Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I think the 5 minutes will be taken from the minority side.

Mr. HATCH. I will be delighted.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield so the Senator can make her statement.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent it be in order to read the titles of the measures en bloc.

Mr. HATCH. I ask that the Senate proceed en bloc to the measures, and I object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. HATCH. I understand there is a bill and a joint resolution at the desk which are due for a second reading.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HATCH. Is the Senator aware that there is an ample record that even Judge Gonzales admits he was not criticizing her as an activist, he was criticizing the court. She didn't write the opinion. That has been more than established. Yet we keep hearing Senators on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere saying Judge Gonzales directly criticized her. He didn't. I think the record is pretty clear on that.

Mr. HATCH. Let me continue then. This body is in danger of blowing up. I just read a letter Senator Schumer sent to the President yesterday suggesting that we should take this authority from the President to nominate the judges and set up judicial nominating commissions in every State. There is no President in his right mind who would consider doing that. There is no reason a President should. To make a long story short, the Senate is broken. The process is broken. Senator Schumer admits it. He writes: Dear Mr. President: Six months ago you described the judicial nomination confirmation process as ``broken'' and declared we have a ``duty to repair it.'' I could not agree with you more. The other side of this body understands this process is broken because they are filibustering now two of the President's nominees for the first time in history. Both of these nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, have unanimously well qualified ratings from the American Bar Association, which during the Clinton years the Democrats were saying was the gold standard. Once they have a qualified rating, which is a passable rating, they should be confirmed. These two not only have qualified, they have well qualified, and unanimously. Only a select few have achieved that rating. It is outrageous that we hear again and again, without a single pause, that a nominee rated unanimously well qualified for Federal judicial service is ``out of the mainstream.'' Those who have served with her on the Texas Supreme Court know that charge is false. Former Texas Supreme Court Justices John Hill, Jack Hightower, Raul Gonzalez, all Democrats, call Justice Owen unbiased and restrained in her decisionmaking, and they praise her impeccable integrity, character, and scholarship. Senator Cornyn, whom we all respect, who served with Justice Owen on the Texas Supreme Court, has made it clear that the charge is false. Alberto Gonzales, who also served with Justice Owen, said the charge is false. Senator Cornyn and Judge Gonzales believe Justice Owen is a terrific judge. The two individuals who are repeatedly drafted as prosecution witnesses to discredit Justice Owen as an activist judge, Judge Alberto Gonzales and Senator Cornyn, are actually two of her biggest supporters. All you can conclude is that they are smearing this very fine, unanimously well qualified woman in their comments and also through this filibuster. Nothing can change the fact that the two they use to criticize her are her biggest supporters. I fit in that category, too, as one of her biggest supporters. No matter how hard they try, they cannot distort that. The unqualified endorsement of 15 past presidents of the Texas State Bar, Democrats and Republicans alike, also shows that the charge is false. Justice Owen is a well qualified, mainstream jurist. And to say that the bar association is wrong, all these Democrats down in Texas are wrong, shows the paucity of the argument. Some criticize a few rulings made by Justice Owen in some parental notification cases which involve a minor girl seeking an abortion. This is really the basis of it because my colleagues on the other side are getting so enamored with abortion that that becomes the single litmus test on every judge. And they are so afraid that this woman judge might be pro-life, even though I don't know what she is and she didn't say what she believes, but she did say she would follow Roe v. Wade as settled law. I don't know what more you can have. And because she is unanimously well qualified for honor, integrity, impeccability, and so forth, we can take her word for it. Texas happens to have a statute requiring that a minor notify one parent before she has an abortion. The statute allows the minor girl's parents to be involved in this very important decision. Our colleagues on the other side apparently don't think that is a good idea. It upholds the right of parents in the upbringing and care of their children, and the American people support the principle. According to a January 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 73 percent of Americans favor requiring minor girls to obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion. The Texas statute doesn't even go that far; it requires only notice. This broad support is also found in the individual States. Currently, 32 States across the country enforce laws requiring parental involvement in a minor girl's decision to obtain an abortion. Fully 18 States enforce parental consent laws, including Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota--where both parents must consent--Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. These are States represented in the Senate by both Republican and Democratic Senators, pro-life and pro-choice Senators. These are States inhabited by people of a variety of beliefs and positions. Simply being pro-life or pro-choice does not make a person out of the mainstream. That is the only argument they have. How can you call somebody who has a unanimously well qualified rating from the American Bar Association out of the mainstream? That is the height of absurdity, and it shows the ridiculousness of the argument being used against her. Another 14 States have less stringent parental involvement laws requiring parental notification before a minor has an abortion, including the States of Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas, and West Virginia. New Hampshire, which is known as a pro-choice State because of widespread support for abortion rights among State citizens, is close to passing a parental notification law. Notably, the bill's main sponsor in New Hampshire openly supports abortion rights. Even in States with no laws requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, popular support for such legislation runs high. In the State of Vermont, more than 70 percent of State citizens support requiring a minor to notify her parents before having an abortion. You would think anybody with a brain would want to do that. These are kids. The parents ought to be involved. But by comparison, parental consent and notification laws are consistently opposed by the same abortion rights interest groups. These organizations are the ones that do not reflect the thinking of mainstream America on parental rights. Mainstream America supports the fundamental rights of parents in the rearing of their children, including the right to be involved in their minor daughter's reproductive choices. The abortion rights interest groups, as they do over and over, predict doom and gloom if Justice Owen is allowed to take a seat on the Federal bench. They trot out the excited rhetoric about the nominee's hostility and extreme insensitivity to abortion rights. Occasionally they even top themselves. According to one group, Justice Owen must be opposed because ``at this time of global turmoil, we don't need extremists in the courts willing to make a Dred Scott decision in the area of women's fundamental rights.'' Give me a break. I would be ashamed to make those arguments, yet that is what they are doing. They are smearing this woman with these kinds of arguments that fly in the face of the vast majority of people who believe parents do have some role with regard to their children, especially in something as important as whether or not their daughter should have an abortion. By now we know these outside groups' track record leaves much to be desired when it comes to predicting how judicial nominees will vote. These groups have cried wolf far too many times to be taken seriously any longer. We know they missed on Justice David Souter, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Lewis Powell, when they predicted at their hearings they would ignore the Constitution and put an end to freedom in America. No matter how much some would prefer to argue the point, these cases were not about the right to an abortion. The opposition to Justice Owen may show that the abortion litmus test is alive and well, but there was never any question about the girls' right to an abortion in these cases. Indeed, Justice Owen argued in one such case that, based on Supreme Court precedent, a statute requiring a girl to notify both parents would also be questionable under the Constitution. She even went that far toward their position. Justice Owen recognizes a woman's right to obtain an abortion. She said so explicitly. Yet, they treat her like she is going to throw out Roe V. Wade all by herself and ignore precedent. Justice Owen has been well within the mainstream of her court in the 14 decided notification cases, joining the majority judgment in 11 of those cases. And out of the close to 800 bypass cases since the Texas statute was passed, a mere 12 girls out of 800 have appealed all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. These are usually the toughest cases. The Democrats take the position that they ought to all be decided against the parents and in favor of the girl or of abortion rights. My gosh. By this time, two courts--the trial and the appeals courts--have already considered the bypass petition and turned it down. In other words, the right of a court to give a girl a bypass to avoid having to tell her parents. In these cases, they turned them down. Given the deference appellate courts must pay to the findings of the trial court, the decision is likely to affirm the lower court rulings denying a bypass. That should be no great surprise. Certainly, Justice Owen and her colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court disagreed in some cases--that is no surprise either; that happens on State supreme courts--but in all cases there was a genuine effort to apply applicable precedent. These parental consent cases show Justice Owen takes Supreme Court precedent seriously. She looks to precedent for guidance, she cites it, and she makes a good faith effort to apply it to the case at hand. She is a judge who defers to the legislature's considered judgment in their policy choices and earnestly seeks to ascertain legislative intent in her ruling. None of her opinions, to quote the Washington Post, ``seem[s] to us [to be] beyond the range of reasonable judicial disagreement.'' What is beyond the range of reasonable disagreement is the charge that Justice Owen is not qualified to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A native of Texas, Justice Owen attended Baylor University and Baylor University School of Law. She graduated cum laude from both institutions. She finished third in her law school class. Justice Owen earned the highest score on the Texas bar exam and thereafter worked for the next 17 years as a commercial litigator specializing in oil and gas matters. Justice Owen is known for her services for the poor and for her work on gender and family law issues. Justice Owen has taken a genuine interest in improving access to justice for the poor. She successfully fought with others for more funding for legal aid services for the indigent. Justice Owen is committed to creating opportunities for women in the legal profession. She has been a member of the Texas Supreme Court Gender Neutral Task Force, and she served as one of the editors of the Gender Neutral Handbook. Incredibly, this is the same woman the usual interest groups mischaracterize as ``anti-woman.'' Justice Owen's confirmation may not be cheered by the well-funded and partisan Texas trial-attorney interest groups, but she is backed by Texas lawyers such as E. Thomas Bishop, president of the Texas Association of Defense Counsel, and William B. Emmons, a Texas trial attorney and a Democrat who says that Justice Owen ``will serve [the Fifth Circuit] and the United States exceptionally well.'' Justice Owen has served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994, winning reelection to another 6-year term in the year 2000 with 84 percent support. This kind of support--running across the board and across party lines--leaves no doubt that Justice Owen is a fair-minded, mainstream jurist. Mr. President, Justice Priscilla Owen will be a terrific Federal judge. As I said earlier, we have a choice this morning. Will we block another highly qualified nominee for partisan reasons or will we allow each Senator to decide the merits of the nomination for himself or herself. I know my choice: we should allow a vote. I hope my colleagues will do the right thing and make the same choice. I will conclude by saying, look, when I hear on the other side that they are standing up for women's rights, while they are rejecting one of the leading woman jurists in the Nation who has said she will uphold their wonderful standard of Roe v. Wade, I have to say that is pure bunk. It is time to quit smearing these judges. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished colleague. I have to say that if there has been any attempt to rewrite the facts, it is by those who have spoken as my friend from California has. First of all, they seem to think on that side that they advance women when they only advance women who agree with their particular position. They don't even realize that Priscilla Owen agrees with many of their positions as she does with other well-thought-out positions. They think the advancement of women depends only on if you have women who are going to be pro-abortion. I might add that I don't know where Priscilla Owen is with regard to abortion because she has not told me. She has not told the committee that, but she has said what has to be the hallmark of what judgeship nominees should say--that she will uphold Roe v. Wade as a court judge, which is all you can ask of anybody. Regardless of what her personal views are, she is going to uphold it. Yet we hear this argument that they are advancing women because they are keeping a woman who is unanimously well qualified by their gold standard--the American Bar Association, which is not a conservative organization by any stretch of the imagination--they are keeping her from serving this country. They continue to misquote Judge Gonzales as though he was directly attacking Priscilla Owen when he himself admits he was not--and other judges from that Supreme Court of the State of Texas say he was not. Senator Cornyn, who served with her and was sitting beside her, said those criticisms weren't directed directly at her. That is distortion. It is unworthy of this body. But it is going on all the time. On the tort case--I know the distinguished Senator from Texas is here, and I will yield to her as soon as she is ready--they bring up again the distortion that she held a case up until this young boy died. Let me make some important observations about the majority opinion Justice Owen wrote in Ford Motor Company v. Miles because I think there has been some serious confusion about the case and it is very apparent that the distinguished Senator from California is confused. This is the case involving a car accident victim named Willie Searcy who, tragically, passed away years after his accident but before the litigation was resolved. I have addressed this issue over and over. But it looks as if I must go through it again. The accusation was once made that the victim passed away before the Texas Supreme Court ruled on his appeal. Justice Owen more than set the record straight last July. The victim passed away 3 years after the opinion was issued. Yet we hear this again on the floor. When are the Democrats going to quit distorting President Bush's nominee's record? I have to admit that I used to think this was--well, just interesting. But it has gone on and on. And after you show them the facts, they still distort it. I would have thought that issue moot because the opinion was issued 3 years before he died. But some interest groups continue to make this allegation in spite of the facts. I suspect that the New York Times just copies the letters in the editorials of People for the American Way. It is unbelievable. The allegation was made that Justice Owen's opinion was improper based on the issue of venue; in other words, the question of whether plaintiff's lawyers filed the case in the county that didn't have jurisdiction over the dispute. Some allege that this issue had not been raised by the parties in the lower courts. Again, Justice Owen set the record straight in no uncertain terms. The venue issue was properly considered in the Texas Supreme Court. The entire court agreed that it was appropriate for the court to resolve the venue issue. Again, they are wrong, and they are distorting this case. I don't think there is any reason for that type of distortion. We have explained it over and over. Justice Owen was more than clear. Yet they are smearing this judge who has the highest rating of the American Bar Association--unanimously well qualified. That doesn't happen very often. It must also be emphasized that under Texas law the court was required to address the issue of venue. The court found that the case was filed in the wrong venue. It was required to reverse the verdict. It had no other option. The Texas statute governing this issue read: On appeal from the trial on the merits, if venue was improper, it shall in no event be harmless error and shall be reversible error. In other words, the court must reverse if improper venue is found. In all honesty, to ensure there is no confusion about the problem with venue, let me say there was no question but that Dallas County was the proper place to bring the suit because the plaintiffs lived there, bought their truck there, and that is where the accident took place. Inexplicably, the lawyers filed in another county, Russ County--having absolutely no connection whatsoever to the plaintiffs or the accident. It looked like forum shopping--something that should not be permitted by the courts, under any circumstances, no matter how badly a person might have been injured. If we read between the lines, we can see that the lawyers were forum shopping--looking for a favorable jury--something that should not be allowed by any court in this land, especially when it is clear cut that the venue was in Dallas County. It must also be noted that the court's decision did not prevent the case from being filed in Dallas County or refiled. I am a little tired of the smearing of these nominees. I am not saying intentional smearing, although it is reaching that point when you have to say over and over, when the justice explained herself and made it so abundantly clear, and we have made it over and over ourselves, and the record is so doggone clear. Why would we have, time after time, people coming out here saying they are advancing the cause of women by smearing this woman justice and keeping her from serving her country on the circuit court of appeals? One last thing: The Senator also complained because she has objected to another nominee when we have the blue slip back from the other Senator from the State. There has never been a rule, since Senator Kennedy was the chairman of the committee and was the one who established the rule that I followed, that says a single Senator can stop a circuit court of appeals nominee of the President of the United States. Senator Kennedy's ruling, even with regard to district courts, was that the opinions of the Senators with regard to blue slips will have great weight, but they will not be dispositive, especially where there is no reason for the withholding of a blue slip. And in this case, there is basically no reasoning, and in this other case of Carolyn Kuhl. So I want to set the record straight there. No President would agree to, and this Senate should not agree to, one solitary Senator, for political reasons, refusing to return a blue slip on a circuit court of appeals court nominee where that circuit court of appeals nominee, once on the court, will be representing the whole country, but, of course, all the States in that particular circuit. I notice the distinguished Senator from Texas is in the Chamber, so I will yield----

Mr. HATCH. Up to 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas. I will continue my remarks afterwards.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that my Democratic colleagues are willing to join us in confirming Judge Prado to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I regret that there has been any discussion that somehow the Republican leadership has held up this nominee. That is not true. What is particularly troubling is the suggestion that there is some Republican delay in the consideration of Judge Prado's nomination related to the Estrada nomination. I would point out that Democrats who support the nomination of Judge Prado to the Fifth Circuit are leading the opposition to Mr. Estrada, nominated to the D.C. Circuit. Those Democrats have characterized the D.C. Circuit as ``the second most important court in the land.'' Senator Kennedy stated recently that the D.C. Circuit makes decisions with national impact on the lives of all of the American people. Senator Schumer echoed these sentiments just yesterday. It does seem to me that there is a different standard being applied to Miguel Estrada-- a nominee to the second highest court in the land--than to Judge Prado--a nominee to one of twelve other Circuit Courts--although they are important. In any event, neither the confirmation of Judge Prado nor the confirmation of any judge justifies or excuses the continued obstruction on Miguel Estrada. I repeat that the arguments put forth by opponents of Mr. Estrada just do not hold up under scrutiny. Their repeated accusations that he failed to answer the questions has been refuted again and again. The demand for confidential memoranda he authored as a line attorney for the Department of Justice is both extraordinary and ill-advised, as I and others, including all the living former Solicitors General, have repeatedly demonstrated. So my Democratic colleagues have had unlimited opportunities to make their case on Mr. Estrada. Some of them oppose him; others support him. But one thing has remained clear through this debate: There is no good reason to deny Mr. Estrada an up or down vote on his nomination. The time has come to end the debate on Mr. Estrada's nomination and give him and up or down vote, as the Senate will now do on Judge Prado. It is the fair thing to do. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for Judge Prado's nomination at this time. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and I yield my remaining 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I understand it we are on the Prado nomination.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the nomination of Edward C. Prado, who has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He has an outstanding record of distinguished public service and will be a great addition to the Fifth Circuit, especially since the seat to which he has been nominated has been designated a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Judge Prado currently serves as a United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, having been unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1984. His 18 years on the bench, plus prior service as a Texas state court district judge has given him the experience and background to make an outstanding Fifth Circuit Judge. In addition to his judicial experience, Judge Prado has had a distinguished legal career. After graduating from the University of Texas School of Law in 1972, he began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in the Bexar County, TX, District Attorney's Office. In 1976 he accepted a position with the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Western District of Texas where he served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender representing indigent criminal defendants in the federal courts. During 1980, he served as a Texas state district judge, filling the unexpired term of the incumbent. In this position, he presided over several hundred cases, including felony criminal trials. In 1981, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and appointed as United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, where he managed one of the largest United States Attorney's Offices in the Nation. In 1984, President Reagan nominated and the Senate confirmed Judge Prado as a United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas. In this capacity he has handled thousands of cases and hundreds of trials. Judge Prado is a man of exceptional character, impeccable ethics, and is well qualified to serve as a Circuit Judge. He has received many honors and awards for his work in the law, including the St. Thomas Moore Award from St. Mary's University School of Law in 2000, the LULAC State Award for Excellence in 1981, the Achievement Award from the U.S. Attorney General in 1980, and recognition as an Outstanding Federal Public Defender in 1978. Judge Prado is a native of San Antonio, Texas and has served his community, state and nation in a variety of ways. Not only has he served in his professional capacity, but also he believes in community service and has been involved in community service organizations such as St. Mark's Catholic Church, Witte Museum Community Advisory Committee, the Philosophical Society of Texas, the Rotary Club of San Antonio, and Leadership San Antonio. Additionally, Judge Prado served in the U.S. Army Reserve as an Infantry Officer from 1972-1987. In addition to his public and community service, Judge Prado has been actively involved in efforts to improve the legal and judicial process. He has been a leader in numerous bar associations and law-related organizations. For example, he has been a member of the Texas and San Antonio Bar Associations since 1972, including service as President, and later Director and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, of the San Antonio Bar Foundation. Judge Prado serves on the Texas State Bar Crime Victims Committee, and was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve as the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Act Review Committee from 1991-1993. As a District Judge, he has made efforts to reach out to youth groups to help them learn about the law and the judicial process. He gives motivational speeches and conducts events in his courtroom as an introduction to the law. Judge Prado comes highly recommended by those with whom he serves and by those who appear in his courtroom. Let me read a few statements made by Texas attorneys, as reported in the Texas Lawyer, February 10, 2003. Laurence R. Macon said of Judge Prado, ``I've known him for 30 years, and he doesn't have any outrageous positions. He won't be there trying to make law.'' Seagal Wheatley stated, ``If the Judiciary Committee looks at his qualifications, he should be a shoo-in. I'm not aware of any recent opinion that will cause him problems.'' A third attorney, Van Hilley, said, ``Judge Prado has a varied background and an open mind about things. The reason his docket ran so smooth is he wasn't viewed as pro-government or pro-defense.'' The legal bar's wide regard for Judge Prado is reflected in his evaluation by the American Bar Association. The ABA evaluates judicial nominees based on their professional qualifications, their integrity, their professional competence, and their judicial temperament. The ABA has bestowed upon Judge Prado its highest rating of Unanimously Well Qualified. Furthermore, Judge Prado has been endorsed by his hometown newspaper, The San Antonio Express-News, which declared, ``The Senate should confirm Prado's nomination without undue controversy or delay. . . . His credentials are unquestioned.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete San Antonio Express-News editorial be printed in the Record, following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes equally divided in addition to the 1 minute I have remaining.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the record is clear that Judge Prado is a man of ability and character. This Senate, on two previous occasions, has found Judge Prado worthy of confirmation for positions of high responsibility in the government, and I am confident it will do so again today. I strongly support his confirmation and urge my colleagues to do likewise. Exhibit No. 1 U.S. District Judge Edward C. Prado has compiled an admirable record in his almost two decades on the federal trial bench. Last week, President Bush nominated the San Antonio judge for a well-deserved promotion to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate should confirm Prado's nomination without undue controversy or delay. Prado, a graduate of Edgewood High School, was appointed to his federal district court post by President Reagan in 1984 and has performed consistently as a non-ideological moderate. His credentials are unquestioned. Prado first became a judge in 1980 when Gov. Bill Clements named him to a state district court bench. In addition, U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas swiftly recommended a solid replacement for Prado if he is elevated. The lawmakers forwarded the name of former Texas Supreme Court Justice Xavier Rodriguez of San Antonio to the White House to fill Prado's seat. Gov. Rick Perry appointed Rodriguez to the state's high court, but he was defeated in last year's GOP primary. A bright lawyer with solid legal qualifications, Rodriguez was apolitical before being appointed to the Texas Supreme Court, and that is one of many factors that make him a strong candidate for a federal bench. We urge Bush to accept the recommendation of the Texas senators and nominate Rodriguez when Prado's post is officially vacated.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the Owen nomination. Under the order, at 10:15 the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will begin consideration of the nomination of Edward Prado to be circuit judge. It is hoped we will reach a short time agreement with a vote on that nomination to occur by early afternoon. In addition to the Owen and Prado nominations, the Senate may also consider the Cook nomination. As the majority leader stated last night, we have attempted to work out a unanimous consent agreement to process these judicial nominations. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach an understanding last night. There continues to be hope that as these nominations are considered we would be able to reach reasonable time limitations for their consideration. In addition, the leader is still working toward agreements for considering and completing a number of other legislative matters, including the FISA legislation, the State Department authorization bill, the Bioshield legislation, or additional judicial nominations during today's session. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's be honest about this. The Senator has been very blunt, very forthright and honest in his remarks that they intend to stop Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. So now we are in the second filibuster. Let nobody have any illusions, we did not know until now that literally they were going to filibuster Priscilla Owen. Now we have two first-time-in-history filibusters against circuit court of appeals judges because the minority does not like these two judges, even though both of them have their gold standard imprinted upon them, unanimously well qualified, by their gold standard, the American Bar Association. It is unseemly, and it appears to anybody who is a fairminded person that there is no real desire to treat Miguel Estrada, with all of his qualifications, and Priscilla Owen with all of her qualifications, in a fair manner. It is also very apparent that the President of the United States is not going to be treated in a fair manner as well. I have no objection to Judge Prado. If that is what they want to do, we will see about that, and we will see about it tomorrow. The fact is, that does not negate the fact that for the first time in history we have this type of obstruction rather than up-or-down votes of executive nominee judges for the circuit court of appeals. I hate to think how this body has devolved from a body that works together to try to albeit argue and fight over certain nominees, but usually and always in the past we voted on them, how it has devolved into this morass whereby two excellent people with the highest recommendations from the American Bar Association and virtually everybody in their communities are being held up for no good reason at all, other than obstruction. Now we at least know where we stand. I am willing to say I believe both of these people will be confirmed in the end, and I believe our colleagues on the other side are going to see that confirmation occur. At least that is what I intend. I hope we can fully debate these matters and then vote up or down. If my colleagues do not like Miguel Estrada, vote against him. If they do not like Priscilla Owen, vote against her. But do not do this anticonstitutional approach of filibustering Executive Calendar circuit court of appeals nominees for the first time in history. We have been willing to put up with a certain amount of this, but there is going to be an end to this type of obstruction. It has got to come to an end, and I intend to see that it comes to an end if I can. I may not be able to, but I think there is a way we can do that. I am just warning the other side that I believe sooner or later we are going to have up-or-down votes on these two jurist candidates. I think it is pretty hard to make a case against Priscilla Owen that does not distort her record, that is factual and nondistortable. I think it is going to be very difficult to make a case against her. For the life of me, I do not understand why our colleagues on the other side are filibustering this excellent woman, who has such impeccable credentials. They have plucked a couple of cases out of the air to criticize her. I venture to say any judge who has been around for a considerable period of time, any of us could find some faults with that judge or we could find cases with which we do not agree. But relatively few matters can they point to that would justify the kind of treatment Priscilla Owen is receiving at this time. I think we should continue the debate. I intend to do so, and we will see where we go from there. I hope my colleagues will be fair, but so far I have not seen it. I think we are in the middle of an obstructive set of tactics that are beneath the dignity of the Senate. Be that as it may, our colleagues do have certain rights. I respect those rights and we will just see where we go from here. I believe Priscilla Owen ought to be confirmed, as I believe Miguel Estrada ought to be confirmed, as I believe Mr. Sutton, who is now confirmed, needed to be confirmed. With regard to Roberts, I might as well make it clear we already have a deal. We have made an agreement. So that should not even enter into this question of whether one person should be confirmed ahead of another. I agree that is a comme ci, comme ca type of thing, but we expect to have a vote on Mr. Roberts. So we will revote him out of committee. We have a rehearing after 12 hours of hearings. We were promised a vote on Justice Cook from Ohio. I hope that vote will be tomorrow, or the next day, in accordance with the agreement we made, because she was supposed to come up right away within a week. Roberts will be up for his second extensive confirmation hearing tomorrow. I intend to be there. Then he will be put on the markup a week from this Thursday. We have had a good-faith assurance that they will not try to put him over for another week. So let's hope our colleagues live up to this agreement. It has not been an easy one for me to make, but we have made it. There have been some pluses to us and some pluses to them. But it is done. So Roberts is not part of the equation, nor should he be used as part of the equation. It is the desire of the majority leader to have Owen approved first. On the other hand, we will see what happens tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?