was no longer necessary without a Soviet threat. That misguided view--that mistook the end of the Soviet threat for an era of unprecedented peace and security--never took hold. More sober minds recognized that security and stability were not to be assumed as the status quo, and that conflict would take new forms, be it ethnic war from the dissolution of Yugoslavia to transnational threats emanating from other parts of the world and threatening the security of Europe and North America. As has already been mentioned in the debate, NATO has only invoked article V once in its history, and it was not during the cold war when, as I mentioned, the deterrence of the alliance always held. Article V was invoked after September 11, 2001, when the members of the alliance determined that the attacks by al-Qaida on the United States were to be considered an attack against the entire alliance. In the days after September 11, 2001, NATO aircraft flew patrols over U.S. airspace as the U.S. military prepared to deploy to Afghanistan in the first phase of our global war on terrorism. Under U.S. leadership, NATO has accepted that it will face new missions in the 21st century, and that many of those activities defending the members of the alliance will be out-of-area missions. A quick review of the contributions of the nations seeking membership in this latest treaty accession demonstrates, in my view, that they understand the new missions and are already contributing. Bulgaria was a member of the President Bush's ``coalition of the willing,'' and granted use of its airspace as well as an airbase for our Iraq operations, and has offered infantry forces for peacekeeping. While Iraq was not a NATO operation, our ability to rely on Bulgaria, as well as other existing NATO members for equipment and support, made our victory in Iraq more easily attainable. Estonia has been contributing to NATO operations in the Balkans, providing forces to SFOR and KFOR. It was also a member of the ``coalition of the willing,'' and has also offered soldiers for post- conflict peacekeeping in Iraq. Similarly, Latvia has also contributed to SFOR and KFOR in the Balkans, supported U.S. policy in Iraq, and has sent medics to support our operations in Afghanistan. Lithuania has contributed to U.S. operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and was a vocal member of the ``coalition of the willing'' in Iraq. Romania has made significant contributions to U.S. operations, providing troops and transport aircraft to our mission in Afghanistan, and granting use of their territory during our operations in Iraq. One thousand American troops are currently stationed in Romania. These are just highlights of ways that these countries have directly contributed to the challenges we face today, and they do not include the specialties these various countries are developing to confront the challenges of tomorrow. I raise these highlights because I believe that ratifying this treaty is good foreign policy, Mr. President, in that it strengthens America's position in the world, and enhances our ability to achieve our goals when the defense of our national security requires us to go beyond our borders. This second wave of nations joining NATO since the end of the cold war brings political stability and expands security to most of Central and Eastern Europe, a geographic zone that brought us calamitous strife and bloodshed in the 20th century. We are referring to a region that Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has felicitously termed the ``New Europe.'' I have nothing against the Old Europe, and note that history shows a common bond with many of the nations of that ``Old'' Europe, a bond reaffirmed by our coalition partner, Great Britain, and currently and I hope temporarily denied by other members, such as France, Germany and Belgium. Today we vote for New Europe. In recognizing their contributions, we should not deny their enthusiastic embrace of America's role in the world. They were, after all, the captive nations of the Soviet era, and we were, after all, the leading light in the fight against communism. In their enthusiastic embrace of our values and our missions, I think of the line of Cicero, that ``Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.'' These nations have shown already that they are willing to defend freedom, and their membership in the Atlantic alliance will advance that defense. I will repeat again what I said in 1998, and say that I hope this is not the last enlargement. Croatia and Ukraine have indicated that they wish to join some day, and I would welcome them. The mission of NATO is to defend, not exclude. Today I urge my colleagues to join me in ratifying this latest round of accession to NATO, and in so doing, to add force and depth to an organization that has long served the security of this Nation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his excellent remarks. My colleague from Idaho has been a formidable force in the Senate for many years and he has done a terrific job, and these particular remarks I agree with and associate myself with.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments this morning to share with my colleagues an article that recently appeared in the Washington Times about what may happen if there is a Supreme Court vacancy this year. I hope this article is wrong because it will be a sad day for America if its predictions come true. But I am going to talk about this article because I think its predictions might come true in this bitter, partisan Senate that exists today. This article, written by James L. Swanson of the Cato Institute, is entitled, Forthcoming Clash for the Court. Let me take a moment to share with my colleagues the dire forecast this article sets forth. It begins: At the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term 2002 is drawing to a close. The justices hear their last oral arguments on April 30, and in late June they will take to the bench for the last time to announce their final opinions of the term. Court watchers await decisions in several important cases, including free-speech and affirmative-action issues, which may not come down until the last day of the term. But that is not the only reason why court watchers have circled the last week in June on the calendar. That is when oddsmakers are betting on the retirement of at least one member of the court. For months, pundits have speculated that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor or Justice John Paul Stevens will step down this year. Why? Because justices traditionally retire under the political party that appointed them, and this is the last chance for these three Republican appointees to retire during President Bush's first term with the assurance that he can fill a vacancy before the 2004 election. Because, in the case of the chief justice, he has, in three decades of service, gone from lone dissenter to leader of the court's return to the first principles of limited government and federalism, and will go down as one of the most important chief justices in history. I agree with that assessment. I agree the author is right on that. Chief Justice Rehnquist has been a remarkable chief justice and the Court has done some remarkable things under his leadership. But the article goes on to say: Because, in the case of Justice O'Connor, the press spread rumors that she wanted to retire. Because, in the case of Justice Stevens, he is 83 years old. Both are excellent people and excellent leaders. Let me go on: It is impossible to know whether these or any other members of the Supreme Court are planning to retire this year. Many self-styled experts have embarrassed themselves by attempting to predict a justice's vote in a single case, let alone a retirement from the bench. Nor is this to suggest that any of the nine justices should retire. The performance of the oldest justice (John Paul Stevens), to the youngest (Clarence Thomas), of the longest serving (William H. Rehnquist) to the briefest (Stephen Breyer), reveals that all remain able and engaged. Their written opinions confirm that none has suffered an intellectual decline. One may disagree with their views, but not their competence to serve. If a retirement comes, it will occur because the justice wants to step down, not because he or she has to. It might not happen until the end of June. But it could also happen tomorrow. Justices Potter Stewart, Warren E. Burger and Thurgood Marshall waited until the end of their final terms and made June announcements. But Byron White and Harry Blackmun announced their retirements early, on March 3, 1993, and April 6, 1994, respectively, to give President Clinton ample time to nominate their successors, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and to win Senate confirmation by, in both cases, the beginning of August. Although it is impossible to know if or when a vacancy will occur, one thing is easy to predict: how Democrats will respond to Mr. Bush's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice. Senate Democrats, in combination with a cabal of special interest groups, intend to politicize the Supreme Court and oppose any Bush nominee, regardless of who the nominee is. History, both recent and reaching back to the Reagan and first Bush presidencies, offers little encouragement that the Senate will conduct itself professionally and responsibly. The pattern emerged over time: the Democrats' defeat of Judge Robert H. Bork's nomination to the court in 1987; their near-killing of Judge Clarence Thomas' nomination in 1991; their rage against the Supreme Court for ``handing'' the presidency to the Republicans in the 2000 election; the notorious Washington Post op-ed by Abner Mikva (former Clinton White House counsel and retired U.S. Court of Appeals judge) calling on the Senate to block any Supreme Court nominations by President Bush; their bottling up superbly qualified appellate court nominees for nearly two years on the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee; their obsession with Roe vs. Wade and their imposition of ideological litmus tests; their celebration of the American Bar Association seal of approval as the ``gold standard''-- until the ABA began giving many of Mr. Bush's nominees the highest possible rating; their filibustering of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington to prevent an up or down vote even after a majority of senators announced that they will vote to confirm him; their threatened filibuster against Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That history, and more, exposes what Democrats will do to fight a Bush Supreme Court nomination. The attack will be waged on two fronts, one substantive, the other procedural. The substantive attack will have six parts. Retirement day blitzkrieg. If the retiring justice is a Republican, and gives the White House advance, confidential notice of his or her intention to retire, as Chief Justice Warren Burger did in 1986, the president will have an opportunity to announce a retirement and a nomination on the same day. Within one hour of that nomination, a leading Democratic senator, probably Tom Daschle, Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy or Charles Schumer, will attack the nominee's character, integrity or competence. (Recall Mr. Kennedy's outburst within 45 minutes of President Reagan's nomination of Judge Bork: ``Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue policemen could break down citizen's doors in midnight raids, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censured at the whim of government.'') Sundry left wing ``public interest'' (actually, special interest) groups will join the chorus. The purpose of the first day blitzkrieg is to set the president and the nominee reeling on their heels and destroy the momentum of the nomination. The blitzkrieg aims to spin that night's TV coverage and the next morning's newspaper stories. The paper blizzard. Within hours of the nomination, senators and special interest groups will inundate the press with letters, reports, memos and even small books that purport to expose the unfitness of the nominee. In many cases, those scripts have already been written. For more than two years, Democrats have been doing ``opposition research,'' as though preparing for a political campaign, to uncover damaging information on the 10 to 15 people rumored to be on the president's short list for the court. The purpose of the paper blizzard is to turn public opinion against the nominee long before the Senate Judiciary Committee even convenes a hearing on the nomination. The indictment. The paper blizzard will include some or all of the following accusations: The nominee is not ``sensitive'' to the rights of women, children, black Americans and other racial minorities, the disabled, workers, unions, farmers, native Americans and others. The nominee is ``out of the mainstream'' of the American legal tradition; is too ``right wing''; is even ``radical.'' (Democrats perfected their use of those smear tactics against Judge Bork, stooping so low as to suggest he might not believe in God. Apparently a godless conservative is even more dangerous than a god- fearing one.) With much hand-wringing, Democrats will cry crocodile tears, sighing ``if only the president had nominated a moderate conservative, we would be delighted to confirm him or her.'' We have seen that lately in just regular nominations. You can imagine what is going to happen with the Supreme Court nomination. If the nominee does not have an extensive body of scholarly writings, Democrats will tar him as a ``stealth'' candidate, who possesses hidden and alarming views. If, on the other hand, the nominee has written extensively, those writings will be denounced as ``out of the mainstream.'' Remember that phrase. We have seen a lot of it around here in recent times on current nominees, who have had unanimous well qualified ratings from the gold standard of the Democrats, the American Bar Association. Mr. Swanson goes on to say: If the nominee believes in a color-blind society and equal treatment under the laws, and questions the constitutionality of race-conscious policies called affirmative action by some, then of course the nominee is a ``racist'' who will want to ``turn back the clock'' on civil rights, overturn Brown vs. Board of Education, repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and reintroduce slavery. Mr. Swanson is very colorful in some of his remarks, but we have actually seen this type of treatment of Republican nominees. Mr. Swanson goes on to say: Beyond attacking the nominee personally, the paper blizzard will suggest that he or she represents a so-called transformative appointment who will upset the alleged delicate balance of the court. Some Democrats will seek cover by claiming that they have nothing against the nominee, he or she is just the wrong person at the wrong time for the best interests of the court and the country. We have actually seen that in the months since January, and on other occasions, with the same arguments being used against people with unanimous well qualified recommendations from the American Bar Association. Mr. Swanson goes on to say: Rancorous hearings. Mr. Bush's first nominee to the court should not expect a cordial reception from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. They will attempt to grill the nominee for three to six days. They will ask hundreds of questions. Many hostile witnesses will be called. Special interest groups will haunt the hearing room and loiter in the halls, murmuring against the nominee and handing out attack literature. The partisan committee vote. For the Democrats, the hearings are mainly for show and to posture before the cameras for their constituencies and the left-wing special interest groups. They will have already decided their vote before the hearing begins or the nominee speaks one word. Of course that vote is ``no.'' Because Republicans are a majority on the committee, the nomination will be reported to the Senate favorably by a party-line vote. The Senate vote. Once the Judiciary Committee reports the nomination to the full Senate, Democrats opposing the nomination will continue to fight it on the floor by insisting on a lengthy debate. Then they will try to persuade their colleagues to vote against the nominee. Ultimately they will lose. The president's nominee will be confirmed because the Republican majority, plus a number of responsible Democrats, will vote to confirm him. If there is a vote, that is. Along with their substantive attack on the nominee, Democrats will mount a procedural attack. That plan has two elements. Delay the Judiciary Committee hearing. Upon making a nomination, the president will ask Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch to schedule hearings by early July, with the goal of having a Senate floor vote by late July or early August. Democrats on the committee will vigorously oppose that goal and attempt to delay the hearing until September. They will bleat that there must be no ``rush to judgment,'' and claim that they require months to ``study'' the nominee. Their ability to stall Judge Bork's hearings until September contributed to the nomination's defeat. Democrats and the special interest groups had all summer to mobilize their onslaught against Judge Bork. The White House failed to anticipate the viciousness of the assault and was taken off guard. Because the Republicans now control the committee, the Democrats will find it harder to stall the hearings. The filibuster trump card. When all else fails to cow the president's nominee into withdrawing, when the Democrats have been unable to stall the Judiciary Committee hearing, when they can't stop the committee from reporting the nomination favorably to the full Senate, after they fail to turn mainstream America against the nominee, when they count heads and discover that a majority of senators, including many Democrats, intend to vote to confirm the president's nominee, look for the leaders of the opposition to play their favorite, anti-democratic, Democratic trump card--the filibuster. Democrats challenged the president on Miguel Estrada, and they believe they have found the president wanting. Although Mr. Bush has called Mr. Estrada one of his most important appellate nominees, the White House has, for the past two years, been unable to confirm him. The Democrats' successful filibuster against Miguel Estrada, the first ever against a nominee to a U.S. Court of Appeals, has emboldened them to challenge Mr. Bush when he makes his first nomination to the High Court. The Democrats have paid no price for their Estrada filibuster. Look for them to test the president again. Yes, that is the worst-case scenario, and it may not unfold. In any event, if there is a vacancy on the court, the nominee must be treated civilly, fairly and allowed an up-or- down vote by the full Senate, as the Constitution contemplates. The president had better be prepared for a fight. His opponents are certainly ready. If the president prevents the politicization of nominations to the lower Federal courts, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, he will win the most important domestic battle of his first term. If he loses that battle, he may not get a second chance. Those are one observer's predictions about the fight that will ensue if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court this year. As I said at the outset, I certainly hope that the predictions in this article do not come true, because it will be a sad day for the Senate and for the country if they do. I have to admit that many of the tactics described in this article sound alarmingly familiar--we have seen them practiced with great skill on President Bush's Circuit Court of Appeals nominees. We have seen most of those types of techniques used in various debates. I am hopeful that this type of bitter partisanship will not continue. I continue to try to be optimistic about the prospects for a Supreme Court vacancy, but it gets harder and harder every day, and about fair treatment for whoever is appointed by this President. I have to say I have a great deal of concern about how the President's nominee or nominees to the Supreme Court will be treated. I hope my colleagues will think about the impact of these tactics as described in this article and the consequences of such a destructive campaign on both the Senate and the Nation. Mr. Swanson has done us a favor by putting what have been tactics used in the past into an article--yes, an alarmist article, but unfortunately every one of those tactics he has described has been utilized in the past by friends on the other side. We are right now in the middle of filibusters against two highly qualified, exceptional people, and the arguments used against them are almost unreal. The only argument I keep hearing about Miguel Estrada is he just hasn't answered all the questions. We have had very few circuit court nominees who have even come close to answering the number of questions that have been asked of Mr. Estrada. We hear arguments against Priscilla Owen, about the only thing left that has not been totally obliterated by the facts: that she joined in dissent--in a few of the better than 800 cases--of a young girl who asked for a judicial bypass so her parents would not have to be notified about her upcoming abortion. Polls indicate that more than 70 percent of the American people support parental notification. It has nothing really to do with Roe v. Wade. It has to do with whether parents have a right to assist or consult with their young daughter who may be going through the most momentous medical procedure in her lifetime. But the finder of fact in these few cases found that these young women--these young girls--should consult with their parents. That is being held against Priscilla Owen as though she is against Roe v. Wade, when she clearly and unequivocally said she will support the decision in Roe v. Wade as a circuit court of appeals judge. You couldn't ask anything more of her, but they are asking more. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Cecilia Altonaga to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Altonaga has enjoyed a stellar legal career on both sides of the bench. Upon graduating from Yale Law School, Judge Altonaga clerked for the Honorable Edward B. Davis of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida--the very court she will join upon her confirmation. Judge Altonage then spent 10 years as an assistance county attorney for the Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office. During her tenure, she specialized in construction litigation, reviewing and drafting construction contracts, and advising the Couty Commission in the awarding of government contracts, including bid disputes handled in administrative quasi-judicial hearings. She also handled tort suits, defending the County ordinances and actions taken by County Commissioners in State and Federal courts. From 1996 to 1999, Judge Altonaga served as a County Court Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. While on the County Court, Judge Altonaga served in the Domestic Violence, Civil, and Criminal Divisions. Since 1999, she has served as a Judge for the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, where she has been assigned to the Court's Juvenile, Criminal, and Appellate Divisions. Notably, Judge Altonaga will be the first Cuban-American woman to serve as a Federal judge. I have every confidence that she will serve with distinction, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Florida in supporting her nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That is fine. Nomination of Priscilla Owen I yield 1 minute to the Senator from California on their time. She wanted to make a statement and put something in the Record, but it should come on their time.

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

Mr. HATCH. Likewise. Cloture Motion

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont made a point that the White House has seen these privileged documents in the Solicitor General's Office. If they have any evidence of that, I would like to see it because I know they haven't looked at those records. Those are the most highly privileged records in the Justice Department. I am not sure that a Solicitor General wouldn't resign before giving up those records. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HATCH. Rather than take time to respond, I will write a letter to the distinguished Senator and point out where she is in error on the Owen matter. As a matter of fact, I think it has been outrageous the way some of the arguments have been made on the other side against this really excellent justice from the State of Texas, who has a unanimous well qualified, the highest rating, from the American Bar Association. I think we have had pure, unadulterated, raw politics involved with regard to Justice Owen. This debate we are now having is about the raw politics that are being used against Miguel Estrada, the first Hispanic ever nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Today is Cinco de Mayo, the Fifth of May, commemorating the victory of the Mexican army over the French army at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. This battle came to represent a symbol of Mexican unity and patriotism. The victory demonstrated to the world that Mexico and all of Latin America were willing to defend themselves against any foreign intervention. Cinco de Mayo is now viewed as a festive day to celebrate freedom and liberty. The fifth of May, 2003, in the Senate, unfortunately is also the 3- month anniversary of the beginning of the debate on Miguel Estrada. I would hope that we would be celebrating the liberation of his nomination and the freedom to vote on final passage on this Cinco de Mayo. But instead, the nomination of Miguel Estrada has been captured by a minority of Senators who refuse to allow a final vote on his nomination. They insist on their unprecedented filibuster, following their game plan of obstruction. In fact, they have compounded their obstructionist tactics by engaging in a second filibuster, this time on Priscilla Owen, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She also has a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, the badge of honor, the gold standard, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, have said that rating is. I must admit, the Democrat game plan of delay and obstructionism is not surprising, but it is getting somewhat contradictory. In the case of Mr. Estrada, Democrats say they cannot vote for the nominee because they do not know enough about him. They allege he did not answer their questions and therefore they must have Department of Justice confidential memoranda he wrote while he was a line attorney in the Solicitor General's office; memoranda that have never been given in any way, shape or form to anybody in the Senate in a confirmation battle before, or anybody else for that matter. Even the White House has not seen these matters because they are so highly privileged, not Judge Gonzales, not anybody else in the White House. There are no such claims about Justice Owen. Democrat opponents admit they know enough about her, that she did answer the questions, and that she has a record they can review. There are no phony excuses. They simply oppose her on philosophical grounds, namely, her interpretation of the Texas parental notification statute that applies to minor girls seeking an abortion. This double standard demonstrates that some Senate Democrats are willing to use whatever obstructionist tactics it takes, based on any convenient rationale, to defeat the President's nominees. While the rationales may be different, the motivation in both cases is the same. I think that a recent editorial appearing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said it best: ``The fear with Owen and Estrada is that one or both will be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court should a vacancy occur. Senate Democrats are determined to keep off the Circuit Court bench any perceived conservative who has the credentials to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. As far as Mr. Estrada goes, there is an additional factor that is not based on any substantive objection to his nomination. I believe that some Senate Democrats do not want the current President, a Republican President, to appoint the first Hispanic as United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Let me read from an editorial published by the Dallas Morning News addressing this point. On February 17, 2003, the News wrote: Democrats haven't liked Mr. Estrada from the beginning. Part of that is due to his ideology--which is decidedly not Democratic. But part of it also has to do with the fellow who nominated him. Democrats don't relish giving President Bush one more thing to brag about when he goes into Hispanic neighborhoods during his re-election campaign next year. They are even less interested putting a conservative Republican in line to become the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. I don't know if Mr. Estrada is a conservative Republican, but I do know he is qualified for the position to which he is nominated, and it is well past time to vote on his nomination. This Friday will mark the two-years anniversary of his nomination on May 9, 2001. The Majority leader has made every attempt to obtain time agreements or use other procedures to bring this matter to a resolution. Each of these attempts has been rebuffed by a minority of this body. Some Senate Democrats have used every delay and obstructionist tactic available. Yet they still cannot identify one substantive issue that would justify or excuse their refusal to permit a final vote. Mr. President, on this day, 141 years ago, the Mexican Army defeated forces which represented tyranny and defended the liberty of their nation. I urge my colleagues, on this day of celebration, to defeat the tyranny of the minority by voting to bring the debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to a close. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 4, 2003] Democrats Use Wrong Route to Win South (By Jim Wooten) U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) brought his presidential aspirations to the South last week, promising in Alabama that he will make the national party competitive here once again. Make competitive, he neglected to mention, a party that has positioned itself in opposition to the war in Iraq and anything other than token tax cuts, and as Democrats reminded the nation once again about the elevation of conservatives to the federal bench. While the White House may appeal to some as inside work with no heavy lifting, getting there through the South toting this party's agenda will be a task requiring Herculean labor. Just this week, for example, Kerry's Democratic colleagues--Georgia's Zell Miller excepted--began to filibuster the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Kerry and other Democrats are already filibustering the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals--the first time simultaneous filibusters against judicial nominees have occurred in the U.S. Senate. Both Owen and Estrada are superbly qualified in every respect. Yet on Owen, those who complain that a ``glass ceiling'' exists for women of achievement are busily constructing one to keep her in her place. And those who complain that the federal bench lacks ``diversity'' find Estrada to be too much diversity for their taste. He is considered to be a conservative, and the interest groups that drive the Democratic Party nationally fear Owen is, too, at least on their abortion litmus test. The fear with Owen and Estrada is that one or both will be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court should a vacancy occur. Senate Democrats are determined to keep off the Circuit Court bench any perceived conservative who has the credential to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Kerry, then, and the legions of presidential soundalikes who campaign with him, have to come to a region where conservatism is the mainstream to explain how reducing federal taxes is bad and cheating exemplary women and minorities of the fair hearing they have earned before the U.S. Senate because they might be conservative is good. ``I can help you wage a fight down here and rebuild this party for the long run,'' Kerry said in Birmingham. Republicans have carried Alabama in all but three presidential elections in the past 50 years. Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the last Democrat to carry the state. George W. Bush carried every Southern state in 2000, including Tennessee, his Democratic opponent's home state. Al Gore Jr. thought so little of his Southern prospects that he actively campaigned in just three states--Tennessee, Florida and West Virginia. Some Democrats, said Kerry, were ``surprised'' that he visited Alabama. No surprise that he visited. The real surprise is the party baggage he hauled. Opposition to tax cuts is comprehensible. Politicians loathe interruption in the flow of spendable revenues. Opposition to the war is, too. Too confrontational. Angers adversaries. Provokes understandable aggression, for which we bear unexpurgated sin. While some positions are understandable, not so their party-line opposition to Owen and Estrada. Owen, the new filibusteree, drew the American Bar Association's highest rating. She is a cum laude graduate of the Baylor University Law School who scored the top grade in Texas on the bar exam. She practiced 17 years before becoming a judge and has been widely praised for her integrity and ability. Liberal groups say, unconvincingly except when they are talking to each other and Senate Democrats, that she is anti-abortion and pro-business. Being a neighborly people, Southerners of course welcome Kerry to visit the region and to indulge himself in its hospitality. But the senator should not indulge himself into believing that a party that opposes tax cuts and filibusters nominees such as Owen and Estrada has the slightest chance of carrying this region.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Justice Cook also knows how to serve her community. She is a founder and trustee of CollegeScholars, a mentored college scholarship program in Akron, and she personally mentors students for several hours each week. She and her husband fund the program's activities in an effort to help inner-city children reach college. Their generosity is really remarkable in that they will personally pay the college tuition of students who complete the program. But service to her community is not limited to the CollegeScholars program. Justice Cook is a United Way volunteer; she has given her time to Safe Landing Shelter, a home for troubled youth; she has served as a Commissioner for the Dispute Resolution Commission, helping address truancy problems for disadvantaged children; and she devoted several years to the Akron Area Volunteer Center as a Center trustee and president. Justice Cook has received the Delta Gamma National Shield Award for Leadership and Volunteerism, and the Akron Women's Network Woman of the Year award. One of the many reasons that this vote on Justice Cook's nomination is important is because it represents a step in the right direction in terms of addressing the problems in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit is severely understaffed and needs judges to enable its work to go forward, and the addition of Justice Cook, along with President Bush's other Sixth Circuit nominee from Ohio, Jeffrey Sutton, will make this happen. At this moment, the 16-seat Sixth Circuit is operating with only 10 judges. All six of the vacancies on the Sixth Circuit are considered judicial emergencies. The Sixth Circuit has been forced to rely on district court judges to keep pace with its caseload. This practice, in turn, affects the efficiency of the district courts. I understand that the Sixth Circuit currently hears some arguments via telephone to conserve resources. Each three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit not only must hear more cases each year, but it also must spend less time on each case in order to maintain some control over the docket. Some cases may not be heard despite their merit. In the meantime, the administration of justice suffers. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Sixth Circuit ranks last out of the 12 circuit courts in the time it takes to complete its cases. On average, the Sixth Circuit in 2002 took 16 months to reach a final disposition on a case. With the national average for appellate courts at only 10.7 months, this means the Sixth Circuit takes about 50 percent longer than the average to process a case. Since 1996, the Sixth Circuit has seen a 46 percent increase in the number of decisions per active judge. The national average has increased only 14 percent in that same time frame. Last year each Sixth Circuit judge handled more than 600 cases. Mr. President, Justice Cook has demonstrated her capacity to excel on the Federal court bench. She possesses the qualifications, the capacity, and the temperament a judge needs to serve on the Sixth Circuit. She deserves confirmation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the confirmation of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Today's vote is important because we have an opportunity to confirm an excellent judge who exercises proper judicial restraint on the bench. Justice Cook is an honorable jurist. She has a distinguished record in private practice, she is a legal pioneer, and she is active in her community. Let me take a few moments to share how Justice Cook came to this point. The story deserves to be told. A native of Pittsburgh, PA, my hometown as well, I might add--Deborah Cook had anything but a stable childhood. Not only did her family move quite often, but her family suffered economically. Her mother, Katherine Rudolph, struggled to support her children after Justice Cook's father abandoned the family. When Deborah was 16, her mother passed away. Although she did not have much time with her, Justice Cook credits her mother with instilling in her a sense of justice and a sense of the importance of following the rules. Justice Cook carried these ideals to Akron, Ohio, where she and her siblings moved to join their uncle's large family. All together, the new family numbered 14. In the next few years, Justice Cook received her bachelor of arts and juris doctor degrees from the University of Akron. While in law school, she clerked part time at Roderick, Myers & Linton, Akron's oldest law firm, and accepted an offer from the same firm in 1978, becoming the first woman attorney ever hired there. Five years later, Justice Cook again made history at the firm when she was named its first woman partner. Let me tell you, Justice Cook knows first hand the difficulties and challenges that professional women face in breaking the glass ceiling. While in private practice Justice Cook maintained a busy civil litigation caseload, appearing in bankruptcy, state, and federal appellate and trial courts to litigate such matters as claims disputes, workers' compensation claims, insurance claims, employment discrimination cases, torts, and wrongful death lawsuits. Justice Cook has the experience we look for in a Federal judge. In 1990, she left private practice and ran for a seat on the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals, which is based in Akron. The Ohio courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction over the Ohio common pleas, municipal, and county courts, hearing and deciding cases in three-judge panels. Four years later, Justice Cook ran for the Ohio Supreme Court, a seven-member court, where she currently serves. Over the past 7 years, Justice Cook has earned a reputation for being a stickler for the law, a judge committed to law and order. She defines her own judicial role ``as [one] limited by the letter of the law.'' She is a student of history and a committed constitutionalist. These are attributes desperately needed in the Federal courts. Simply put, as Justice Cook has said of herself, while she ``might hold a personal view, or perhaps even hold a bias, that has to be put aside.'' She ``work[s] within the parameters given a judge by democratically enacted statutes,'' avoiding the temptation to legislate from the bench. Justice Cook understands what makes an effective judge and she carries out that understanding. The Ohio newspapers have recognized these qualities in Justice Cook. The Columbus Dispatch says Justice Cook ``uniquely combines keen intellect, careful legal scholarship and consistency in her opinions. She is committed to rendering decisions validated by the [law], not popularity polls and special interests.'' The Cleveland Plain Dealer says Cook is ``extremely well qualified'' and a ``thoughtful, mature jurist perhaps the brightest on the state's highest court.'' The Akron Beacon Journal says Cook ``has been a voice of restraint in opposition to a court majority determined to chart an aggressive course, acting as problem-solvers (as ward pols) more than jurists.'' I ask unanimous consent that copies of each of these editorials be printed in the Record.