Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to rise in support of what I consider to be very significant legislation, S. 196, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003. We have a very important opportunity in this country to make sure our universities and colleges not only do a good job in education in general, but in particular in addressing the technology gap. We know in our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges, our Native-Hawaiian-serving Institutions and Alaska-Native-serving Institutions, there is a digital divide. This legislation would create a new grant program within the National Science Foundation that provides up to $250 million to help these colleges and universities. In my own State of Mississippi I decided a few years ago we were trying to shoot at too many targets and we were not hitting many of them. We were missing them or we were not doing enough to make a difference. So I concluded the best thing to do was try to get a targeted focus on where we were going to put our efforts and where we were going to put our money. Those areas have been education, transportation--which can also be referred to as infrastructure, and jobs. It is not just about highways and bridges, it is also about ports and harbors and railroads and aviation, the whole package, as well as industrial sites where you can have the physical and technological infrastructure and roads that lead to jobs. So education, transportation, and jobs are critical all over this country and in my own State, which has been one that has struggled for years to have advancement in education and economic opportunity. I think this legislation is really important in helping to provide the up-to-date technological education that today's society demands. As we focus on education, not only at the higher education level where the Federal Government plays a critical role, but also when you look at what we need to do in kindergarten, and elementary, and secondary education--if you are going to have the whole package, you have to make sure our young people have access to a good education that allows them to read and write and do basic arithmetic. Furthermore, they must be able to perform these basic skills at the fifth grade level, at the eighth grade level, and in high school, but then be able to get into a community college, some sort of a vocational training program, or our colleges and universities, and when they get there that they will have the tools and resources that they need. It is fair to say I am from the generation that has been struggling with technology and computers. We are sort of computer illiterates. Yet we see our children who are able to do astonishing things because they have had the exposure to the new technology. We have to make sure that the Nation's focus applies not only to our major colleges and universities in America that primarily get the students who make very high scores on the SATs, but we also have to make sure all students--whether they attend a private university or college or a State university or our historically Black or other minority institutions--have access to good education and what is needed in the technology field. Not just computers, but the whole high-tech area. My own State of Mississippi is home to roughly 9 percent of the Nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I am pleased to be able to recognize these great eight schools in Mississippi: Alcorn State University, Coahoma Community College, Hinds Community College-- Utica, Jackson State University, Mary Holmes College, Mississippi Valley State University, Rust College and Tougaloo College. I am happy to be a cosponsor of the minority serving institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003, because it provides another opportunity to help expand the digital and telecommunications infrastructure at the Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Mississippi. I always pay careful attention to legislation that could be beneficial for higher education institutions in my state. In fact, earlier this year, I cosponsored an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 that authorizes additional funding for grants to preserve and restore historic buildings at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Additionally, I would like to note an example of my ongoing commitment to assist Mississippi's Historically Black Colleges and Universities in bridging the technology gap. In 2001, I worked with Allstate Insurance in their $17 million donation of a facility to establish the Mississippi e-Center at Jackson State. The e-Center is an impressive state-of-the-art complex with advanced computing and network infrastructure, and information technology faculty and support staff. Through the e-Center, Jackson State is able to fulfill its educational mission and leverage its unique strengths in the areas of remote sensing, engineering, and science and technology. I am also pleased to report that Jackson State is the only Historically Black College or University in the Nation with three supercomputers. We are making strides in Mississippi to provide all our students with access to information technology, but the Nation still has much progress to make when it comes to providing these opportunities to our minority serving institutions of higher learning and all Americans. It is clear that while our minority serving institutions of higher learning stand ready to drive from the ``on ramp'' onto the Information Superhighway, they still lag far behind other universities in America when adjusting to the new technological innovations and changes on the forefront, such as third generation technology. I urge the passage of this legislation today so that we can hand some of America's best institutions of higher learning the technology keys they need to compete with their peers. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski.) Who yields time?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 459 Withdrawn

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the fifth anniversary of National Tartan Day. While it is observed on April 6 of each year, I make this recognition today because the Senate is not expected to be in session on that date. I want to remind my colleagues that the resolution which establishes National Tartan Day was Senate Resolution 155. It passed by unanimous consent on March 20 of 1998. As an American of Scottish descent, I appreciate the efforts of the individuals, clan organizations, and all the many other groups who were instrumental in generating support for the resolution. These groups worked diligently to foster national awareness of the important role that Americans of Scottish descent have played in the progress of our country. The purpose of National Tartan Day is to recognize the contributions that Americans of Scottish ancestry have made to our national heritage. It also recognizes the contributions that Scottish Americans continue to make to our country. I look forward to National Tartan Day as another opportunity to pause and reflect on the role Scottish Americans have played in advancing democracy and freedom. It is my hope that this annual event will continue to grow in prominence, with ceremonies and activities similar to those that have been held over the past few years. Scottish Americans have helped shape this Nation. Their contributions are innumerable. In fact, three-fourths of all American Presidents can trace their roots to Scotland. In addition to recognizing Americans of Scottish ancestry, National Tartan Day reminds us of the importance of liberty. It honors those who strived for freedom from an oppressive government on April 6, 1320. It was on that day that the Declaration of Arbroath was signed. It is the Scottish Declaration of Independence. This important document served as the model for America's Declaration of Independence. In demanding their independence from England, the men of Arbroath wrote, ``We fight for liberty alone, which no good man loses but with his life. `` These words are applicable today to the heroism of our American veterans and active duty forces who know the precious cost of fighting for liberty--a fight that is taking place at this moment as a coalition of military forces seeks liberation for the people of Iraq. Senate Resolution 155 has served as a catalyst for the many States, cities, and counties that have passed similar resolutions recognizing the important contributions of Scottish Americans. I would like to thank all those groups and individuals who have continued the work of reminding the world of the stand for liberty taken on April 6th almost 700 years ago--in Arbroath, Scotland. A call for liberty which still echoes through our history and the history of many nations across the globe. I believe April 6 can also serve as a day to recognize those nations that have not achieved the principles of freedom which we hold dear, and which we are fighting for even now. The example of the Scotsmen at Arbroath--their courage--their desire for freedom--still serves as a bright beacon today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say again that I appreciate what Senator McCain does with this amendment and the effort he makes on a lot of these bills, to come to the floor with projects that are pretty hard to explain and justify. I know he is acting in good faith. I think his amendment, sort of a wraparound amendment, is going to be a very interesting one to hear discussed tomorrow. Let me talk about title XI because I am sure he will not be surprised to hear me speak on it. I have supported the title XI program over the years. It is an important program in helping to meet our national objectives, our energy self-sufficiency, increase domestic commerce, strengthen shipbuilding, our industrial base, and a large commercial fleet of militarily useful ships to meet DOD sealift requirements in our war on terrorism, the war we are involved in right now. The point that Senator McCain made, that of the 51 ships that are carrying cargo now and perhaps, I guess, some equipment, both liquid and dry cargo, 51 of them that are involved in the effort now in the war in Iraq, only 1 of them had the title XI funds. In fact, probably if you check, you will find that most of those ships are foreign ships, ships built in foreign shipyards. I suspect probably there are some Dutch and German and, who knows, maybe even some French ships on which we are dependent. Some of them have American flags and I guess are crewed by American crews. That is all important. But it is a tragedy in America if we don't have a maritime industry. When I go to the port in my hometown and look at the grain elevators and look at the ships hauling poultry products to Russia, there is no American flag on those ships. It is Liberian, Panamanian, Ukrainian, Russian. It is everywhere in the world but the United States. Is this program perfect? No. Should we try to make sure that it is run better and we get more money for our investment? Yes. But I still have a real trouble with a country such as the United States not having the capability to build our own ships and be crewed with American crews. More and more and more we are dependent on foreign ships. There are good explanations for that. I guess the market is supposed to take care of those problems, but it is a danger. How many countries in the history of the world have survived very long without their own merchant fleet? Our shipyards now are building Navy combatants basically. That is it. No cruise ships, no cargo ships. We are getting out of the business. Maybe that is OK. But I think there is a danger there. We are dependent now on these maritime vessels to move cargo and equipment. Right now they are involved in what is going on in Iraq. This program did not get any funds in fiscal year 2003. It is true the administration didn't ask for additional funds. It did not receive any funds in the omnibus bill. That is one of the reasons why it is badly needed now. If we don't have some funds, they might have like $1 million in funds. There are no funds for the backlog in this area. By the way, title XI is not so important to the big shipyards. The big shipyards are not in this business. When they try to get into this business, it doesn't work. The best example in the world, I guess, even though it was a victim of timing, was the cruise ship situation. Most of this money goes to the medium and small yards, and it is a loan program. Maybe it is not administered closely enough, and I acknowledge that. We need to understand what we are doing. If we don't fund it with this $50 million, or fund it in 2004, the program is dead. I think that is a mistake for our country. I still believe we need our own merchant fleet. I hate to see all those jobs lost--engineers and other workers--and go to the shipyards around the world. I still would like to think that those ships are on call to America as American ships. I understand that maybe this is not the right place for it, but there is a relationship to the war that is going on right now. It does affect our future ability to make sure we have our ships and crews on call that can deliver the dry products, liquid products, and the equipment around the world. So I urge defeat of this amendment. I reserve my right to look at the package that Senator McCain may be offering later on this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I was very sorry to learn of the passing of our good friend and great Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. I wanted to come and extend condolences on behalf of myself and a lot of other Senators to the family, the children, the grandchildren, and the people of New York, and to America because we have lost truly a great man in Senator Pat Moynihan. Sometimes people do not realize the types of relationships we do build in this Chamber across the broad philosophical and partisan divide. But Pat Moynihan was not that kind of man. He was always willing to work with Senators, no matter where they were from or what their views were, to try to do the right thing. Since I have been watching the Senate over the last 30 years up close and personal, as a House Member and a Senator, I have not known a more brilliant and more erudite Senator than the distinguished Senator Pat Moynihan of New York. He served his country in so many different critical roles. He studied, wrote papers, and made us realize problems we would just as soon not talk about--problems with the children in America, the problems of poverty, the importance of the world community. He did so many exceptional things for Democratic administrations and, yes, Republican administrations, and in the majority and in the minority in the Senate. I grew to admire him and appreciate him, to seek his advice, and even try to get his vote on occasion, and on occasion he gave it because I was able to convince him that maybe it was the right thing to do. He also had a sense of humor I learned to appreciate. But more than anything, I will remember my encounters with Senator Moynihan in the little dining room downstairs. About once a week--sometimes not that often, maybe once a month--I would go down to get a bite to eat and he would be there. He always ate strange orders of food, I might say, but I just loved his knowledge. It became an opportunity for me to learn about the world. I would pick a country: Tell me about India. An hour later he was still talking. I remember one time, I said: I do not quite understand what is going on in East Timor, and he corrected my pronunciation and told me what was going on in that part of the world, what had happened historically--such a wealth of knowledge--all the players involved, the religious considerations, what the solutions could have been, what the solutions might be, what the future would hold. More than once--I would say at least three times--before I got back to my office, before the afternoon was out, a book would arrive that he had written or that I should read to understand what was going on in the world. What a special touch. Senator Pat Moynihan tried to help educate this Senator, one who needed a lot of help, but he gave me a greater appreciation of our relationship with countries and people all over the world. This was a giant of a man, a giant of a Senator, a humble man, in many respects. I have missed him since he left the Senate, and we will all miss him now that he has gone on to his great reward. I had to come to the floor and express my personal feelings about the great Senator from New York and how much he meant to me personally, to the Senate, and to the country. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, 2003, in Room SR-301 Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct an oversight hearing on the operations of the Sergeant at Arms, Library of Congress and Congressional Research Service. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an outstanding citizen of Mississippi. On March 5, 2003, Governor Ronnie Musgrove signed a proclamation declaring March 19, 2003 to be officially known as Wally Conerly Day in the State of Mississippi. Dr. A. Wallace Conerly recently retired from the positions of Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs and Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. I have worked closely with Dr. Conerly since he was appointed Dean of the School of Medicine, and I am both proud and grateful that Mississippians can claim Dr. Conerly as one of our own. While I could spend hours going over Dr. Conerly's record of service and accomplishments in detail, I would like to take a few moments to touch on some of the highlights that are most impressive to me. Dr. Conerly has served as a faculty member of the University of Mississippi Medical Center for the past 30 years. He assumed an appointment as Assistant Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs in 1981 before being appointed as Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs and Dean of the School of Medicine in 1994. As the chief executive officer of the State's only academic health sciences center, he leads an institution that employs more than 7200 people and has an annual budget of more than $610 million. He is also the chief architect of the Medical Center's ongoing expansion program, the largest in the history of Mississippi higher education. Phase I, completed in 1999 and totaling $211 million, included a new children's hospital, a new women and infant's hospital, a building for the School of Health-Related Professions, an addition to the School of Nursing, a student union, two parking garages and an imaging center. A second $124 million construction phase is currently underway and includes a critical care hospital, a new adult hospital, a classroom addition, a children's hospital addition, and an expansion to the Arthur C. Guyton Research Complex. It has been my honor to work with Dr. Conerly in support of this ambitious endeavor. Dr. Conerly has served not only the medical community of Mississippi honorably, but also the United States Air Force. For his service, he was the recipient of the United States Air Force Flight Surgeon of the Year Award in 1962 and the United States Air Force Commendation Medal in 1963. He was honorably discharged in 1966 at the rank of major. As you might imagine, Dr. Conerly is also active in the Jackson community. He has served on the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross, Mississippi Chapter, and the Capital Area United Way. He has been President of the Rotary Club of Jackson and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the University Club. In 2001 the Mississippi Division of the Multiple Sclerosis Society honored Dr. Conerly and the Medical Center with its 2001 Hope Award, an award given annually for outstanding community contributions. He also received Millsaps College's ``Alumnus of the Year'' award in 2002, and he and his wife were recognized as the 2002 People of Vision by Preserve Sight Mississippi. As I am sure you can see, Dr. Conerly has distinguished himself both personally and professionally, and he has been a valued asset to Mississippi. His record of service is not only a testament to his professional skill, but also to the quality of his personal character. He is most deserving of having this day named in honor of him, and I felt it was appropriate that I share this brief record of his contributions to Mississippi with all of you here today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know a vote was scheduled and many wish to speak, but I ask unanimous consent the vote may be delayed so I may speak at this time. I feel compelled to ask for that time so I may speak about our friend, Lloyd Ogilvie.

Mr. LOTT. The first time I heard Lloyd Ogilvie speak, it was in a prayer, and I remember looking up because I thought I had just heard what God's voice must sound like. What a magnificent voice he has. What a magnificent prayer he always prayed. But as Benjamin Franklin said: Well done is better than well said. In spite of the magnificent messages he has delivered on this floor, his prayers, and our private counsel sessions with him, what he has done has been even more valuable; the way he has come to us all in times of great celebration and times of stress and times of despair. In the good times and the bad times he has been there for me and for many of us--all of us, at one time or another. In spite of all the good things he said, what he has done will be what will stay with us the longest. Each morning I get up, the first thing I read is ``One Quiet Moment,'' a passage from the Bible and a brief prayer that Lloyd Ogilvie prepared for all of us. It begins my days in the right way. Many nights, just before I go to sleep, I pray for Lloyd and Mary Jane, I pray for their safety, and for their future. He has been a magnificent influence on this body and on me personally. This morning I looked up the definition of ``chaplain,'' and it is not enough to describe what he did. He wasn't just a person who was a counselor to this institution and our whole family. I looked up ``pastor''--maybe that was the right word. That wasn't sufficient either because he was more than just a pastor to a flock in a narrow area. No, he has been a spiritual counselor in the broadest sense. The Bible says, in Proverbs: Where there is no vision the people perish. That, of course, refers to the way we really should think about the vision. I think it is true for a country, a country that seeks democracy and freedom and liberty. But it also is true in the broader sense. Lloyd has given us a vision of what life is really about. Thank you, Lloyd John Ogilvie. Well done--ay.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Let me take this opportunity, first, to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the Senate for the outstanding work that is being done by Senator Hatch as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That is a tough job. It always has been. It seems to be getting tougher with every passing Congress. I know from personal experience during my tenure as the Republican Leader, both in the majority and the minority, of the diligent work and good work that has been done by Senator Hatch to move judicial nominations through the process. Quite often, it was very difficult in the committee and on the floor. There have been accusations that, perhaps, he had unfairly delayed judges in the past. But I can tell you this: My knowledge was, and memory is, that he worked very hard to move a lot of judges, several of whom were highly controversial but were eventually confirmed anyway. Yes, at the end of the last term some judicial nominees of the Clinton administration were not completed, but if you compare the number that were left over to similar situations in the past, it was a smaller number. When you look at the number of judges that have been confirmed under the stewardship and leadership of Senator Hatch, it has to be a record in terms of overall numbers compared with previous chairmen and previous administrations. I will talk more about specifics, but while Senator Hatch is here I wanted to recognize the untiring and patient and effective efforts of the Senator from Utah on this very worthwhile effort.

Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will allow me to interject, I remember the Senator from Utah received some criticism from this side of the aisle, and so did I, as we tried to move some of these judges through the process. We may have voted against them, which I did in at least a couple of instances, but I thought they deserved a vote. And we made sure that those votes took place.

Mr. LOTT. I again thank Senator Hatch for the effort. I remember even last year at one point I think we had approximately 70 judges on the calendar, a large number, and there was disagreement about how to proceed. There was an indication we would have to have a recorded vote on every one of them, even though many of them could be moved on a voice vote with no problem. It looked like we were not going to be able to move them, but Senator Daschle and I kept talking about them and kept working on it, and we began to move them in blocks. We finished the process and we had moved, I think, almost all of them, if not all of them. That was an example of how there can be cooperation in this very important area of confirmation of judges.

Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LOTT. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts when I have finished my remarks.

Mr. LOTT. Let me talk briefly about the situation we find ourselves in, specifically, the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge. I made a brief speech about a month ago saying I thought this was a highly qualified candidate, one who had lived the American dream, having been born in Honduras, coming here when he was 17, and highlighting the phenomenal life he has lived. I thought it was a matter we would do pro forma. I assumed we would have some debate and some disagreement, but since he is a great nominee, I thought he would be confirmed a month ago or more. But here we are still. I will not go back and recount all of his qualifications. All the Senators know, and most of America knows now, Miguel Estrada is certainly qualified to be a circuit court of appeals judge. He is qualified by education. He went to some of the best schools in America where he was Phi Beta Kappa, a Magna Cum Laude graduate, editor of the Harvard Law Review at that citadel of great conservative legal thinking. Now, he is accused of being conservative; a committed conservative, despite his broad background. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review, if you will. So by education he is qualified. There are some points and comments from the Federalist Papers, a couple of considerations, that you should look into when you consider a judge. One is whether or not they are fit in the area of character. This is a man that has lived an exemplary life. There is no allegation of impropriety, no allegation of ethical misconduct. None whatsoever. So by education, by character, by ethics, and by experience he is an incredible nominee. Some say he has not been a lower court judge. That is not always the criteria. We have a lot of people who have gone to the circuit court of appeals, even the Supreme Court, without having earlier been a judge in another court. But he has been involved by working with the Federal judiciary, and by serving as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. I have only been able to witness one case where I sat in the audience and listened to the snail darter case before the Supreme Court. Listening to the arguments in that one case was enough for me. I left and never returned. But surely, clearly, everyone in this body knows this man is qualified to be a judge on the circuit court of appeals. So what is the problem? What are they saying? There is the suggestion that maybe he has a certain philosophy or a certain ideology, and that is a disqualification. If that were a disqualification, there are many judges I voted on during the Clinton years and at other points during my service in this chamber whom I would have voted against. I voted for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though I didn't agree with her philosophy and knew I probably wouldn't agree with a lot of her decisions, but she was qualified. She was the President's choice. I think the burden is on the Senate to show why we should not confirm a nominee if they are qualified, have the proper experience, and don't have ethical problems. She met those criteria. I voted for her. What is the problem here? Some Senators want more questions asked? Alright, that is a legitimate point. It is part of the advice and consent role of the Senate. Let's hear what the nominees have to say. He had a long hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Every question in the world that could be thought of was asked of this nominee. He was asked hypothetical cases to which I personally would not respond. I thought that on a lot of things he was asked, he was very careful in how he responded. You don't want to prejudice your decision. You don't want to pass judgment on a Supreme Court decision on which your future decisions as a judge may be based. The number one factor for the Senate to keep in mind on this point, however, is that he has offered to meet with any Senator personally who wants to meet with him. Secondly, Senators on both sides have been told if you want to ask more questions, then submit the questions, and he will answer the questions. Finally, even a day or so ago, Senator Frist--against some advice that perhaps this pattern should not be started--said Mr. Estrada would be willing to go back to the Judiciary Committee so that interested Senators could ask him some more questions, with an understanding he would get a vote. Unfortunately, that offer was turned down, too. They say they want to ask him more questions, but when they are given a chance to meet with the nominee or a chance to ask more questions, they don't ask them. When we say he is willing to go back for another hearing under these circumstances--no, they don't want that either. What do they say they want? They want internal memos from the time that he was working as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. I believe that maybe something can be worked out on that. But you cannot set that precedent. Let me tell you why. If all these internal memos are made public in this instance, I guarantee future young attorneys in the Solicitor's Office, they will not be giving honest advice. No, no, they will pull their punches because they will know, anything I say in this written document may someday be used against me being confirmed as a Federal judge or in some other way. So this is not an insignificant request. Should we try to find a way to work it out? I think so. But then I have been accused in the past of trying to get things done. If everybody wants to make a statement around here to make their constituency happy, great. This is the way to do it. The People for the American Way and other liberal organizations--if Estrada is blocked-- they will be happy. These political reasons are why many Senators on the other side of the aisle are opposing Mr. Estrada, but I want to point out that there are some notable exceptions, and I hope there will be more. But on our side, we are able to say: This is an Hispanic nominee, and our core constituency groups are going to be happy. Republicans are happy, with us duking it out for this nominee to be on the Circuit Court of Appeals. Many will say that they are taking a stand, which is great. How great is it when he is not confirmed? That is the goal here. I am not interested in blaming somebody or appeasing someone on our side. This man is qualified. We have vacancies on this court that should be filled. It is irresponsible for us not to find a way to work this out and get this nominee on the court. So I say a pox on everybody's house if we are just trying to find a way to score political points with this man's life on hold while we do this thing that we are doing here. I really do think we are setting a dangerous precedent here, one we did not set in the past. We have not filibustered Federal judicial nominees. It is clearly not in the Constitution. I think advice and consent means 51 votes, not two- thirds; not 60--51. You might say the Constitution doesn't make that clear. In the Constitution, article II, section 2, when the Framers of the Constitution were writing this out, when they intended supermajority votes, they said so. It clearly says in article II, section 2: To make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. They specify two-thirds. When they said advice and consent, I believe they intended and expected, unless there were serious problems, that these nominees to the Federal judiciary would be confirmed with a vote, an up-or-down vote of 51. I think what we are doing here is questionable constitutionally. We have never done this on a district or circuit court nominee before. Now we are about to do it. Let me tell you what is scary. It may not be just about nominee Estrada. Next it is going to be Priscilla Owen. They are going to filibuster Priscilla Owen, a qualified woman who is a brilliant Supreme Court Justice in the State of Texas. I am sure they will extend it to other nominees, as well--maybe Sutton, maybe Cook, maybe Pickering. Is this a pattern? Who in this room, and outside this room, believes that this tit-for- tat will not continue? Do they think that once we, Heaven forbid, ever have another Democrat President, that Republicans are not going to return the favor? We are going to filibuster them. We have to stop this. I think we, the leaders, the Republicans, the Democrats, past and present, have to assume responsibility for how this has continued to escalate. Did we do some things during the Clinton years with judges that we should not have done? Yes. But did we take up the cause and try to do the right thing on many occasions? Yes. That is why I am here today, because I do believe I have been a part of the solution and part of the problem in the past. I acknowledge it. But when I was the Majority Leader, I called up nominations that were controversial. I remember on one occasion we did have a threatened filibuster and a cloture vote which was defeated. I made a speech standing right there saying: My colleagues, we don't want to do this. This was a judge nominated by President Clinton, but really it was a judge whom Orrin Hatch recommended. His name was Brian Theodore Stewart. Unfortunately, though, cloture was defeated. So we started talking about that, and cooler heads prevailed. Shortly thereafter, we confirmed this judge. That was the only time we came close, during the past 7 years, to having a filibuster on a judge. We got right up to it, but we didn't do it, because we knew we couldn't do it and that it was wrong. So, fortunately we backed away from it. In terms of what was done in the past, again, I resisted filibusters. I didn't want to have filibusters, even though I voted against Judges Paez and Berzon on their up-or-down confirmation votes. But Senator Hatch and I took a lot of grief. We said, no, they have come out of committee, they deserve an up-or-down vote. They got the vote, and they were confirmed. They each got an up-or-down vote, not a filibuster. Some people thought they should have been filibustered. I didn't think they should have been, and they weren't. My colleagues, I ask us here today: Where do we go from here? What is next? The argument can be made that you filibuster a lot of different ways. You don't let them out of committee; I know about that approach. The last Congress, I know two judges who were defeated on a straight party- line vote in the Judiciary Committee. They were not allowed to come to the floor to have a vote, and I believe the Constitution requires they should come here and have a vote, not be killed by 11 Senators in the Judiciary Committee, or 10, or whatever the number may be. So, I accept part of the blame. I acknowledge that Republicans have not always handled judges in the right way. But I ask the question again, what next? We are going to kill them in committee? We are going to kill them by filibuster? This is wrong, my colleagues. We should not do this. We are starting down a trail that is unfair, and it is going to come back to haunt this institution, haunt both parties, and damage the lives of innocent men and women. I urge my colleagues, find a way to move this judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada. He deserves better. He should be confirmed. Some people say: Wait, if we don't stop him now, he may be on the Supreme Court. Well let's test him. Let's confirm him. Let's see how he does. We might be surprised. We might even be disappointed. I have been surprised at times. I voted for a couple of Supreme Court Justices and wished I could take the vote back because when they got there, they were not what I thought they were going to be. Men and women can do surprising things when they become Federal judges for life. So I just felt a need to come down and recall some of the things that have happened, admit some of the mistakes, try to sober this institution up. This is a great institution that does pay attention to precedents. It does, sometimes, start in the wrong direction, but most of the time we pull ourselves back from the brink; we find a way to get it done. I hope and I certainly feel down deep we are going to find a way to not set this precedent and not defeat this qualified nominee with a filibuster. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 19, 2003, in room SR 301, Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct an oversight hearing on the operations of the Secretary of the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise in support of the ratification of the Moscow Treaty. I would like to begin by thanking Senators Lugar and Biden who have done very good work in this instance, and I believe they are going to provide very dynamic leadership on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. These Senators have been working in this area for many years. I remember specifically the work of the distinguished Senator from Indiana after the dissolution of the Soviet Union as we had Russia and other countries grow out of that. We had the Nunn-Lugar legislation. Quite frankly, some of us were a little leery of how that program would work and whether it was the right thing to do. But looking back on that time in history, there is no question but that was a really dynamic leadership effort that needed to be made. It has been helpful. It has not been perfect, of course. But I think it has helped our relationship with Russia, and I think it has also helped to control the escape of and the misuse of some of those nuclear weapon capabilities. I want to recognize Senator Lugar's past leadership in this area and thank him for working to get this Moscow Treaty ready. I had occasion last year to go to Russia, to St. Petersburg and Moscow, with a delegation of Senators to meet with foreign policy leaders, defense leaders, members from the Duma, members of the Russian Federation Council, and the chairman of the foreign relations committee there in the Federation Council. It was very interesting and very informative. I believe there is a growing opportunity for the United States to have a close working relationship with Russia. It has to be one of truths. It has to be one that covers the entire sphere of not only trusting each other when it comes to arms and treaties but also the economy and trade, foreign policy, and international issues such as the one we are working on right now. We see today that the vote of Russia and what they do at the Security Council is going to be important as we prepare to deal with the situation in Iraq. So we need to have a growing relationship and friendship with this important country. I think this treaty is a good one. It is one that certainly is timely. Russia's transformation to a market economy still faces a number of challenges, obviously--its interests, and the people there. Also, the United States is working to get through problems. There are still problems we are trying to deal with. But our strategic relationship with Russia provides a strong foundation of cooperation on issues regarding nuclear weapons reduction and security. Since 1992, the United States has spent over $3 billion in Cooperative Threat Reduction Program funds to help Russia dismantle nuclear weapons and ensure the security of its nuclear weapons, weapons-grade fissile material, and other weapons of mass destruction. This has been a very big program. It is one that I think has been very important. In 1998, both countries agreed to share information upon detection of a ballistic missile launch anywhere in the world and to reduce each country's stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium. As Russia and the United States continue to reduce the stockpile, we must stay vigilant in our collective effort to ensure that weapons-grade nuclear materials stay under lock and key. It is easy to say, but it is not a question of just turning the lock. There has to be an ongoing effort, there has to be verification, and there has to be a lot of cooperation. The Moscow treaty builds upon the spirit of cooperation between the United States and Russia. It serves the interests of both nations and both peoples, and makes the world a safer place. The treaty is just one element of a growing relationship between the U.S. and Russia that includes several new opportunities for cooperation including trade, energy, and economic development. There has been some concern, noted by the opposition, that the Moscow Treaty is not substantive enough--that it is only 3 pages long--much shorter than the several hundred pages of the START treaty--that is doesn't deal with actual warheads. First, we need to recognize that the Moscow Treaty does not take the place of the START treaty. The Moscow Treaty is separate from the START treaty--the START treaty is still in full force and effect. Perhaps more important than laying out comprehensive steps of reduction, these important three pages of the Moscow Treaty fundamentally approach Russia as a friend, not as an adversary. I believe that is a relationship that is going to grow and become more and more important in the years ahead. This is a historic achievement. With the document we will be voting on in the next day or two, both the United States and Russia will be making a commitment to reduce the quantity of operationally deployed warheads. Undeniably, it is in the best interests of both of our countries to destroy as many warheads as possible. Both sides continue to be challenged by warhead destruction in any given year because it is a very complex process. It is not a matter of just using a bulldozer. However, we must also not allow the complexity of the process to prevent us from our commitment to progress in this warhead reduction. Although not intended to be a detailed roadmap to accomplish that reduction, the Moscow Treaty lays out a high-level framework that is both workable and flexible. I am greatly encouraged by the level of developing cooperation between the United States and Russia that is embodied in this treaty. I am encouraged by the prospect now of having exchanges between leaders of the Duma and the Federation Council and leaders of the House and the Senate. I think it is important that we have those ongoing relationships. Under the leadership of Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, I believe we will see that continue to develop. By bringing forth the ratification of this treaty, I think it makes good sense for our Nation. It is important for the future security of the world, and I think it will help our friendship grow so that we will have not an adversary, as we had for so many years, but a friend in Russia. I wanted to come to the floor and endorse this treaty. I think it is an important signal of our feelings, and it is very important in a timely sense also. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 9:15 a.m. in room 301 of the Russell Office Building, to mark up an original resolution authorizing expenditures by committees of the Senate for the period March 1, 2003, through February 28, 2005. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, today the Committee on Rules and Administration approved the following rules for the committee. I ask that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for making that request. I believe I can make my remarks in that time. Mr. President, I take this occasion to speak on behalf of this nominee. I think he certainly deserves to be confirmed by the Senate, in a normal vote which would require a majority of the Senators, and that this matter not be subject to a protracted debate, which could, in fact, turn it into a filibuster. I wish to speak first in support of this specific nominee, but then also as one who has viewed the judicial nominations and the debate that has taken place over the past 7 years. There has been a lot of interesting discussion. It is amazing that when the majority changes, the debate seems to shift sides, both ways. Some of the arguments we are hearing now we were criticized for making in the past. But I do not want to get into statistics or what may have happened with this judge or that judge. At the beginning, I want to talk about this nominee, this outstanding man who has lived the American dream in an incredible way. I am pleased and honored to be able to come to the floor and express my support for Miguel Estrada to be a U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. I think he is highly qualified to be a Federal judge. Beyond that, however, his American success story exemplifies what the American dream is really all about. It is about hard-working immigrants who moved to the United States and searched for a better life. It is people, such as Mr. Estrada, who have made our country stronger by contributing to our society with their strong work ethic and desire to achieve. Others have made those points, but I want to be on record talking about them myself. First, Miguel Estrada was born and raised in Honduras, and immigrated to the United States at age 17, speaking little English at the time. He quickly learned English, however, and excelled in academics, graduating with a bachelor's degree magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College. Then he went on to earn his J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. I might add, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, a high honor and great achievement. He had valuable opportunities to learn the intricacies of the Federal appeals court system by clerking for a Second Circuit court of appeals judge--who was a Carter appointee--and serving as a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He has built a distinguished record as an attorney in private practice, as a Federal prosecutor in New York, and as an Assistant to the Solicitor General under both President Clinton and President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including a death penalty case in which he represented a death row inmate pro bono. The point was made that maybe he had not done any pro bono work for Hispanics specifically, but when you do pro bono work, you do not always check that kind of background. You do this work on behalf of a client who would not be represented if you were not willing to serve without pay on behalf of this individual. It is rare to see an attorney or judge with such an outstanding record even at the time of retirement. The experience this young man has had is incredible in terms of his background, his education, the variety of the experience he has with the judiciary and with the application of law--and even before the Supreme Court, both as a clerk and also in appearances he has made. So, clearly in terms of experience and education, Miguel Estrada is highly qualified. I find it very curious and exacerbating, quite frankly, that some Members of the Senate are questioning whether or not he is qualified. After all, he was rated unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association, a rating that has been considered--I believe Senator Hatch and others have described it as the ``gold standard'' for the Democrats as to whether or not a man or woman should be qualified to serve on the Federal judiciary. So certainly to get a unanimously well-qualified rating from the ABA should make a tremendous difference here as to this nominee. He does have the support of a lot of people in the Hispanic community. In fact, I know Hispanics all across America are asking the question: What is the problem here? This is a well-qualified man who is Hispanic and has the educational background and experience. Why are they still opposing him? Is it because he is brilliant? I suspect maybe that is part of the problem. Is it because he has a conservative philosophy of strict construction and interpretation of the Constitution? Maybe that is part of it, too. Is it because he is Hispanic? I don't understand the basis for the opposition. The only thing I heard is that maybe he hasn't revealed enough of what he might do in a hypothetical case or the argument just being made, or that he would not name a decision with which he disagreed. It is a catch-22. If you begin to speculate or if you begin to identify a particular case, then you are attacked because you identified that particular case. We have a right and an obligation to ask any question we want to ask. Judicial nominees have a right to have their own private views, but they also, as he has done, have to speak up and say they will support the law as it exists. They should state that they will support the rulings of the Supreme Court. He has done that. No, there is something more going on. It probably has something to do with the debate that just took place, with speculation or suspicion as to what his position privately may be on Roe v. Wade. That is partially what is going on here. We have argued back and forth over the years about what should be the basis for our votes. I talked to my senior colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, who served on the committee and is a senior Member of this body, about what should be the basis of these votes. Generally speaking, the nominee is selected by the President of the United States, who won an election. A lot of people understand one of the most important things a President does is to select the men and women who will go on our Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. They make that selection. If that man or woman is qualified by temperament, by education, and by experience, and unless there is some ethical limitation or something of that nature, generally speaking you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt and vote for them. That is why I stood here in the Senate and explained why I would vote for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I knew I wouldn't agree with a lot of her decisions. I didn't agree with her philosophy. But she didn't have a conflict of interest. She didn't have an ethical problem. She was qualified. I voted for her, even though philosophically I had problems with the nomination. There were others where that situation applied, where I wound up voting for them even though I would not agree with the decisions that they would make. That is the way we should do it. Other times I spoke against nominees and I voted against them, even though as the Majority Leader, I had the responsibility sometimes to call them up. I remember two very controversial judges nominated to the Federal bench, Paez and Berzon from California. Senator Hatch and I were criticized because we, in fact, moved them through the process. They wound up coming before the Senate and were voted on. I voted against them both, but I helped move the process forward. I stated my problems with them and voted against them. I wouldn't dare, however, try to filibuster them because I had some concerns about how they would rule in the Federal judiciary positions for which they had been nominated. If a decision is made to prolong debate and turn it into a filibuster and we wind up having to have votes on a cloture petition, we will be on the verge of setting a very dangerous precedent, one that has not happened, in fact, in 35 years or so. I remember a couple of years ago there was a nominee supported, as a matter of fact, during the Clinton years by Senator Hatch, I believe it was. We started having the movement toward a filibuster. I think we maybe even had a cloture vote. I remember the discussion across the aisle. Both sides were saying: Wait a minute, do we want to set this precedent; do we want to do this? Does the Senate want to start voting on judges requiring 60 votes to get a confirmation? The Senate responsibly, wisely, backed away from that position. I urge my colleagues, come to the floor, state your concerns. If you have additional questions, I guess there is still time to get some answers. But we need to have an up-or-down vote on this nominee this week. He has been pending since May 9, 2001, as have some other very qualified nominees for the Federal judiciary. How long is enough? How much time do you need to review the record and look at the credentials, the qualifications of a nominee? It is actually embarrassing, the way the questions are being raised about this nominee, that we wouldn't give this nominee an overwhelming and perhaps unanimous confirmation to this position. Is it a fear that this brilliant, young Hispanic who has lived and taken advantage of the American dream might some day be recommended for the Supreme Court? Is that what is going on here? If it is, why don't we at least wait and worry about that when he gets nominated to the Supreme Court. He is qualified. He will be an outstanding Federal judge. I urge my colleagues to stop using very weak arguments about how maybe he didn't answer detailed questions about what his rulings might be in a hypothetical case. That is not usually the basis we use for voting against a nominee. I thank Senator Hatch for the job he has done on the committee. I am glad this process is beginning to break loose now for men and women, minorities, who have been pending for close to 2 years and who deserve to be considered by the Senate. I wholeheartedly endorse this nominee and look forward to seeing the leadership he will provide on this particular circuit court of appeals. I yield the floor.