Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, would the sequence permit alternating between those four against Judge Mukasey?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before yielding 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California, I praise Senator Feinstein for her work on the confirmation of Judge Mukasey. As is customary for Senator Feinstein, she is present at all the hearings, at all the Judiciary Committee business, and comes to the meetings extraordinarily well prepared. I think she has a natural advantage, however, because she is not a lawyer. It is a very difficult matter in this body to state the facts and to cross party lines, and to do so requires a number of factors. It requires a lot of confidence and judgment, and it requires a lot of courage to stand up as one of very few. Her vote and Senator Schumer's vote were indispensable to move the nomination to the Senate floor. So she has 20 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. How much more time would the Senator like?

Mr. SPECTER. Granted.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have about 3 hours remaining of time, and I note Senators on the floor speaking in opposition to Judge Mukasey. So I would ask my colleagues who want to speak in favor to come to the floor so we can make some evaluation as to how much time we need, and perhaps some can be yielded back. We are not required to vote on Friday morning necessarily. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Now on to the discussion about the legislation, the conference report. This bill does not contain excessive funding. What we are looking at is a bill which has a cost-of-living adjustment to what the figure was last year. The President has come in with a figure which is $3 billion less than last year. When you add the cost of living adjustment, and some very modest increases in very important programs, this is a modest bill. The National Institutes of Health, which have been increased under the stewardship of Senator Harkin and myself, has been increased from 12, now to $30 billion. Last year it was $29 billion. The extra billion dollars does not even keep up with inflation costs. We have mine safety, which is a major item. It was pared back as much as can be done consistent with the mine accidents most recently in Utah. Community health centers are still underfunded. Community health services, as has been noted by the President, are very important programs. GEAR UP, a program to deal with at-risk youth, very modestly financed. Very important to my State, Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia, which had 406 homicides last year and a real effort to add mentoring to try to take at-risk youth and try to deal with this issue. It is my hope we can negotiate with the President and come to an acceptable term. The President has stated his willingness to negotiate on SCHIP where there is a significant difference between what the President wants and what the Congress has legislated. As the facts suggest negotiations ought to be undertaken on SCHIP, they do as well on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It is my suggestion these bills not be considered together. They violate the rules in their joinder. There will be a point of order raised, and I believe they ought to be separated in accordance with regular Senate rules. If we combine the Veterans bill with the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill, we have already been advised there will be a veto of both bills. The veterans financing is too important to be delayed. I chaired the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for some 6 years. The additional funds are necessary, and there would be undue delay if they are joined together. So it would be my hope they will be separated so the veterans funding can go forward, and we can send this bill to the President with a view to negotiating terms. I have been in touch with the White House, talking about the possibility of coming to an agreed settlement so we can move the appropriations process forward and serve the needs of the American people. In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I thank the majority leader for his kind words about the cooperation between Senator Harkin and myself in structuring the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. As I have said, when the gavel has changed hands, it has been a seamless exchange.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I will join the chairman in his efforts to clarify this provision.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to offer my support for the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation authorizes Federal funds for Amtrak's capital and operating needs to maintain current operations, upgrade equipment, and return the Northeast corridor to a state of good repair. Passenger rail is indispensable to our Nation's economy and quality of life. As our Nation's aviation and highway transportation systems become increasingly more unreliable or cost prohibitive due to flight delays, congestion, and rising fuel costs, a viable passenger rail alternative has become a vital component of the national transportation network. More travelers rely on Amtrak now than at any other point in the company's 36-year history. Not only is Amtrak an important option for travelers, but increased reliance on passenger rail has the potential to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and curb automobile emissions by attracting more would-be drivers into train cars. This legislation would ensure the stability and solvency of our Nation's passenger rail transportation system, without which I believe we would be severely disadvantaged. In addition to authorizing a reliable stream of funding for Amtrak, the bill restructures Amtrak's debt to achieve savings, creates a new grant program for States to support rail improvement projects, and creates a new, bipartisan, nine- member Amtrak board of directors whose members must have either rail, transportation, or business background. Additionally, I am pleased that the managers' package of amendments includes language which I sponsored requiring Amtrak to study and report to Congress on the infrastructure and equipment improvements necessary to achieve 2 hour and 30 minute Acela service from Washington, DC, to New York City and 3 hour and 15 minute Acela Service between New York City and Boston. The current trip times are 2 hours 45 minutes from New York City to Washington, DC, and 3 hours 30 minutes from New York City to Boston. I believe this study will provide a blueprint for the future of the Northeast corridor and will assist Amtrak in providing faster, more reliable service along this route. Accordingly, as a longstanding supporter of Amtrak and a frequent passenger, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. I have sought recognition to offer legislation to encourage Saudi Arabia to halt its support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents. I offer this bill on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, evidence has emerged indicating that support for al-Qaeda, Ramas, and other organizations has come from Saudi Arabia. Testimony presented to several Congressional committees, including the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Judiciary Committee, and Intelligence committees in both houses, has indicated that Saudi Arabia is an epicenter for terrorist financing. These committees have also found the Saudi government's cooperation in investigations into the al- Qaeda terrorist network has been lackluster. In the 108 Congress, as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we worked to establish a basic point that anybody who knowingly contributes to a terrorist organization is an accessory before the fact to murder; so when people contribute to al-Qaeda or Hamas, knowing that both organizations employ suicide bombers, they are accessories to murder. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, mandates that all States ``refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,'' take ``the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,'' and ``deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts.'' There is mounting evidence that Saudi Arabia has not been compliant with this resolution. The 9/11 Commission interviewed numerous military officers and government officials who repeatedly listed Saudi Arabia as a prime place for terrorists to set up bases and found that ``Saudi Arabia's society was a place where al-Qaeda raised money directly from individuals through charities.'' The Council on Foreign Relations concluded in a 2002 report that ``for years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda, and for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye.'' There are indications that, since the May 12, 2003, suicide bombings in Riyadh, the Government of Saudi Arabia is making a more serious effort to combat terrorism. That said, I would like to draw attention to the following findings recanted by organizations which have studied the record of the Saudis. In a June 2004 report entitled ``Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing,'' the Council on Foreign Relations reported that ``we find it regrettable and unacceptable that since September 11, 2001, we know of not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups who have been publicly punished.'' A joint committee of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives issued a report on July 24, 2003, that quotes various U.S. Government personnel who complained that the Saudis refused to cooperate in the investigation of Osama bin Laden and his network both before and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. My frustration with the Saudi government's lack of cooperation in international counterterrorism efforts goes back more than a decade. After the Khobar Towers were bombed in 1996--an attack which cost 19 American airmen their lives and injured 400 more--I traveled to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia to see the carnage firsthand. When I arrived, U.S. investigators were being denied the opportunity to interview the suspects apprehended by the Saudis. I personally met with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to request that the FBI be granted access to the prisoners. Crown Prince Abdullah said that the U.S. should not meddle in Saudi internal affairs; the murder of 19 airmen and the wounding of 400 more hardly qualifies as a Saudi internal affair. The Saudi government continues to drag its feet when it comes to cooperation in combating terrorism. The Iraq Study Group stated that Saudi Arabia has been ``passive and disengaged'' with regard to the situation in Iraq. Passive and disengaged is unacceptable when Saudi institutions are funding, training, inciting, and encouraging many terrorist actions in Iraq. On October 23, 2007, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz stated, ``The Kingdom is determined to continue its policy of fighting all forms of terrorism.'' According to a July 27, 2007, New York Times article, ``Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.'' On October 23, 2007, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz stated, ``Saudi Arabia's view is that dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism should not be confined to the mere security aspect of it but it should also be at the intellectual level.'' The Center for Religious Freedom, formerly affiliated with Freedom House, in a 2006 report entitled ``Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerience,'' stated that despite 2005 statements by the Saudi Foreign Minister that their educational curricula have been reformed, this is ``simply not the case.'' On the contrary, religious textbooks continue to advocate the destruction of any non-Wahhabi Muslim. Saudi Arabia has established Wahhabism, an extreme form of Islam, as the official state doctrine, and about 5,000,000 children are instructed each year in Islamic studies using Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks. A fall 2007 report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom stated that, ``Due to insufficient information provided by the Saudi government, the Commission could not verify that a formal mechanism exists within the Saudi government to review thoroughly and revise educational texts and other materials sent outside of Saudi Arabia. It appears that the Saudi government has made little or no progress on efforts to halt the exportation of extremist ideology outside the Kingdom.'' It is important to note that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. In my judgment, the U.S. has been lenient with the Saudis out of deference to Saudi oil. It is really an open scandal that we have not taken action to secure some independence from our reliance on Saudi oil. A September 2005 Government Accountability Office report stated that, ``Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry, although largely owned by the government, has fostered the creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose operations extend to many countries. U.S. Government and other expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the global propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of Western values, and support of terrorist activities.'' The 9/11 Commission recommended that the problems in our bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia must be confronted openly--this legislation takes a step in that direction. The legislation expresses the sense of Congress that the Government of Saudi Arabia must immediately and unconditionally: 1. permanently close all organizations in Saudi Arabia that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any way aid and abet terrorism anywhere in the World; 2. end all funding for offshore terrorist organizations; 3. block all funding from private Saudi citizens and entities to Saudi-based or offshore terror organizations, and 4. provide complete, unrestricted, and unobstructed cooperation to the U.S. in the investigation of terror groups and individuals. The President should certify to Congress when the Government of Saudi Arabia is fully cooperating with the U.S. in the actions listed above. Two major objectives in the Global War on Terrorism are to deny terrorists safe haven and to eradicate the sources of terrorist financing. We cannot be successful in this war by ignoring the problem Saudi Arabia presents to our security. The government of Saudi Arabia can no longer remain idle while its citizenry continues to provide the wherewithal for terrorist groups with global reach nor can it continue to directly facilitate and support institutions that incite violence. President Bush stated that the U.S. ``will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends.'' To be successful in the global war on terrorism we need the proactive and full cooperation of all nations--especially those who consider themselves allies of the U.S. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. I have sought recognition to offer legislation to encourage Saudi Arabia to halt its support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents. I offer this bill on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, evidence has emerged indicating that support for al-Qaeda, Ramas, and other organizations has come from Saudi Arabia. Testimony presented to several Congressional committees, including the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Judiciary Committee, and Intelligence committees in both houses, has indicated that Saudi Arabia is an epicenter for terrorist financing. These committees have also found the Saudi government's cooperation in investigations into the al- Qaeda terrorist network has been lackluster. In the 108 Congress, as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we worked to establish a basic point that anybody who knowingly contributes to a terrorist organization is an accessory before the fact to murder; so when people contribute to al-Qaeda or Hamas, knowing that both organizations employ suicide bombers, they are accessories to murder. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, mandates that all States ``refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,'' take ``the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,'' and ``deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts.'' There is mounting evidence that Saudi Arabia has not been compliant with this resolution. The 9/11 Commission interviewed numerous military officers and government officials who repeatedly listed Saudi Arabia as a prime place for terrorists to set up bases and found that ``Saudi Arabia's society was a place where al-Qaeda raised money directly from individuals through charities.'' The Council on Foreign Relations concluded in a 2002 report that ``for years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda, and for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye.'' There are indications that, since the May 12, 2003, suicide bombings in Riyadh, the Government of Saudi Arabia is making a more serious effort to combat terrorism. That said, I would like to draw attention to the following findings recanted by organizations which have studied the record of the Saudis. In a June 2004 report entitled ``Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing,'' the Council on Foreign Relations reported that ``we find it regrettable and unacceptable that since September 11, 2001, we know of not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups who have been publicly punished.'' A joint committee of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives issued a report on July 24, 2003, that quotes various U.S. Government personnel who complained that the Saudis refused to cooperate in the investigation of Osama bin Laden and his network both before and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. My frustration with the Saudi government's lack of cooperation in international counterterrorism efforts goes back more than a decade. After the Khobar Towers were bombed in 1996--an attack which cost 19 American airmen their lives and injured 400 more--I traveled to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia to see the carnage firsthand. When I arrived, U.S. investigators were being denied the opportunity to interview the suspects apprehended by the Saudis. I personally met with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to request that the FBI be granted access to the prisoners. Crown Prince Abdullah said that the U.S. should not meddle in Saudi internal affairs; the murder of 19 airmen and the wounding of 400 more hardly qualifies as a Saudi internal affair. The Saudi government continues to drag its feet when it comes to cooperation in combating terrorism. The Iraq Study Group stated that Saudi Arabia has been ``passive and disengaged'' with regard to the situation in Iraq. Passive and disengaged is unacceptable when Saudi institutions are funding, training, inciting, and encouraging many terrorist actions in Iraq. On October 23, 2007, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz stated, ``The Kingdom is determined to continue its policy of fighting all forms of terrorism.'' According to a July 27, 2007, New York Times article, ``Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.'' On October 23, 2007, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz stated, ``Saudi Arabia's view is that dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism should not be confined to the mere security aspect of it but it should also be at the intellectual level.'' The Center for Religious Freedom, formerly affiliated with Freedom House, in a 2006 report entitled ``Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerience,'' stated that despite 2005 statements by the Saudi Foreign Minister that their educational curricula have been reformed, this is ``simply not the case.'' On the contrary, religious textbooks continue to advocate the destruction of any non-Wahhabi Muslim. Saudi Arabia has established Wahhabism, an extreme form of Islam, as the official state doctrine, and about 5,000,000 children are instructed each year in Islamic studies using Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks. A fall 2007 report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom stated that, ``Due to insufficient information provided by the Saudi government, the Commission could not verify that a formal mechanism exists within the Saudi government to review thoroughly and revise educational texts and other materials sent outside of Saudi Arabia. It appears that the Saudi government has made little or no progress on efforts to halt the exportation of extremist ideology outside the Kingdom.'' It is important to note that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. In my judgment, the U.S. has been lenient with the Saudis out of deference to Saudi oil. It is really an open scandal that we have not taken action to secure some independence from our reliance on Saudi oil. A September 2005 Government Accountability Office report stated that, ``Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry, although largely owned by the government, has fostered the creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose operations extend to many countries. U.S. Government and other expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the global propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of Western values, and support of terrorist activities.'' The 9/11 Commission recommended that the problems in our bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia must be confronted openly--this legislation takes a step in that direction. The legislation expresses the sense of Congress that the Government of Saudi Arabia must immediately and unconditionally: 1. permanently close all organizations in Saudi Arabia that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any way aid and abet terrorism anywhere in the World; 2. end all funding for offshore terrorist organizations; 3. block all funding from private Saudi citizens and entities to Saudi-based or offshore terror organizations, and 4. provide complete, unrestricted, and unobstructed cooperation to the U.S. in the investigation of terror groups and individuals. The President should certify to Congress when the Government of Saudi Arabia is fully cooperating with the U.S. in the actions listed above. Two major objectives in the Global War on Terrorism are to deny terrorists safe haven and to eradicate the sources of terrorist financing. We cannot be successful in this war by ignoring the problem Saudi Arabia presents to our security. The government of Saudi Arabia can no longer remain idle while its citizenry continues to provide the wherewithal for terrorist groups with global reach nor can it continue to directly facilitate and support institutions that incite violence. President Bush stated that the U.S. ``will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends.'' To be successful in the global war on terrorism we need the proactive and full cooperation of all nations--especially those who consider themselves allies of the U.S. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe that the DREAM Act is a good act, and I believe that its purposes are beneficial. I think it ought to be enacted. But I have grave reservations about seeing a part of comprehensive immigration reform go forward because it weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill. Right now, we are witnessing a national disaster, a governmental disaster, as States and counties and cities and townships and boroughs and municipalities--every level of government--are legislating on immigration because the Congress of the United States is derelict in its duty to proceed. We passed an immigration bill out of both Houses last year. It was not conferenced. It was a disgrace that we couldn't get the people's business done. We were unsuccessful in June in trying to pass an immigration bill. I think we ought to be going back to it. I have discussed it with my colleagues. I had proposed a modification to the bill defeated in June, which, much as I dislike it, would not have granted citizenship as part of the bill, but would have removed fugitive status only. That means someone could not be arrested if the only violation was being in the country illegally. That would eliminate the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to blackmail employees with squalid living conditions and low wages, and it would enable people to come out of the shadows, to register within a year. We cannot support 12 to 20 million undocumented immigrants, but we could deport the criminal element if we could segregate those who would be granted amnesty only. I believe we ought to proceed with hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We ought to set up legislation. If we cannot act this year because of the appropriations logjam, we will have time in late January. But as reluctant as I am to oppose this excellent idea of the Senator from Illinois, I do not think we ought to cherry-pick. It would take the pressure off of comprehensive immigration reform, which is the responsibility of the Federal Government. We ought to act on it, and we ought to act on it now. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this program has been in operation for decades and has proven to be very effective. A hearing held by the subcommittee back on July 22, 2004, went into some of the detail. The program addresses job training and Job Corps. One program, illustratively, in Philadelphia seeks to give training to young people who are at risk, come from broken families--no father and a working mother. It is directed toward training across the Appalachian Council, States in the Rust Belt, which have been hit very hard by unfair foreign competition, to have training and to have workmanship skills developed. It has been a successful program, and it ought to be retained. Vote aye to table.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I agree with the chairman.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend my colleague for working on this important issue and concur with Chairman Harkin. Community-Based Doula Initiative

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote to cut off debate--that is, to invoke cloture--on the pending nomination of Judge Leslie H. Southwick for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and then to vote to confirm him. Judge Southwick comes to this nomination with an outstanding record. He received his bachelor's degree cum laude from Rice University and a J.D. from the University of Texas law school in 1975. He was a law clerk for Judge John Onion, Jr., of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He was a law clerk for Judge Charles Clark of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He practiced law from 1977 through 1989. He was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, from 1989 to 1993. He has been a judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which is an intermediate court, for some 12 years. Judge Southwick has participated in about 6,000 cases and has personally authored some 985 opinions. In a very remarkable move, when Judge Southwick was 53 years old--he had been in the Army Reserve since he was 42, when he obtained an age waiver in order to join the Army Reserve--and in the year 2003, when he was 53 years old, he volunteered to transfer to a line combat unit. He was deployed to Iraq, serving as a staff judge advocate in forward operating bases near Najaf. Major General Harold Cross, Judge Southwick's commanding officer, said: This was a courageous move; as it was widely known at the time that the 155th was nearly certain to mobilize for overseas duty in the near future. Judge Southwick was voted out of the Judiciary Committee on August 2 of this year on a bipartisan basis with a favorable recommendation. Judge Southwick's critics have pointed to only two cases--where he was in a concurrence and did not write the opinions. One case involved the issue of the punishment for someone in Civil Service who used a very derogatory racial term. When that case was reviewed, it was decided that since the individual had made only an isolated remark, and immediately apologized, that it would be excessive to fire that person but that the penalty should be something less. That case was reviewed by the Mississippi Court of Appeals on a very constricted standard as to whether the finding was arbitrary and capricious--which is a very high standard--and that applicable standard determined that firing was excessive. The case then went to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, and it agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that the dismissal was unwarranted. In this case they said: [w]e find that the harsh penalty of dismissal . . . from her employment is not warranted under the circumstances. Now, I emphasize that in both of these cases, Judge Southwick did not write the opinions but only concurred in the result. While some might say it would have been preferable to take a different position, in the context of deciding some 6,000 cases and having written some 985 opinions, that is very little to pick at. The second case was a matter where the issue of custody came up. After an extensive hearing, the trial judge awarded custody to the father, and there was a reference to the fact that the mother was a lesbian. Here again, the references in the opinion--again, not written by Judge Southwick--might have been somewhat more sensitive. In the overall context, it is hardly the basis for denying confirmation to Judge Southwick. I met with Judge Southwick at length, had a long talk with him about his approach to the judiciary, about his legal background. He is a very mild-mannered, very temperate man, who on the credentials, in black and white, has an outstanding record and in person was very impressive. It is worth noting that a number of former African-American clerks have spoken out in solid support of Judge Southwick. La'Verne Edney, a distinguished African-American woman who is a partner at a prominent Jackson, MS, law firm and a member of the Magnolia Bar Association, the Mississippi Women Lawyers' Association, and a member of the Mississippi Task Force for Gender Fairness, stated this: When I finished law school . . . I believed that my chances for landing a clerkship were slim because there was only one African-American Court of Appeals judge on the bench at the time and there were very few Caucasian judges during the history of the Mississippi Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals . . . who had ever hired African-American law clerks. . . .While Judge Southwick had many applicants to choose from, he saw that I was qualified for the position and granted me the opportunity. As a clerk, Ms. Edney observed: It did not matter the parties' affiliation, color or stature--what mattered was what the law said and Judge Southwick worked very hard to apply it fairly. Patrick Beasley, a practicing attorney in Jackson, MS, who also is African American, endorsed Judge Southwick for his quality of being fair to minorities. Mr. Beasley wrote: I speak from personal experience that Leslie Southwick is a good man who has been kind to me for no ulterior reason. I am not from an affluent family and have no political ties. While I graduated in the top third of my law school class, there were many individuals in my class with higher grade point averages and with family ``pedigrees'' to match. Yet, despite all of the typical requirements for the clerkship that I lacked, Judge Southwick gave me an opportunity. Despite [those who criticize him], Judge Southwick is a fair man and this is one of the qualities that makes him an excellent choice for the Fifth Circuit. . . . Judge Southwick has ruled numerous times in favor of workers, the so- called little guy. For example, in Sherwin Williams v. Brown, Judge Southwick held that a 45-year-old carpet layer was permanently and totally industrially disabled due to an onsite injury and that the carpet layer made reasonable efforts to obtain other employment. In United Methodist Senior Services v. Ice, Judge Southwick affirmed the award of workers' compensation benefits to a woman who hurt her back while working as a certified nursing assistant, despite her first employer's claim that she exacerbated the injury during her subsequent employment. In Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, Judge Southwick reversed the Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that a truck driver from a logging company did not suffer a permanent loss of wage earning capacity and remanded the case for further consideration. In McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Caprice Banks, Judge Southwick concurred with an opinion affirming the Workers' Compensation Commission's award of permanent partial disability benefits for a woman who experienced a 70-percent industrial disability to her right arm and a 30-percent loss to her left. Indeed, contrary to some suggestions, Judge Southwick has spoken out in dissent in favor of workers' rights. In Total Transportation Inc. v. Shores, Judge Southwick joined with three other dissenters in a 6-to-4 decision, which would have upheld an award of workers' compensation benefits for a truck driver's widow, while the majority ruled in favor of the employer. In Burleson v. Hancock County Sheriff's Department--a 6-to-3 decision--Judge Southwick wrote a dissent in which he argued that a public employee was improperly terminated without sufficient due process under the U.S. Constitution, while the majority ruled in favor of the employer. Judge Southwick has ruled in favor of tort victims and against businesses in many cases. Illustrative are Ducksworth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Breland v. Gulfside Casino Partnership, Martin v. BP Exploration & Oil, and Wilkins v. Bloodsaw. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of these cases be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Judge Southwick has voted in favor of criminal defendants on numerous occasions, often in dissent. I cite a series of cases: Jones v. State, Parker v. State, Mills v. State, and Harris v. State, and ask unanimous consent that a description of these cases be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. That is a very short statement of the qualifications of Judge Southwick. I believe if Judge Southwick were under consideration for any circuit court of appeals except for the Fifth Circuit--which has had a history of difficulties in obtaining confirmation and has had an overtone of concern about civil rights--if he were up for any other circuit, there would be no hesitancy. This man ought to be judged on the basis of his own record and his own qualifications. But he has demonstrated fairness and an appreciation for the rule of law and for equality regardless of race, color, creed and regardless of standing and has been willing to stand up for plaintiffs in tort cases and defendants in criminal cases and, as stated earlier, women and those of a different choice of sexual orientation, so that on the record he is deserving of confirmation. It is my hope he will be judged as an individual. That is the American way. By that standard, he certainly would be confirmed. Mr. President, how much time did I consume in my speech?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I now yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California and then 10 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. And if Senator--

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask Senator Cardin, how much time would the Senator like?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 10 minutes to Senator Cardin. And if Senator Cochran desires time: unlimited time, if he so desires.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Cochran asks for 5 minutes. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I inquire if Senator Cardin is speaking in opposition?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think Senator Cardin needs his time from Senator Leahy, but I am sure there would be no difficulty in having 5 minutes.